Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

User:SlimVirgin removing image problem tags

The above user has been removing problem tags from images that he/she has uploaded, [1] [2] [3] even using Twinkle in the process. I've twice warned the user, [4] [5] but I got a response on my talk page not to issue any more warnings[6] and the behavior has continued. The user is an administrator so I'm not sure how to proceed. Kelly ^hi! 20:01, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

It's a difficult situation, abusing Twinkle is serious, so I'd suggest maybe a 24 hr block or something along those lines, and if the behavior continues, perhaps requesting comment? For the record, I am not an administrator Chafford (talk) 20:17, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Kelly seems to be trying to draw me into conflict or make extra work for me, so I'll keep this brief. He has gone through all my uploaded images, and is liberally tagging them, even when they're clearly PD according to the source, or have been explicitly released under a free licence and have OTRS tickets. Some of the legitimately tagged ones (e.g. of living people before we had such strict rules about them), I've deleted myself. But when it reaches the point of tagging the Eichmann trial for deletion when the Israeli government has released the images, and the source states that clearly, then it becomes make-work and lacks common sense. Add to which that this is his second post about it on AN/I, plus numerous posts to my talk page, image pages, deletion pages, and now "warnings" on my talk page, all of which I am supposed to respond to post-haste. I think an uninvolved admin should handle this, rather than Kelly, if anyone. SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 20:36, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I've been away for a bit, but I will say the above is a complete mischaracterization of my actions and a blatant assumption of bad faith. I haven't posted about SlimVirgin on ANI before, this was the first time. To my knowledge, I haven't tagged any images incorrectly - the Eichmann image had a bad source when tagged. Others indeed have OTRS tickets, but a lookup of the ticket shows that it didn't necessarily apply to the images SlimVirgin placed it on. For SlimVirgin to think I'm out to draw him/her into conflict is distinctly tinfoily; I'm simply cleaning up copyright issues with images, something I have been doing for months. I've had no previous interaction with this user and know nothing about them - I simply noticed a pattern of copyright problems by chance and looked through their upload log for other problems. Attempts to work with the user in a friendly way to resolve this have been rebuffed. Kelly ^hi! 22:48, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Kelly, I advised you to watch out for SV's territory. Sometimes it is best to let sleeping dogs lie. For future reference, you might want to see the current ArbCom evidence page of C68-FM-SV for more details on why your involving yourself with her property is not advised. SandyGeorgia's experience is particularly relevant to your situation. --Dragon695 (talk) 20:46, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I should have listened to you, but I thought that abiding by Wikipedia policies would insulate me. Silly me! Kelly ^hi! 21:49, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

• I'm shocked, no outraged that slimVirgin has been removing these tags, surely that's Crum375's job? Is Crum slacking or something? Buck up Crum, Slim needs ya. RMHED (talk) 20:19, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Comeon, RMHED, that adds nothing to the discussion, more light, less heat please? SirFozzie (talk) 20:43, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I've given myself a damn good talking to, and I've assured myself that it won't happen again. RMHED (talk) 20:46, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Why is this being brought here? If anyone has concerns about images, please post a request with {{fairusereview}} rather than {{badfairuse}}. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:04, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Good idea. Maybe it would also be an idea to add to the documentation of both templates to make users of one aware of the other, and when each should be used. Also, it should be fairly simple to check where each is mentioned, and to make sure people aren't wrongly being encouraged to use one instead of the other. Carcharoth (talk) 21:09, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Fair use tags of any sort are inappropriate for public domain images. Durova^Charge! 21:32, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

This may be of interest. While I understand Slim's frustration, making sure images are correctly tagged to conform with our policies should not be regarded as make-work. In addition, this seems unhelpful to the process. --John (talk) 21:46, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

So Kelly, you tagged a large number of images uploaded by the same user, slapped them all into one discussion even though the tagging, source, permissions and licenses widely vary and you didn't expect that person to be a little peeved at the way you're handling things? I'm not sure how you expected editors to comment on that listing given the lack of commonality other than the uploader, and certainly the uploader has nothing to do with image licensing.

The first item you're complaining about is SlimVirgin expanding the fair-use rationale for an image [7] -- why is that a problem? She also reverted your tagging on the Eichmann Trial image pointing out that it was public domain - you don't appear to have given any explanation as to why you feel the image is not in the public domain as claimed? I'd say you need to go back through and give clear reasons you believe the images aren't free - if some have an identical reasoning, it makes sense to group them, but the way it is now, whether or not you meant it, this looks like you're picking on one uploader. Shell ^babelfish 22:46, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I assume you're referring to the PUI listing - with the exception of the Eichmann image, which has been struck through, the images all had a similar problem...free licenses are claimed for the photos, but there is no evidence of the free license. It probably does seem like I'm picking on one uploader, but it's typical to look through a user's log for issues when a pattern of copyright problems is noticed. I did my best to consolidate the problems into as few messages as possible, as some people get very, very irate if spammed with a lot of image notification templates on their talk page. Kelly ^hi! 23:02, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

SV was right on the first diff you show. As for the second ones, if she has a good argument to keep it, then she should put it on the PUI page rather than removing it. So long as she understands what to do from here on out it's no big deal either way. Wizardman 23:21, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

This isn't the first time that Slim acts like she thinks rules, policies, and standard ways of doing things are for the "little people", not for elite administrators like herself. Having to deal with a talk page full of annoying notices about image uploads for which some user, admin, or bot thinks that not all the fair-use hoops have been properly jumped through is a pain in the butt, but it's a pain in the butt that all who upload images must go through (I've had to deal with heaps of those myself), so Slim shouldn't think she's too special to be put through it. She's a she, by the way; I have no idea which gender Kelly is. *Dan T.* (talk) 23:28, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually the main thing I was hoping for a response from her on was some details regarding her statement that good images are being deleted from the Commons, perhaps by someone with an agenda.[8] [9] If true, it's a serious issue that needs to be investigated at Commons. But now I'm starting to believe that maybe this user sees bad faith where none exists. Kelly ^hi! 01:36, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Regardless of any concerns about agendas, Commons does have a bit of a reputation (deserved or otherwise) for seemingly moving the goalposts on what's considered "free", and in particular on public-domain issues, so it's reasonable for an uploader to want copies retained on enwiki. --Random832 (contribs) 03:55, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Before we speculate too much about the practices of a sister project, could someone supply specific filenames? These are serious accusations indeed. Durova^Charge! 06:54, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, Commons policy is pretty static. It's here if you're interested. The fact that people don't read it, don't abide by it, have their images deleted, and then complain of Commons being teh evilz, is not actually Commons' fault. giggy _(:O) 07:03, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, it would be a surprise to me too if anti-animal rights deletions occurred at Commons. If it did happen the problem would be easy to trace once we get the filenames. It comes across as odd that an administrator as experienced as SlimVirgin would resort to hosting valid free images here if she really thought Commons practices were that seriously flawed. About half of overall Wikipedia site traffic goes to non-English editions. It deprives 252 other languages to host at en:wiki if the material really is copyleft or PD. Durova^Charge! 07:32, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

The problem, in my experience, tends to be a combination of: (1) people failing to put the tag on pictures here when we need to keep copies here, or where it is already known that it is free here but not on Commons; and (2) other people (ie. not the original uploader) being too quick to transfer images to Common without checking that it doesn't fail the more strict conditions there. People do get confused when they realise that Wikipedia labels some images free that Commons does not. Carcharoth (talk) 10:43, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I can't think of any cases where images are free here and not free at Commons, with the exception of {{PD-US-1923-abroad}} or {{PD-US-1996}}, and even that is debatable. Kelly ^hi! 19:35, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I have asked Kelly, if he copies images to the Commons and tags that they may be deleted, to add instead that local copies should be kept, but he refuses, and says I have to do it myself. This alone indicates that he is out to cause me work for no reason, and as people who post on Wikipedia Review are now involved, and Kelly is posting to Cla68, it is very difficult for me to believe that, by chance, he just happened to decide to go through all my images. He is also claiming that images are not PD when they clearly are -- some of them were sent to me by e-mail by the copyright holder and released and have OTRS tickets; others (e.g. Eichmann) were released by a govt, as is made clear on the image page. Kelly will not say why he thinks the images are not PD.

He has been trying for the last 24 hours to drag me into whatever this is, with various "warnings" to my talk page, and I'm just not going to be so dragged, so this is, I hope, my last post on the issue. If Kelly feels that an image is not PD, or that a free licence or OTRS ticket is not valid, he must say why he believes that. If any admin wants to discuss this with me, please e-mail me. SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 18:50, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

So, the reason why you're removing the PUI tag is because you think WR and others are out to get you? ...I'm hoping I'm misreading that @_@ That made my head hurt. Like I said before, if it's actually PD (which it seems to be) then the PUI will come and go with the image kept, just leave it be before this escalates. Wizardman 19:07, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Some people find the alleged "evil WR conspiracy" to be just as useful a smear tactic to distract attention from their own behavior as did the Clintons with their allegations of a "vast right-wing conspiracy", and for that matter the Bush administration with its insinuations about the evil anti-American left. *Dan T.* (talk) 20:23, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Let's get back to business: this is taking on the appearance of a dispute about personalities rather than copyright. Image issues are difficult enough to stay on top of without senior volunteers generating extra work for other people. SV: if you think Commons does improper image deletions, please give examples. Kelly: if you think there's a problem with SV's uploads, please ask a neutral party to review. I've got two restorations to complete for FPC and an image restoration module at Wikibooks to write, and I'm willing (reluctantly) to push back those plans and look into this if the soapboxing comes to a halt. If there are genuine licensing issues at hand I'll look into them: please document the evidence in a straightforward presentation. Durova^Charge! 20:59, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I did made a request for neutral review, here. Please take a look and offer an opinion. Kelly ^hi! 21:36, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Taking on the appearance of a dispute about personalities uses passive voice to describe what actively happened right here, when SlimVirgin said: Kelly seems to be trying to draw me into conflict or make extra work for me, ... and it's a pattern. You're right dealing with image issues is hard business, and someone doing it shouldn't be discouraged with this kind of personalization of the issue. I was earlier willing to cede that SV might be able to change with a bit of self-awareness of the effect she has on other editors; perhaps I've been had once again by my inner Pollyanna. I've seen many editors get multiples of hundreds of templated messages on images; SlimVirgin isn't exempt. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:09, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

• Uninvolved two cents- I just want to point out the notion that Kelly is "targeting" Slim's images is rather silly. Kelly is simply going through images, fixing problems, tagging inappropriate licenses and transferring them to Commons. Prior to working on Slim's images, Kelly recently went through all of my image contributions and did a lot of nice work in transferring them to Commons and helping me out with some Flickr issues. Some of my images were deleted because the flickr license change but I didn't feel "targeted" at all. It is just part of the continuing process of trying to bring everyone onto the same page with Wikipedia's image policies and getting more truly free images over to Commons so that other Wikis can benefit. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 04:49, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Agreed. I've seen Kelly's work on images, and she does good work there. Kelly reviews images, and going through other images that people have uploaded when reviewing one of them should be encouraged, not discouraged. From what I can see, the other incident was co-incidental. Sometimes people aren't out to get you, despite what you might think. Carcharoth (talk) 05:33, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

SlimVirgin still removing problem tags

This behavior is continuing.[10] The status of this image is still being disputed here. We don't tolerate this behavior from other editors, why is this admin violating policy? Kelly ^hi! 18:17, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Say why you think it is not PD, or leave it alone. SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 18:50, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

• sigh* Kelly, don't template the regulars. Slim, leave it up. Let it run it's course, if it's PD then it will be kept. Maybe that particular image should be put on PUI separately, it may solve the problem, it may not. Just let process run out. Wizardman 18:55, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

That particular image is in its own section on the PUI page. Kelly ^hi! 19:06, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

For the record, the template spamming of my talk page by Kelly continues, this time to do with Israel-Palestine. [11] SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 20:14, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Kelly, you need to cut this out. You're warning SlimVirgin for edits she hasn't even made, probably because of the image dispute above. Drop it and move on please. Ryan Postlethwaite 20:27, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Please don't make false allegations, Ryan. She has edited the page in question, look at the history. Also see this - my mian point is to make sure all parties in that dispute are aware of this decision. I myself am uninvolved in this dispute. Kelly ^hi! 20:29, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

No chance Kelly - you're harssing SlimVirgin now because of the dispute above. Slim hasn't even edited the page since the arbitration case, yet you warn her? Not buying that - carry on like this and you'll end up blocked. Ryan Postlethwaite 20:32, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Agreeing with Ryan here, you were fine until you threw that up. Plus, read Wikipedia:Don't template the regulars. Both of you have made this far more dramatic than it needed to be. Wizardman 20:34, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Kelly, there's a really strong appearance here that you're just interested in creating more drama. I'd suggest that you find something else to do. When you go from arguing over image templates with someone, to digging something out of old history and templating that person, it really looks like you're doing it out of spite. FCYTravis (talk) 20:39, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I also agree, this is looking more and more like harassment. I don't know much about the back story here but if it keeps going down this road a block is not out of the question. I think it needs to stop. RxS (talk) 20:38, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Kelly definitely must be blocked if he adds a template to SV's talk page once more. Beit Or 20:52, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

No, SV is no more special than any other editor. If the regular editor has to put up with the template spam due to a certain group's determined jihad against fair-use, SV should too. Perhaps she could actually use her clique for something useful, say like changing and owning the NFCC pages? If there is one thing I know, you can't beat the SV clique at edit warring on policy pages. --Dragon695 (talk) 20:56, 8 June 2008 (UTC)struck through misplaced comment --Dragon695 (talk) 21:32, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

errr, this was nothing to do with images - she templated SV on a completely unrelated subject that she was not involved in at all. Please, take your comments to the section above because this doesn't have anything to do with what you've just said. Ryan Postlethwaite 21:06, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

<undent> OK, this is what I'm not getting. I was monitoring the Muhammad al-Durrah‎ article before I ever discussed copyright violations with SlimVirgin. To make a long story short, I initially was watching BLP violations on Geert Wilders (I have added many articles to the BLP watch category, including that one), which led me to Ayaan Hirsi Ali, which led me to Pallywood, which led me to Muhammad al-Durrah. There is a nasty dispute there that I read about on this noticeboard (here), and SlimVirgin showed up there after I did, where I was attempting to offer a neutral opinion and defuse the dispute. Part of the problem at that article seems to be that the Arb decision is being used as as hammer against some editors, and not others. So, in an attempt to neutralize the situation, I ensured that all parties were made aware of the decision, and logged the notification at the Arb case page. I also logged notifications of SlimVirgin's "opponents", ChrisO[12] and Nickhh[13] A formal notification of the case is not a "warning", as I have been told[14], but just a notification. However, my edits that log that SlimVirgin was notified are being reverted [15] [16] and I am being threatened with blocking [17] for logging the notification. Would somebody please investigate and get these admins, and their threats, off my talk page? Kelly ^hi! 21:10, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Kelly, just back out now. Drop it. Let others deal with this. If you continue to tangle in this in any way on any level whether right or wrong, you could end up blocked. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:16, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

OK, Sandy, thanks. It seems I have stepped into a minefield, thanks for giving me a map. Kelly ^hi! 21:26, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

These notifications are to be used when users are being disruptive on the page so they are aware of the arbcom sanctions that are in place. They are not given to every editor who edits a talk page, or in fact the article itself, unless there's problems. You are yet to show one diff that merits SVs inclusion on that list. I still don't believe for one second that this was just an unlucky coincidence - you were in dispute with a user, then chose to bait them by templating them for something completely unrelated. Ryan Postlethwaite 21:20, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I see Kelly posted at Talk:al-Durrah at 13:20, 7 June 2008 (UTC). SV posted at Talk:al-Durrah for the first time in ages at 19:56, 7 June 2008 (UTC). I think you need to rethink your knee-jerk assumptions. --Relata refero (disp.) 21:56, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I echo others' confusion about just what Kelly intended here; as far as I can see, Slim hasn't even edited that article recently, let alone did anything that's worthy of warning given the ArbCom sanctions. There are plenty of legitimate things to criticize Slim for (as seen in the current ongoing ArbCom case, as well as the valid concerns Kelly expressed regarding images) without bringing in something as dubious as this. *Dan T.* (talk) 21:59, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

My intention was to ensure all parties discussing the controversy there were aware of the ArbCom case. But apparently making the notifications is controversial, apologies. I would make the accusation that SlimVirgin is stalking me (as opposed to vice versa) but I am out of tinfoil. Kelly ^hi! 22:06, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

The revert war at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles seems to me a separate issue, albeit tangentially related to the image licensing dispute Kelly and Slim are in. There is no evidence Slim edited a P-I article after the arb case, and the consensus here supports that. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:15, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with the templating, as unnecessary, but may I point out that the wording of the ArbCom remedy isn't "editing" but "working in the area of conflict". If defending a version that one largely wrote extensively and enthusiastically on the talkpage isn't "working in the area".... --Relata refero (disp.) 22:21, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

(ec)As I said, it was only a notification based on the fact that she was discussing the dispute on the article talk page, and I notified the other parties there. Could someone point me to the consensus that only disruptive editors are to be notified? I re-read that decision multiple times and didn't see that. So far as templating goes, the decision seems to encourage that. Kelly ^hi! 22:22, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I've protected the page to end the revert war. FWIW, I think we should consider stipulating that only uninvolved admins should make the notifications. PhilKnight (talk) 22:25, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good, except replace "admins" with "editors". Kelly ^hi! 22:28, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I think notifications should be restricted to uninvolved admins to minimize drama. PhilKnight (talk) 22:35, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Just to note that Rlevse edited through protection to revert the logging. (Possibly on an inaccurate reading of the remedy, as I note above.) Also, I understand any editor can make the notification, but only uninvolved admins can block, and changing that would require a request for modification to be submitted to ArbCom. --Relata refero (disp.) 22:30, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi Relata refero, yes I guess it would. PhilKnight (talk) 22:35, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Why edit directly when you can have your very own meatpuppets do it for you? --Dragon695 (talk) 22:28, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Have you read wp:sarcasm is really helpful? PhilKnight (talk) 22:35, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

The tagging of images (ie, licensing) is a separate issue. Also, Kelly, you are involved in this, and the remedy says P-I "range of articles". You're using the P-I case to get at Slim. And if I'm not mistaken, admins should normally give arbcom warnings, your involvement in the issue clearly taints this. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:34, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

(ec)OK, please read the above. I was involved in the particular P/I article before she was (at least in the recent time frame). I notified all major parties in that dispute, including her. The fact that I also found her copyright violations during a similar time frame is coincidence. SlimVirgin is the person who made this a personal dispute, not me - so why am I getting all the negative publicity? Neat trick - allege fake harassment and get a free pass on everything else. Kelly ^hi! 22:42, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

You're mistaken. Any user can give a warning, the remedy uses the passive. --Relata refero (disp.) 22:37, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't think so, but exactly which part of the remedy are you talking about, pls quote it. Regardless, Kelly is stretching the bounds of it and using the arbcase to get at Slim. The arbcase clearly refers to a "range of articles", not image tagging. In fact, I can't recall any arbcase that included image tagging. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:42, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

"...the editor in question shall be given a warning with a link to this decision.." Nothing about adminship. --Relata refero (disp.) 22:47, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't know for sure who Dragon695 comment is directed to, but I can't recall ever being involved with Slim or Kelly before and I have a lot of experience with arb cases, and I have to agree it's best to leave the arb warnings to admins, and even if editors make them, they should be uninvolved and Kelly is clearly involved and at the center of this. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:39, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Without reference to the statement about Kelly, which I have no opinion on except that the timing does not add up, I'd like to point out that ArbCom did not appear to intend the notification be left to admins alone, and doing so would severely hinder enforcement in difficult areas such as AA and EE. --22:47, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Even given that, the warner should be uninvolved and Kelly is not uninvolved and that clearly taints the warning, and in my opinon invalidates it, esp when considered in light of the scope of the arb ruling. Also, making a talk post is no justification for being added to an arbcase warning list. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:55, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

It's not a "warning", but a simple notification of the decision. I'm really not seeing the problem in logging that a particular user has been notified of the decision. Kelly ^hi! 22:57, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Putting someone on an arbcom warning list (notification list or whatever you want to call it) is a warning and makes them subject to those. Plus, you're involved and shouldn't have done it anyway. Plus, you're stretching the scope of case beyond all reasonable bounds. Image tagging is not part of case and talking on talk pages is not disruptive, at least no in the issue at hand. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:00, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

The ArbCom ruling specifically defines "involved" as relating to editing in the area of the dispute, not the interpretation you are giving it. This is also for good reason, to prevent problem users from claiming that uninvolved editors or adminstrators are stalking them, an accusation that is common in areas subject to such discretionary sanctions. --Relata refero (disp.) 00:24, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

OK. Apparently I misunderstood the ArbCom decision, and I see that others are being added at will to that list for reasons I don't understand, but whatever. SlimVirgin is not allowed to be added to that list. I don't know why you're saying I am "involved" because I am not, I went to that article to try to help by offering an uninvolved opinion, apparently that simple action makes me involved. To conflate this issue with totally unrelated copyright violations by SlimVirgin is dumb, I think, but all right. I'll trust other editors to handle this. Kelly ^hi! 23:07, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

For the sake of completeness, Kelly today asked for a BLP that I recently semi-protected to be unprotected. [18] He has also asked Tim Vickers who endorsed the semi-protection to explain why. [19] This is clearly no longer about images, if it ever was. He has also removed warnings from his talk page, so I'll link to them here in case they matter later. [20] SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 00:20, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the fuss is about here. I see nothing that requires an administrator to be "uninvolved" for the purposes of notifying editors about a general sanctions regime. Moreschi, Fut.Perf. and I are heavily "involved" in the general area of Balkans articles (since we monitor them regularly, work with editors to resolve problems and deal with the nationalist silliness that regularly arises there). Does this mean that we are not allowed to notify editors or block them, assuming that we are not engaged in conflict with them? Some clarification would be helpful here since the log of notifications, blocks and bans is very long already and getting longer by the week... -- ChrisO (talk) 00:42, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

RV, it wasn't about you, sorry if it gave you that impression. --Dragon695 (talk) 02:32, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

About General sanctions notifications

Ok, this definitely requires some clarification, probably from the Arbs. The template itself very clearly states that "This message does not necessarily mean that your current editing has been deemed a problem; this is a template message crafted to make it easier to notify any user who has edited the topic of the existence of these sanctions." and later that "This notice is only effective if given by an administrator ". To me this means it is not at all a warning given for disruption, but merely a notification, but one which can only be given by an admin. If this was not the intent, and it really is a warning that only an uninvolved admin can give, then (a) the template should be changed to reflect that intention and (b) several of the recent logs by ChrisO, a heavily involved admin who has been edit warring on these article he "notified" users on, and did so in a one-sided fashion, should be immediately removed; just like SV's notification has been removed. Canadian Monkey (talk) 01:46, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

As far as official notice of ArbCom sanctions goes, my understanding is that to actually template someone and log it at the case page, is something that should only be done by uninvolved administrators. The exact wording at the P-I case may not put it like that, but it's pretty much standard procedure at other similar cases such as Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren and Wikipedia:General sanctions. Otherwise pretty much any editor could use these templates and case-logging as a "club" to beat up opponents. It's still fine to post casual reminders about an ArbCom case, but official warnings should be done only by uninvolved administrators. For more, see WP:UNINVOLVED. Administrators dealing in an area of dispute as administrators are not therefore "involved" in the dispute. --Elonka 02:11, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

If that's the case, would you please undo all of ChrisO's recent logs related to his edit war at Muhammad al-Durrah, and sternly warn him about abusing his admin privileges in a content dispute. Canadian Monkey (talk) 02:45, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• ChrisO, I don't know the circumstances here, but to answer your question: you're uninvolved if you have not engaged in a current, direct, personal conflict on the topic with the user receiving sanctions. Enforcing provisions of a decision is not considered participation in a dispute. OK? Ncmvocalist (talk) 02:55, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Ncmvocalist, the circumstances here are that ChrisO is a heavily involved edtor on this page. He has edit warred on it (some recent examples - [21], [22], [23], [24],[25]) and at the same time, warned all those of the opposing viewpoint on the artcile, and logged that warning on the ArbCom enforcement page, while claiming he is just "notifying" them of the case. Needless to say, he did not similarly "notify" his fellow edit-warriors who held a POV simialr to him. In light of Elonka's comments above, this seems like a very inappropriate abuse of admin power. If that is the case, his logs need to be undone, and he should be warned about this behaviour. Canadian Monkey (talk) 03:39, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay, this is getting pretty far off-topic, but I did look into ChrisO's efforts here. On the one hand, he is definitely an involved editor, so should be cautious about using admin tools in the dispute at the Muhammad al-Durrah article. Then again, I think he was acting in good faith, as the rules at the P-I case page are indeed ambiguous about who can or can't log cautions there. I would recommend that ChrisO not add any other names to the page, but instead alert other uninvolved administrators about the issues, so that they can make that determination. As for the three editors that ChrisO added, I looked into their contribs, and I agree that a caution was appropriate for all of them. So even though ChrisO may not have been the right person to make the warning, the log should stay, since even if he removed it, another uninvolved admin, such as myself, would reasonably just add it right back. --Elonka 05:15, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I have absolutely no intention of using admin tools in that dispute, since I'm clearly involved. -- ChrisO (talk) 07:41, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[restated and clarified below] Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:13, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that's the best solution. About the ambiguity in the term "warning/notification": Does it mean: "I just want to make sure you are aware there's that rule in place", or does it mean: "I want to make sure you are aware there's that rule in place, and you are currently running the risk of having it applied to you, the way you've been acting"? I personally find that the second type of message is a lot more helpful, because the first type leaves the addressee confused whether their behaviour has been coming across as disruptive or not, and whether or not they are expected to change it. It's also much more in line with how "warnings" are used elsewhere. We don't go round telling people: "Hey, you can't make more than three reverts in a day", unless they are actually revert-warring. But if these notifications are supposed to be of the "warning" type, the person who makes them should be competent to make them. That doesn't necessarily mean they need to be the same uninvolved admin that might also carry out the sanction, not even that they need to be an admin, but it should only be done by experienced editors who can truthfully claim they have an objective, neutral judgment of the situation and know very well in what circumstances these sanctions are likely to actually happen. So, not usually a direct opponent in a dispute, for instance. I've given WP:ARBMAC-related warnings myself in some cases where I was "involved" and knew I wouldn't be allowed to carry them out myself – but then, I know very well that even in such situations my opinions carry some weight in that field and that if I ask for sanctions, it's more likely than not they will happen, so I thought the warning was fair.

In any case I'm opposed to having warnings themselves logged at the Arbcom pages as if they were already a kind of sanction. It's a "list of blocks and bans", not a "list of notifications, blocks and bans". However, if people want to log these, then of course the criterion for who should warn and when should be a lot stricter: only an independent admin and definitely only where actual disruption has already occurred. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:05, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd say this makes a lot of sense - its pretty much what I was pointing out earlier - and should be clearly set out as the customary approach in an essay somewhere, perhaps. --Relata refero (disp.) 11:01, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• Some clarification. Notifications are give to new editors who won't be aware of the relevant case. They are also give to old-time editors who may not be aware of the case. They are never given to old-time editors who are certainly aware of the case. Notification does not mean you have done anything wrong, and hence the logging of the notifications should be done using neutral wording. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 11:09, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Logging the notifications seems a bit like overkill, but I supposed it is needed to ensure people are aware. Is there a time limit though? It would seem a bit harsh if someone hadn't edited the topic area for a year or more, but had a year-old notification waved at them, followed by a block. About notifications in general, I think this is one area where a personal note can help more than a templated message. Overall, though, it seems like the system is slowly evolving into a more structured version of what already exists - a series of warnings and then a block. I suspect that it is the structure and formality, rather than anything new and exciting, that is helping these processes calm certain areas down. That and people seeing that they can get a fair deal - that is absolutely crucial. If people think they won't be treated fairly, they are more likely to react badly. Carcharoth (talk) 11:31, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
    • What I said was not quite what I wanted to say - so I'll restate and clarify what I meant here.
    • Moreschi has summarised what a notification is - making someone aware of the decision/'regime' with neutral wording. A warning is where the user is told something like "you are currently running the risk of having it applied to you because...." - obviously, sometimes both are combined.
    • Involved administrators should from now on not give any further warnings (of course, they strictly cannot give sanctions) - they should bring it to the attention of the appropriate administrators' noticeboard so an uninvolved admin takes any necessary formal action. This is a step that must be taken if you've been editing in that area so that the warnings are taken seriously in the way in which they were intended (when this was added as a provision in the remedy). The purpose of this process is to ensure impartiality and to avoid the chilling effect, among other adverse effects. Admins should be aware of their abilities, feelings, passions, agendas etc. to avoid making any ill-considered actions that (even potentially) do not comply with this purpose - where an admin gives a warning, particularly where they are involved, it is interpreted very differently from if it is given by any other uninvolved user. Gaming the system is not on. On the other hand, notifications by any user is ok - but they must be worded appropriately, particularly if you're an involved admin.
    • However, I'm suggesting the problems in this area have gone on long enough - an uninvolved administrator should investigate and give warnings to those editors who are have recently not complied with the principles of the decision, while notifying all other involved editors of the decision. This way, ALL editors editing in the area have absolutely no excuse for 'not being notified or warned by an uninvolved admin'. These should replace the logging of formal warnings or notifications by involved administrators and would clear up a lot of the issues. This applies to all warnings or notifications that were made during or after an administrator became involved in a dispute - see above where I have defined what an uninvolved admin is. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:13, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
      • At the risk of beating a dead horse, I'd still maintain that pure "notifications" in your terminology (i.e. without the "your actions are disruptive!" part) are quite useless, and I doubt it was the Arbcom's intention to make us use those. The pure "notification" just boils down to saying "it is forbidden to be disruptive". Great. Everybody knows that anyway. But what counts as disruptive? The definitions of disruption are so vague that it's perfectly possible for a user to be disruptive and never become aware that they are being perceived as such. In fact, barring trolls and vandals, we should assume nobody is disruptive intentionally. So, being aware of the rule as such, in the abstract, won't help. "You can be blocked if you are disruptive" is useless. It only becomes meaningful if it's coupled with a concrete message "... and you will be blocked if you continue to do XYZ". Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:40, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Just a point since I recently received one of these notifications [26] from an admittedly involved admin. It says "This message does not necessarily mean that your current editing has been deemed a problem;..." and "This notice is only effective if given by an administrator and logged here." Clearly the letter of the law does not require an admin to be uninvolved in order to give a warning. I agree with Fut.Perf. that the warning should be for specific defined behavior, and also with Elonka that it would be nice to have some helpful dialog at the user's page. The original log [27], said that I had been "notified of the case in relation to single-purpose account editing and promotion of personal views and original research." I also suspected that the notification was merely a bureaucratic necessity on the part of the admin, and that that would shortly be followed by the involvement of friendly uninvolved admins who would support a block or ban. This turned out to be the case. I have been racking my brain (from as objective a perspective as I can) as to what can be done to improve this situation, (not my personal situation, but the general one being discussed above) but all I get so far is a painful brain... ;) Tundrabuggy (talk) 02:13, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Questions and comments about images

The status on a number of disputed uploads hinges on whether People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals or Animal Liberation Front release all their images to the public domain. I see no confirmation on either site that they actually do, and I did find a PETA statement that strongly implies they do not. I also found a statement from ALF that said some (but not all) of their site's images are fair use reproductions, and no indication which images they own and which they do not.

OTRS has been filed for quite a few of these, but the documentation has been done in a manner that raises concerns. For instance, Image:Marshalsea-plaque-December2007.jpg is an obvious copyright violation. Yet SV asserts the image is under a Creative Commons Attribution licence by e-mail. E-mail to permissions. That doesn't explicitly say whether OTRS has been filed or not. The photograph may be copyleft, but the plaque it depicts is not. And the Flickr source link goes directly to the image file rather than to the hosting page that would specify the license.[28]

Another example is Image:KeithMann1969.jpg, which has a clear OTRS ticket statement. Yet the accompanying text is contradictory. The photograph was shot in 1969 before the Animal Liberation Front existed and the public domain argument is Released into the public domain, as are all images originally owned by the Animal Liberation Front. Obviously the Animal Liberation Front cannot be the original owner of this photograph. Although OTRS is generally trustworthy, this raises an eyebrow--particularly so since the previous example demonstrates a weak understanding of derivative work.

Third example: Image:JerryVlasak.jpg. The uploader claims this is public domain, but the source website clearly places a copyright mark and the words all rights reserved on its website.[29]

Fourth example: Image:DavidMertz1.jpg. Simultaneously claims PD and fair use. Assertion of PD release is unverified, and no indication that OTRS has been filed.

Fifth example: Image:GushKatif1.jpg. False license claim. Site clearly declares full copyright.[30]

Sixth example: Image:PABombeat3.jpg. PD rationale is invalid. From an old Toshiba catalogue; catalogue out of print, model no longer made. No copyright issues. None of these factors amount to an expiration of copyright or a public domain release.

I could go on, but this is enough to convey the point: there are weaknesses in the rationales for these uploads, and there are enough weaknesses of enough different varieties over a long enough period of time to cast a cloud of doubt over much of the remainder, despite OTRS. Although I have not been informed which items were deleted from Commons, it is not hard to imagine why the site rejected this material. Had I seen these on the Commons deletion board I would have contacted the uploader not with templates but with notes (which I have provided for every image at the discussion Kelly started). Yet it is disturbing that an administrator as experienced as SlimVirgin not only created so many problems, but made a public insinuation that Commons deletion standards are either inconsistent or politically motivated, and that she transferred those problems from that site to this one without seeking better information. I would like to host much of these on Commons if the copyleft/public domain status were clear because these are valuable encyclopedic images, but frankly I don't want this problem. And Kelly could have articulated it much better. This was not well done. Durova^Charge! 03:50, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

The appropriate place to discuss whether images of dubious provenance would be Wikipedia:Images for deletion - people seem to ignore IFD a lot these days, instead preferring to tag things and leave them. If Kelly believes these images have ropey rationales or tagging, they should be taken to WP:IFD, rather than creating a big fuss over this, and I would suggest she does this now, if she hasn't yet. Agree this was not well done. Neıl 龱 09:12, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me? Kelly listed them at WP:PUI and/or IFD from the start. The big fuss started only when they got into a disagreement over Slim removing the tags out of process. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:23, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

They were listed at PUI, yes. When SV started removing the tags out of process, they should have gone to IFD, rather than here. Neıl 龱 10:06, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Why would one want to shift them from one forum to the next, from PUI to IFD? The right thing is to have them run their course where they are. (That said, I can never understand why those are two different fora anyway. We should merge them.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:14, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

IFD is for images that are obsolete, orphans, unencyclopedic, low quality or copyright violations, where further discussion is needed as the addition of a speedy tag is either inappropriate or disputed, or the user is unsure if deletion is warranted. PUI is for listing images where fair use is disputed. I agree the two fora might be merged, but this is not the venue for that discussion. As it is, based on Durova's six eamples above, PUI isn't the appropriate venue (the disputes aren't about fair use). They're at Wikipedia:Possibly_unfree_images#June_7 anyway, though, so this is moot, I guess. Neıl 龱 10:24, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Uhm, no. PUI isn't for disputing fair use. That is indeed done either through a speedy channel ({{Dfu}}) or, in less obvious cases, through IFD. PUI is exactly for these types of cases: images where free status is claimed but the factual basis for that claim is in doubt. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:36, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

It is always appropriate to address the central issue of a long ANI thread. The bottom line is that Kelly's concerns are substantive, although poorly expressed. I stepped in principally because of an unsupported allegation regarding Commons, a project where I am a sysop. The person who made the allegation failed to respond to two requests to substantiate it, so I took time away from other matters to examine and note each of the images in Kelly's list. This subthread summarizes highlights of those findings in enough detail to halt the he said, she said-ishness that stretched the thread to absurd lengths in the first place. Now I'll return to those other priorities. Durova^Charge! 11:02, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

As I mentioned on Kelly's talk, I was under the impression that the FBI considered ALF a domestic terrorist organization. Are terrorist organizations even granted intellectual property rights? IP rights are not a Constitutional right, they are a privilege granted that can be revoked by the government. For example, consider the fact that convicted felons loose all ip rights to anything associated with their crime. I highly doubt that news organizations have to get permission from terrorists to use their content to report on stories, I imagine the same standard applies here. Let's apply a bit of rational logic here, ALF has no standing with the law seeing as how I imagine that anyone involved with them would be arrested as co-conspirators. --Dragon695 (talk) 02:06, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Interesting line of reasoning. I wouldn't call myself qualified to comment on it. Even without going down that path, two points look quite clear:

1. The ALF website grants generous reprint permission, but I see no statement placing the material itself in the public domain.
2. The ALF website states that some of its images are fair use republications of other people's/organizations' copyrighted material, but does not specify which ones. So a visitor cannot determine which images are covered by their republication permission. Durova^Charge! 05:50, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

There is no law which removes intellectual property rights from organizations or persons which may have carried out criminal acts. There are some laws in some states restricting the ability of some people who have been convicted of crimes to profit from their intellectual property, but that doesn't address the issue at hand. FCYTravis (talk) 05:53, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Possibly OT, but if I remember rightly the Allies had to pass special legislation to abrogate the copyright of the German Nazi government's intellectual property (papers, publications, photos etc) so that it could be freely redistributed. This was even after the Nazi government had been declared a criminal organisation. If this is so - and I think it is, though my memory is hazy on that point - then I would guess that the principle you describe has been in force for a long time. -- ChrisO (talk) 01:12, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Without getting into novel lines of reasoning, the customary lines of reasoning already raise significant doubts. The ALF license statement fails a fundamental test: it permits generous republication without specifying which images it owns. This is an indication that the site is operated by people who have a weak understanding of copyright, so we should proceed with extreme caution about reusing anything from that source. Durova^Charge! 01:57, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Tendentious editing by User:Andyvphil

I'd like some assistance. After reminding [31] User:Andyvphil that he's not to edit others' Talk page comments [32], he immediately altered my comments (to an uncivil quip) in his User_talk space [33] and continued his tenditious editing at Talk:Barack Obama [34]. I'd normally leave someone so clearly in the fast lane for a block to their own devices, but I don't appreciate his repeatedly editing others' remarks; Andy's been blocked repeatedly for his hostility toward other editors, and while others have tried to work with him, he doesn't seem to be learning from past interaction. Shem^(talk) 05:29, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Btw, none of my blocks were for "hostility toward other editors". Which is not to say that I take kindly to the abuse of process that Shem is engaging in here. Andyvphil (talk) 07:56, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Andyvphil has now edited my comments on this page [35] and again on an article talk page [36]. Shem^(talk) 13:39, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

What part of "A heading should indicate what the topic is, but not communicate a specific view about it"(WP:TPG) is lost on you? You don't own this page, or the Barack Obama talk page, and you're not allowed to use headers to make abusive assertions ("tendentious editing by User:Andyvphil"). Keep your "comments" in the text area, where your signature marks them as the opinions of dubious origin that they are. Andyvphil (talk) 14:19, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Maybe Shem will take this opportunity to realize that warning and threatening every user he edit wars with is counterproductive, and will only make enemies, and will not help out his cause in the slightest. The Evil Spartan (talk) 05:43, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia's always been a collaborative work, so there aren't any "enemies" here, Evil Spartan. I stand by all of 'em, and was glad to step back in and remind some of y'all that Wikipedia's not a battleground. Shem^(talk) 05:54, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

By all means let's look at Shem's examples of my "edit[ing] others' Talk page comments [37]" and "continued... tenditious editing[38]". Both involve only the header on an article's (not a user's) talk page, where the guideline is: "A heading should indicate what the topic is, but not communicate a specific view about it."(WP:TPG) Shem's header was "This is a policy matter, and this poll is not useful for establishing consensus" and I first changed it to "Further comments by Option 1 supporters: 'This is a policy matter, and this poll is not useful for establishing consensus' and, after Shem reverted, to "Argumentative header redacted, per [guideline]: "A heading should indicate what the topic is, but not communicate a specific view about it.'" (edit comment "...I'll leave replacing it to someone else.") So the real question is whether Shem's right to protect the integrity of his remarks means that his argumentative headers can't be made neutral. And whether he should escape rebuke for filing completely bogus complaints like this. Andyvphil (talk) 07:50, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I do think this editor is headed for a long-term block or ban, if he does not either improve or lose interest in the project. Replacing talk page headers with complaints and personal attacks (here's another[39], and in this very section he edits the headings to turn a report on his behavior around to a complaint about the poster[40][41]) is one of the least of the problems. The site of the most recent trouble, the Barak Obama article (where he has joined forces with three other accounts to pester his perceived enemies with taunts like "Obama campaign volunteers" and "Obama fanboys", and broke ranks of the consensus discussion to renew an edit war[42][43]), was recently taken unprotected with a stern warning to not edit war that soon lead to the article's full protection. The other place he has been most tendentious of late is a sockpuppet report Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Kossack4Truth (where he called User:Josi "bad, arrogant"[44], "arrogant abuse of admin power...for whom an admin bit is an opportunity to stoke their ego..."[45]and me an "imbecile" and a "liar"[46]. We can and should have a thick skin about all this, but it's lead to protectio of an important article and the more or less complete breakdown of consensus discussions.

I have had a couple of prolonged unpleasant run-ins with him myself and left quite a few warnings. Andyvphil has not responded well to repeated warnings, and shows no sign of self-reflection or moderating his behavior. However, now that he is a party to a sockpuppet request, and much of his incivility and tendentiousness is occurring there, I would say he's already under scrutiny so I'm not sure a separate forum is needed here for the moment. Wikidemo (talk) 08:43, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

It was admin, not merely "user" Jossi whose actions in blocking Fovean_Author with no plausible justification I called arrogant. My retitling of this section so that it does not assert my guilt is in accord with the guideline I've quoted above, and if you read "accusation" into the perfectly neutral descriptive title "Allegation by User:Shem of tendentious editing by User:Andyvphil", that is entirely in your own head. Not that I am unwilling to accuse when it is called for. You point to my calling your addition of my name to the list of sockpuppets operated by "suspected sockpuppeteer" Kossack4Truth an abuse of process,[47] and I stand by that 100%. Since your cohort in the hagiographic clique (you, Scjessey, Lulu, Shem...) called me a racist without rebuke[48] it's hard to credit the notion that calling the group Obama Campaign Volunteers would merit one. That's assuming I used the term. Where's the diff? I'm sure I never used "Obama Fanboys", though it's not an epithet in a league with "smells of racism" either.

I won't bother refuting the rest of your off-topic rant. Shem has reported an "incident". He alleges that I have engaged in "tendentious editing" by first contextualizing and then redacting his argumentative header on the Barack Obama talkpage. Did I or did I not -- that's the question in this section, and I am confident that the answer cannot possibly be the one he wants. If you want to raise a different complaint against me, start another section. Andyvphil (talk) 10:49, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikidemo correctly, below, appears to consider that the "racist" issue is moot here. However, that incident reveals more about how Andyvphil responds to disputes. He links above to the place where he was allegedly "called" a "racist." The diff does not support that. Nor was "smells of racism" (not the actual language) a personal attack, and that Andyvphil thinks it was is diagnostic. Scjessey's edit summary was this: "Undid revision 211967788 by Andyvphil (talk) - rv disruptive edits that are starting to look suspiciously like racism." While this may not be the soul of cooperative civility, because it could indeed be taken in an inflammatory way, it merely noted Scjessey's impression of the edits, their appearance to him, and a concern. That was not a personal attack, for a totally non-racist editor could make an edit that "looks like" racism to another editor. Had Scjessey called Andyvphil a "racist," it would have been an entirely different matter, or if he had made some broad statement clearly implying that, such as "All his edits appear to be racist," a personal attack would have been visible.--Abd (talk) 15:19, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

The editor seems to claim his ongoing incivility and name calling are okay because he was provoked by supposed "cohorts" who called him a racist a month ago. I can't quite follow that, and I wasn't involved during his last visit to this page. But he has clearly been confrontational and upset many editors over a long period and has no interest in stopping. Indeed, he continues after making the above statements to edit war on the Obama talk page over the very edit that was first complained about in this report (though he is now defacing rather than merely altering the heading).[49] That is particularly disruptive given the consternation, disagreement, name calling, and allegations of sock puppetry surrounding the repeated polling, with the polls becoming a springboard for edits that got the Obama main page fully protected. Yet another warning would not seem to help; he dismisses this as "administrative arrogance" and "abuse of process". Whether or not the disruption would justify a block at this very moment, in the long term something ought to be done to mollify things.Wikidemo (talk) 13:43, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

What I've dismissed as abuse of process was Shem's bogus assertion that I had edited his "comments" (again, its only his headers I've insisted follow WP:TPG) and your bogus assertion that I could possibly be a sockpuppet of Kossak4Truth. Another bogus "warning" that I shouldn't interfere with Shem's misuse of headers will indeed be dismissed by me. What part of "A heading should indicate what the topic is, but not communicate a specific view about it"(WP:TPG) is lost on you? Andyvphil (talk) 14:12, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I won't take the invitation to snipe back. He is edit warring on the Obama talk page, citing a misinterpretation of WP:TPG, to deface one option in a heated poll to Argumentative header redacted, per [guideline]: "A heading should indicate what the topic is, but not communicate a specific view about it."[50] There's a bona fide concern of sockpuppetry or at least meatpuppetry, per Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Kossack4Truth. He's recently called me a liar and an imbecile. That's all in the last day or so. He and Shem are revert warring again in the past half hour over the title to this section.[51][52]. This is not looking good. - Wikidemo (talk) 14:48, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

While I agree in principle that changing a section header is not the same as refactoring someone else's talk page comments, and I think that some of the header modification edits made by Andyvphil were probably okay, this is unacceptable. Behavior like that could rapidly lead to a block. --Jaysweet (talk) 14:55, 9 June 2008 (UTC) Full disclosure: I am not an admin, but I feel I can help out here anyway.

(ec)Andyvphil is also repeatedly editing section headers placed on his Talk page, turning warnings to him into taunts of other editors. See [53], changing "Do not edit others' talk page comments." into "Shem's sham outrage," undone at [54] by Shem. [55] changed "Edit warring." into "Hypocritical hagiographers threaten," removed by Wikidemo with [56] with summary: "remove personal attack heading and replace with original" (Next edit from Wikidemo also replaced another header Andyvphil had removed, and added text warning about NPA.) Andyphil then, today, replaced the "sham outrage" attack header,[57], claiming "wider latitude on my Talk page." Most recently, as this is written, Shem reverted that last change, and notified Andyphil of this AN/I report.[58].

See also the SSP report, Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Kossack4Truth. Sock puppetry has not been proven, though there is reasonable suspicion remaining. However, for our immediate purposes, the behavior of Andyvphil in this report should be reviewed. He is generally attacking administrators and others who warn or restrain him. He consistently fails to assume good faith, instead imputing hypocrisy, bias, "plethora of bad, arrogant, admins," "abusing process for the purposes of harassment," "arrogant abuse of admin power," "Arrogant and unaccountable admins," "admins equally incurious as to the facts but eager to boost their fagile egos by pissing on any non-admin "peon" handy."

Those are some of the facts, a review of this editors history will find much, much more. As to the implications, Andyvphil is correct that he has greater latitude on his Talk page, but that does not extend to using his Talk page for personal attacks. Further, a section header added by a user with the user's edit of the page is part of the user's edit, and changing it can alter the meaning. Changing it into a personal attack is even worse. His provocative, taunting ABF comments are disruptive and confuse efforts to find editorial consensus. Readers may be aware that I've often complained about administrative abuse. It happens. But it is not necessary, dealing with it, to impute bad faith, hypocrisy, spite, and all the rest, and, in fact, administrators are accountable. I commented in the RfAr proceedings of User:Physchim62 and User:Tango, who made blocks apparently as a result of alleged personal attacks directed at them, violating conflict of interest rules, and not for the clear protection of the project, which might have justified the blocks under IAR, and those admins both lost their bits. Other administrative errors happen, often through inattention, but are remediable. Attacking the administrators' personal motives, absent clear proof, isn't legitimate. I'm amazed that this editor isn't blocked yet. --Abd (talk) 14:56, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

The Talk:Barack Obama page has been a toxic combustion chamber of editors behaving badly, getting other editors offended who then behave badly and so on. To get involved in discussions there is almost guaranteed to make yourself the target of an attack. There is plenty of bad behavior on both sides -- and I do mean sides. Only part of the problem will be solved with blocks or topic bans. What's needed are more adults with patience taking a little time to get involved in discussions about an article that gets tens of thousands of page views on a typical day and on June 4 got a quarter of a million page hits. It's inevitable that controversial subjects get debated heatedly on certain talk pages. What's odd about this talk page is the low heat/light ratio and the worse drama/constructive discussion ratio. I know that's not an advertisement for recruiting cool heads to the page, but it would be good for Wikipedia if you'd come. It's not only a great exercise in trying to keep cool, but you might learn somethng about one of the most important topics of the year. Slap permanent bans on every editor whose signature appears in this section, and you'll have the same problems on the page within two months. Wider participation is the only way out. Noroton (talk) 15:43, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Moi? Slog around in the mudfight? Ask me personally, on my Talk page, and I'll consider it. Just like I'd consider helping my neighbor who asks me to help clean out the remains of a racoon that died in his basement. I don't need "exercise in keeping cool," I need cool. It's over ninety out today. I prefer, usually, to seriously work on articles where I'm expert on the topic, at least in some way. I actually use what I know to judge what is notable and what is not. Horrifying, I know, but I don't remove stuff because it isn't sourced if I think it is true and balanced. (If I put such in, and I often do, I can't complain if it is removed because of lack of RS, though I'd consider it more polite, if it seems like it might be verifiable, to tag it.) Anyway, thanks. As to the issue of Andyvphil, I've seen his attitude be a problem across more than one article, it's not just Obama. And it goes way beyond the too-common incivility between disagreeing editors. It's divisive, us vs. them, wikiwarfare. And it doesn't belong here. Given how much he's been warned, and how many times blocked, I'd say it's time to pull the plug. Will this stop edit warring? Probably not. But it will lessen it, at least a little. (Some might be surprised to know that I think we should block far more quickly, but with less ongoing effect. When the police see a fight going on, it is *not* their job to decide who was right. They say, "Stop!" and anyone who does not stop gets stopped, immediately. Has nothing to do with who started it, who was the evil-doer and who was protecting all that is Good. Stop. Now. Then, when the smoke clears, the police decide whom to more permanently arrest, if any, and who can walk free. Let me put it this way: there should be an "everyone involved, stop" block reason that doesn't create any prejudice with regard to future, more serious blocks. It would not involve any judgment of blame. And I'm pretty sure that I'd be blocked in this way, at least occasionally!) --But maybe evenly distributed warnings would serve for this. And article protection does stop edit warring.--Abd (talk) 16:45, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Toi! (Et vous!) Sometimes the raccoon dies in the volunteer firehouse. And the trick with working on an article like Barack Obama is that almost everybody has some knowledge, most everybody needs more knowledge, anybody would benefit (even off Wikipedia) by getting more knowledge, and it's good for the soul to find out you're wrong every now and then. Aux armes! Aux armes, citoyens! (for the French-defficient, see my edit summary)Noroton (talk) 17:09, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Sanctions

← Barack Obama is a featured article and one of our most often-viewed and high-profile pages. The editing behavior there is a disgrace to Wikipedia, and has been recognized as such by the mass media ([59]). No one person is wholly responsible, but any attempt to deal with it has to start somewhere.

• Andyvphil (talk · contribs): Four escalating blocks for edit-warring; has wikilawyered each of them by arguing the letter of 3RR and accusing the admins of not knowing how to count or recognize a revert (see here, here, here, etc). Citing the talk page guidelines to justify changing another editor's overly "argumentative" heading ([60]) is odd coming from someone who himself routinely alters others' headings into attacks: [61], [62], [63], [64], [65], etc. This editor is gaming WP:TPG as part of an ongoing pattern of inappropriate editing. His level of civility is poor even by the standards of the Obama talk page; he's dismissed every attempt to reason with him or moderate his approach (e.g. here and here); and the denial of his last 3 unblock requests led him to conclude not that his behavior violated this site's standards, but that admins as a group are a capricious, ignorant "mullah class" conspiring against honest editors like himself ([66]). I haven't seen any potential for improvement here. This editor is playing a major role in the devolution of one of our highest-profile articles into a battleground (even drawing the attention of the popular press). I'm going to go ahead and block him for 1 month for disruptive editing on top of 4 previous blocks for edit-warring, and if he resumes the same approach after the block's expiry, I would support an indefinite block.
• Kossack4Truth (talk · contribs): Editors with "Truth" in their username seem to run into problems with NPOV and tendentiousness fairly often. This is an evident tendentious single-purpose agenda account contributing heavily to the poor quality of editing and behavior at Barack Obama. S/he has racked up 2 blocks in the past few weeks for edit-warring on the Obama article. Third edit blued out his talk page with a pre-emptive defense against charges of sockpuppetry ([67]). I would recommend a topic ban to see if there is anything more here than someone dedicated to abusing Wikipedia as a venue to advocate for a specific, narrow agenda. I won't impose this without further uninvolved feedback, though.
• A number of other editors at Barack Obama have contributed to the poor atmosphere there. This is not an exhaustive list, but an identification of a starting point for improving this situation. Experienced or constructive outside editors without an axe to grind are essential, but I don't think we'll attract many of them until the current debacle is addressed. I would welcome uninvolved feedback on the above, as well as any additional review of these or other participants in the article.

The bottom line is that this is one of our highest-profile articles, and its current atrocious state as a WP:BATTLEfield of tendentious edit-warring is a high-profile disgrace to Wikipedia. Feedback welcome. MastCell ^Talk 17:36, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• • 1/ Is a month enough? 2/ A topic ban...well, is that going to be effective? A short block might be a better step. 3/I want to review this whole article further (as an outside opinion) - I'll check back within 12 hours. Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:08, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Re: a month, I'm open to feedback on that. Re: a topic ban, for most single-purpose agenda accounts a topic ban ends up being functionally identical to a block - they came here to push a specific agenda, and if they can't, then they leave. On the other hand, if Kossack4Truth has other interests and something of value to contribute to the encyclopedia, then the topic ban may facilitate that. I think it's a less blunt instrument. MastCell ^Talk 18:12, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
      • It's very troubling behaviour. I'm absolutely certain that (at minimum) a topic ban is needed for Kossack4Truth. Will continue looking through everything, including other involved editors conduct (amidst the edit conflicts) in a few hours or so. Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:35, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
      • You pretty much nailed it, MastCell. 1 month for Andyvphil is exactly what I'd recommend, given the history and behavior, which isn't marginal, balanced with gradual escalation of blocks. --Abd (talk) 18:19, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
• (ec)I'm an involved editor and I've been in agreement with Andyvphil and Kossack4Truth in terms of some of the broadest issues, but I can't criticize a single thing MastCell says. Noroton (talk) 18:24, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• • Support Mastcell's summary of the problems over at the obama page as a good first step --It jibes with what I've observed over on the talk page on the few occasions I'm able to look over there. One of the main problems with SPA pushing a point of view is that each edit by itself is plausibly defensible, if not scrutinized too closely (a big thanks to Mastcell for doing the legwork on putting his summary together). Support the 1 month block for Andyvphil and the 1 month topic ban for Kossack4Truth. The remedy is appropriate for each. R. Baley (talk) 18:40, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Are you proposing a 1 month topic ban on Obama related articles for Kossack4Truth? He currently isn't under such a restriction and while MastCell did recommend a topic ban, he did say that he wasn't imposing it and didn't include a time frame. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 01:45, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
      • Has K4T been notifed that he's being discussed here? By my count, in the 14 hours since this report was opened K4T has participated in a minor edit war (to be fair, on the right side of it), placed a warning logo on the Obama talk page and that of a user relating to the edit war, re-added disputed information that Tony Rezko was convicted of bribery, and accused one editor of "distortion" and another (the edit warrior) of "indefensible" conduct. But he seems capable of good editing. Perhaps a warning is more appropriate than a topic ban.Wikidemo (talk) 02:12, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
• MastCell has, as is often the case, summarized this mess rather nicely. I'd say that the block and topic ban seem to be quite appropriate in the pursuit of slowing down the mayhem on this very, very busy page. If other adherents of the combatants pick up the sword and start to charge, though, an attempt at article probation might be a good idea - it probably won't slow down anytime before the elections. Tony Fox (arf!) 18:52, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
• As noted by Noroton

  Slap permanent bans on every editor whose signature appears in this section, and you'll have the same problems on the page within two months.

  However, MastCell's suggestion seems likely to have the effect of removing the immediate problem, giving the parties time to consider the consequences of their actions, and discouraging future POV warriors from participating too disruptively on the subject; I support the proposal. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:25, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
• No opinion on the merits of the block, but Andyvphil (talk · contribs) has requested unblock for the purpose of contributiong to this discussion, and I have advised him to post any pertinent comments or unblock requests on his talk page.  Sandstein  22:01, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I don't have any real objection to unblocking him specifically to post here, but given past history I think it might be most productive to adopt Sandstein's suggestion, which is fairly standard practice, for Andyvphil to post his comments on his user talk page and have another editor copy them here as needed. MastCell ^Talk 22:50, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
• Good call by MastCell, a more long term block seems necessary at this point and a month seems appropriate. I've seen Andyvphil at the related A More Perfect Union (speech) article, and while he has made some constructive edits there the overall approach to editing and the tendency to comment pointedly on the supposed motivations of other editors troubled me from the outset (the behavior there does not at all approach the problematic level at the Obama article however). Andyvphil can no doubt be a constructive contributor but needs to recognize that his behavior up to now has been problematic. I also fully agree that the main Obama article is a big problem for Wikipedia and we need more admins (and editors) who can keep a cool head over there helping out. I've intentionally avoided it but will probably try to lend a hand at some point. The situation over there could easily lead to worse press for us than that which has already been published.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 23:35, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
• I support MastCell's analysis of the problem and his block and ban recommendations. EdJohnston (talk) 00:09, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
• MastCell's spot-on. Shem^(talk) 02:38, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Would suggest the topic ban be enforced then. Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:13, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse MastCell's analysis. Would support the month-long topic ban if Kossack4Truth enters WP:ADOPT. Further on evidence support site ban/ indef blocking of Andyvphil if he does not address eth substantive behavioural issues raised here - too much disruption to make a point & too much wikilawyering--Cailil ^talk 20:57, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Having just found out about this (gee thanks), I would like to offer a word in my own defense. It is clear that there are POV pushers on the other side of the dispute at Barack Obama. I'm somewhat new to this and was unaware that being a single purpose account is frowned upon. I would voluntarily and cheerfully start a week, or even month long topic ban on Obama related articles, if admins can promise me that the POV pushers on the other side of this dispute are monitored carefully, and blocked without hesitation as needed, in the interests of protecting the Wikipedia project. In particular, they're trying to gut the section on the presidential campaign and remove virtually all references to Tony Rezko, even now. Hit Scjessey with a month-long topic ban at the same time. Kossack4Truth (talk) 22:38, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Ongoing revert war

Now that this editor does know of the proposed topic ban, he jumped in to a revert war on the Barack Obama article anyway to restore a list of criminal charges against Tony Rezko.[68]. He reverted the "bribery" charge part of it two other times in the hours before learning of the proposed sanctions[69][70], so he is at exactly WP:3RR. There was another edit yesterday in a revert war over a broader section that included this material[71]. So the editor has been at a state of WP:3RR for some time. There's also ongoing debate, with the editor claiming on the talk page that those he is reverting are POV-pushers[72][73] and issuing warnings and appeals on their talk pages.[74][75] You might want to take a look at the behavior of other editors as well here. Kossack4Truth's four reverts are among a total of 12 reverts in the last +/- 36 hours (by my count) to the Tony Rezko section of the Obama article - all that after edit protection was lifted and people warned to not edit war. Wikidemo (talk) 01:06, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

a total of 12 reverts in the last +/- 36 hours ... and at least half of them were by Wikidemo, Scjessey, Loonymonkey and the other exclusionists who make substantive edits without consensus, in defiance of repeated warnings from admins on the article Talk page. Kossack4Truth (talk) 01:49, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I do not wish to respond to this editor's tit-for-tat accusation except to say it factually incorrect. The three editors mentioned above made a total of four edits to the Obama article in the last 36 hours: 1 each by me and Loonymonkey, and two by Scjessey. Only three out of four would plausibly be described as part of the 14-edit (two new ones now[76][77]) revert war. Kossack4Truth has no cause to lump me in with the group he taunts as "Obama campaign workers"[78] - my edit was uncontroversial, unopposed, and if anything supported Kossack4Truth's position more than his perceived opponents. I've left a caution for Scjessey over his two edits today, urging him/her not to take up a revert war.[79] As I said, any administrator examining the mess should probably look at the editors on both sides of the revert war. Perhaps this can be untangled without going to page protection again. Wikidemo (talk) 03:11, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps we need some intervention, pronto! The Tony Rezko portion of the Obama article has now been reverted 1516 times in 36 hours, 1213 of those (by my count) in the last six hours. Multiple editors are involved - two are at 3RR, one at 2RR, and quite a few people have jumped in now at 1RR. I'll makeI made one last effort on the talk page to get people to stop but I don't know what else to do. A user has now proposed a possible compromise, and there seems to have been no reverting for the past hour, maybe a good sign. Thanks, Wikidemo (talk) 03:17, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

• FYI: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RR#User:WorkerBee74_reported_by_LotLE.C3.97talk_.28Result:_.29 (LotLE×talk)
• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RR#User:WorkerBee74 reported by Scjessey (talk) (Result: ) (same editor reported again, currently at 4RR) Wikidemo (talk) 18:37, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
• Also: Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Lulu_of_the_Lotus-Eaters - an odd sock puppet that could be another piece of this puzzle - Wikidemo (talk) 04:35, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Apparently, when somebody's presumed "wrong," it's OK to denigrate his motives and edits, as Andy's are above; but if that person returns the favor and denigrates----in this case, the Obama-biography exclusionists as "hagiographers"----why, it's grounds for an incident report![?] As for the New Republic, apparently a partisan in agreement with the side of an issue that's presumed "right" must show incredible genius while somebody in disagreement would show their imbecility, as why else should how Andy's editing is seen through the prism of the New Republic be thought to have any bearing here? — Justmeherenow (   ) 08:56, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

My point in mentioning the TNR article was not that Andy is "wrong" and Scjessey is "right" - in fact, I don't think the article draws that conclusion. My point was that a major publication has taken note of and described the politically-motivated edit-warring occurring on one of Wikipedia's highest-profile articles, and that it reflects badly on Wikipedia regardless of who's "right" or "wrong". MastCell ^Talk 16:20, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Justmeherenow has described the exclusionists well. They have learned one of the rules of Saul Alinsky: they accuse others of engaging in the kind of misconduct that they are committing themselves. As I said in the section below, Wikipedia style for the biographies of prominent politicians is well established. The exclusionists are ignoring that summary style and inventing their own. WorkerBee74 (talk) 15:20, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I wonder if it is time for a WP:FAR on this page. It certainly is no longer stable. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 09:05, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Massive POV push by a handful of exclusionists

I would like very much to take a 30-day voluntary break from all Obama-related articles. But I would like a commitment from the involved administrators that they are going to monitor the conduct of a small but determined group of exclusionists on these articles.

User:Life.temp gutted the article, removing a total of 732 words in two consecutive edits: [80][81] I placed the following warning on his/her Talk page and on the article Talk page: [82] He/she removed the warning from the user Talk page with a personal attack in the edit summary [83] and discussed this warning in two edits on the article Talk page,[84][85] proving that he/she had seen the warning and was aware of increased concerns about edit warring. Nevertheless, last night Life.temp again gutted the article, ripping out nearly 1,000 words this time: [86] None of these edits were accompanied by anything resembling consensus.

It is obvious that Life.temp's goal is to expunge any controversy from the article. This goes hand in hand with similarly intentioned efforts by User:Scjessey, User:Loonymonkey, User:Wikidemo and User:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters. I request a block of at least 24 hours for Life.temp, a warning for the other four, and a seven-day topic ban for all five of them. Thank you. Kossack4Truth (talk) 11:13, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I support this action but with a modification: the topic ban for Life.temp, Scjessey and Wikidemo should be six months in length. They're POV pushing on the Talk page, edit warring on the article mainspace, making nasty remarks in Talk and in their edit summaries, distorting Wikipedia policy to excuse their misconduct, and using summary style as an excuse to delete major controversies while leaving in such trivia as Obama's struggles to quit cigarette smoking, his alternate career choice as an architect, chili is his favorite food, etc.

The proper style for Wikipedia biographies about major politicians is well established at such articles as George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Tony Blair, Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Ronald Reagan, John Howard, John Kerry and, of course, John McCain. Major controversies are dwelt upon at length in the biography, and announced by name in bold section headers, such as "The Lewinsky scandal," "Whitewater and other investigations," and "Iran-Contra affair." Critics who use these controversies to bash the politicians are frequently quoted, even if they belong to the opposing party or faction. I believe in precedent. This style represents a broad consensus of the thousands of Wikipedia editors and admins who have worked on hundreds of biographies of prominent politicians over the years.

Life.temp, Scjessey and the other three are deliberately defying that consensus. They've been warned repeatedly. WorkerBee74 (talk) 12:27, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Of the polticians you mention, only McCain is actively involved in a high-profile campaign at present, so of the articles you mention above, only McCain's is an appropriate comparison. I think our article on John McCain is decent. I certainly don't see that "major controversies are dealt with at length" in his article. I don't see any obvious attempts to one-sidedly "bash" him in the article, and I don't see any bold-type section headers which reflect negatively on McCain. Aside from the iffy "Cultural and political image" section, it looks pretty reasonable at a glance. I certainly don't see that the Obama article has gotten special treatment compared to McCain's. MastCell ^Talk 16:27, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Both McCain and Obama's biographies look pretty reasonable, and neither one looks like it got special treatment, when all of the LT/Scjessey/etc. whitewash has been reverted. Please look at the hagiographic Obama version LT has been pushing, compare it to the McCain biography, and try to tell me with a straight face that neither one is geting special treatment. WorkerBee74 (talk) 17:05, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

This is the second time in two days I've been complained about in a formal way to admins, and not notified by the complainer. That behavior, in itself, is uncivil. In the future, if you are going to call for blocking me, and start a discussion of that with admins, invite me to the discussion. I gave my opinion about who is responsible for the edit warring here [87]. I explained why campaign-specific information should only be summarized here [88]. I didn't say controversial material should be removed from Wikipedia; I said the details belong in articles dedicated to the controversy. Life.temp (talk) 22:57, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Suggestions by Ncmv

For contribution to the poor atmosphere, edit-warring, disruption, incivility and/or the like...I suggest:

• Kossack4Truth be blocked for a week, followed by a topic ban for 3 months from all Obama-related pages including talk pages. He may be unblocked upon agreeing to stay away from all pages.
• WorkerBee74 be topic-banned from all Obama-related pages for 1 month.
• Scjessey be topic-banned from all Obama-related pages for 2 weeks.
• Quarter-master be topic-banned from all Obama-related pages for 2 weeks.
• Life.temp be topic-banned from all Obama-related pages for 1 week.

Any users violating these bans for the first time should be blocked for a week, and a month thereafter. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:04, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

And I'd like to suggest that you may have been "hoodwinked" by an inexperienced, edit-warring individual (and his single-purpose account surrogate) whose only contributions to Wikipedia have been POV-pushing and wikilawyering. Biographies about living persons have special rules that must be adhered to in order to protect both the subject of the article and Wikipedia as a whole. Using BLPs as soapboxes, or extensions of political smear campaigns violates these rules.

I have no agenda other than to ensure the accuracy, relevancy and neutrality of articles. Since I became a Wikipedian in early 2005, I have contributed much to the project. I have worked hard to build consensus on article talk pages, and any reversions I make (and these are few and far between) are in accordance with Wikipedia rules. To have a 10-day old single-purpose account demand I be given a six-month ban is beyond belief, and I would urge administrators to see through this transparent ploy to use wikilawyering to push an agenda. If I am given any kind of topic ban I urge administrators, in the strongest possible terms, to fill the vacuum they will have created by ensuring Wikipedia policies are enforced on these popular political articles. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:48, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

• You need to step back (and should your suggestion as it is baseless). I've independently looked at what's been said at the talk page and the kind of edits that have been made by participating editors. You have contributed to the poor atmosphere there - check what you said at 14:15, 3 June 2008 (UTC) and the last sentence in your contribution at 13:30, 8 June 2008 (UTC). Making a header titled "Dumb argument" is not constructive either. These are just a couple of examples I'd jotted down when formulating this suggestion. There are more examples scattered on the talk page and among your contributions history. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:24, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Er... if you mean this edit, that was a humorous response to a bit of poetry(?). I believe you are viewing my edit history with an overly-critical eye, probably because the baseless allegations of my "edit warring" et al have somehow prejudiced my "case" (or whatever you call this process). My suggestion that you had been "hoodwinked" is an expression of my incredulity that anyone should consider my contributions to this project as anything other than good faith edits. If I have "contributed to the poor atmosphere" at all, then it is because of my frustration that agenda-driven editors are ignoring Wikipedia policy in such great numbers that the neutrally-minding, altruistic group (of which I am a part) cannot keep up. Administrators can and must take a more active role in policing such articles (outside of the main page, Barack Obama is probably the most trafficked of all Wikipedia articles) so that regular editors don't have to shoulder all the burden. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:48, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

• • • I have you down for two weeks because I can see some active attempts by you to trying to maintain standard Wikipedia process - initially, I'd jotted a month. You need to step back and get rid of that frustration to be more constructive. If you voluntarily can get rid of that frustration on your small wikibreak, I'd withdraw that suggested remedy as time served. Ncmvocalist (talk) 00:52, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

That proposal by Nmcvocalist is very lenient to Scjessey's side of the dispute since Andy has already been blocked for a month. It was LT who blanked so much material on two separate occasions, after multiple warnings from admins and a final warning from K4T. Scjessey, like LT, also got a warning. Like LT, Scjessey deleted it with an expression of contempt. This proposal also ignores the misconduct of LotLE, who has a long history of combative behavior and blocks like Andy.

We must be able to rely on admins to impose sanctions tat are fair to both sides of a dispute. Admins must be neutral. They must not take sides or play favorites. This must be a demonstrable fact. WorkerBee74 (talk) 16:15, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

• This isn't about being fair or unfair to a particular side. Each participant is assessed on how they have contributed to the poor atmosphere. I've been too lenient on all participants I think - blocks may be more effective. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:24, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm not convinced that blocks are warranted in those cases. Andyvphil and Kossack4Truth both had multiple blocks accrued in a short period of time due to edit-warring on Obama articles. I don't see any entries in the block logs of Life.temp, Looneymonkey, Wikidemo, Shem, or Quartermaster. Scjessey does have 1 block for edit-warring, and I'm largely unable to make sense of Lulu of the Lotus Eater's block log, though it has quite a few entries over his 3+ years here. I'm not saying that these editors have behaved in an exemplary fashion, but I don't see the same level of refractoriness there. I would like to look at this a bit further, but pending that I would propose a blanket 1RR and possibly article probation, and I'd like to get the help of additional uninvolved admins since I don't really want to be in the position of dealing with this mess alone. MastCell ^Talk 16:40, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
    • WorkerBee74 keeps accusing editors in a misleading way, so please don't accept without questioning that people on his list are actually involved. The list he wants "banned", calls "Obama campaign volunteers" or "exclusionists", etc., changes each time. He has no plausible gripe with Looneymonkey. I haven't made a controversial edit to the article since article protection was lifted. Shem is currently trying to broker a truce to the edit war - which WorkerBee74 and two others broke in the last few hours through continuing reverts but may be holding now.

Until just a few days ago Hillary Clinton was also actively camaigning and she has only "suspended" her campaign. During the entire campaign, her biography had "Lewinsky Scandal" and "Whitewater and other investigations" as section headers. Please don't try to claim that McCain's is the only comparable biography. Besides all living persons should be treated the same. I suggest that 48-hour blocks and six-month topic bans would be fair for the three exclusionists I've mentioned since they are veteran editors and should know better, they've contributed to the atmosphere with their nasty remarks, and they are trying to win an edit war. You really need to review their edits and edit summaries before letting them off with a slap on the wrist. LotLE and to a lesser extent, Loonymonkey have also caused problems. Maybe a 24-hour block and 30-day topic ban for LotLE, and a 7-day topic ban for Loony. As for me, I'd like to have an opportunity to prove that I have a lot more to offer WP than reverting POV pushers. Do you agree that WP biography style for prominent politicians is established by these other biographies? WorkerBee74 (talk) 16:56, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles're preferably led by the example of Featured Articles, not the other way around. Shem^(talk) 18:23, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

• In assessing how each participant has contributed to the poor atmosphere, admins looking over Talk:Barack Obama should realize that I removed parts of two comments here and here. No one's perfect, and context counts, but I think it's worth doing a "Find on this page" search for "LotLE" on Talk:Barack Obama, Talk:Barack Obama/Archive 21 and Talk:Barack Obama/Archive 19, and then drawing your own conclusions. I think it's nasty stuff, but I haven't done a comparison with what others said and did, and maybe there's a context I'm missing. Noroton (talk) 18:49, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
• I notice at least one conspicuous absence, which I'll point out in case that was an oversight - User talk:Fovean Author. See the history of blocks and incivility on the talk page, and the odd sockpuppet report, noted above. Perhaps it would be useful to also list people for whom sanctions are not imposed and explain very simply, e.g. "userxxxx - no remedy warranted at this time" so that people will at least know the review was thorough. Thanks, Wikidemo (talk) 19:08, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Actually, I think the whiff of bans and blocks is probably a pretty healthy motivator for good conduct in this situation, both for the named and the unnamed. It would also look like a pat on the head. Noroton (talk) 19:53, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Yes, you're probably right. I'm just a little frazzled by all the animosity and personal attacks and seeing my account name dragged in here. Wikidemo (talk) 20:27, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

You must be kidding: "Life.temp be topic-banned from all Obama-related pages for 1 week." I've made one edit (in 2 parts) and reverted to to it twice. That is the entirety of my history with any Obama article. I explained that one edit at great length in Talk, and connected it to an official guideline. I've been uncivil to no one. I said some editors have destroyed the logic of assuming good faith. Given the discussion here, many agree. Life.temp (talk) 11:27, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Article probation?

MastCell suggested article probation earlier, which I couldn't support strongly enough at this point. Shem^(talk) 18:25, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

• Oh dear god, please do. As one of the former maintainers of the article, I can say the constant edit warring, incivility, and assumptions of bad faith on the article has pretty much driven off all of the people that got the article to FA status and kept it there for the next 3+ years and has also made it next to impossible to actually get any work done on the article. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 19:05, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

• At WP:3RRN we're getting a lot of reports filed about the above edit warriors. To be honest, I just want them to stop. I know Andy games the system so we can't really take any action. The editors involved usually discuss so much that it clogs up the board. I'd support a complete article ban on all the above editors involved with immediate blocking on any edits made to Barrack Obama aside from the removal of obvious vandalism. Talking to them obviously doesn't help as they all think they're correct. Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 19:21, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

An indefinite ban (until successfully appealed, if at all) or a certain duration? Ncmvocalist (talk) 00:56, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I would support the blocks and bans proposed by Ncmvocalist in the above list, to prevent these editors from working on Obama-related articles. I'd also consider any reasonable proposals for longer-duration bans, going up to indefinite. An article ban is not as serious as a complete block from editing Wikipedia, so we need not follow a minutely-detailed process here. We just need to stabilize the editing climate so regular editors can get back to work on the article. EdJohnston (talk) 04:31, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Some form of article probation is probably a good idea, perhaps now or perhaps in the near future if problems continue. If we go that route I'd imagine a 1RR rule on the article itself and a strict application of the civility policy on the talk page would address a lot of the problems. I'm just starting to look into this, but at this point I would not support an indiscriminate topic ban "on all the above editors." Topic bans (if they happen) should be handed out to those who have actually been abusing Wiki processes, not simply the more prominent names in the dispute, and I don't want to catch up editors who have been largely constructive in their edits into the dragnet. At this point I'm most inclined to take a "this is your last chance" approach to the article and see if the threat of (and if necessary implementation of) longer blocks or topic bans is able to calm things down over there a bit. I've been taking a look at what's happening on the page and have already warned three different editors about their behavior. Those who are edit warring or otherwise being disruptive will receive blocks. There does seem to be a bit of a truce on the talk page at the moment (kinda), so now is probably a good time for neutral admins to get involved and set some standards about acceptable editing practices on the page. One way or another though what has been happening cannot be allowed to continue. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 04:46, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

• Article probation or any such "warning" is insufficient on its own as it will not stabilize the the climate there, nor can it be enforced effectively. These suggested sanctions aren't at the most prominent names - the names are of those who have actually to a great extent (and sometimes persistently) contributed to the long-term poor atmosphere there most recently. Talking to them hasn't helped - it's time for the community to step up and actually address the issue instead of circling around it and letting it escalate further. 1RR should be enforced - but it's going to be pointless when meatpuppetry begins. We therefore need to prevent this continuing with such sanctions I've suggested in the above header as the next starting point. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:39, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Whether or not bans and more blocks are put in place, a 1RR rule and strict application of civility would do a lot of good. Perhaps a note to that effect would be a good idea at the very top of the talk page, and anybody could point to it as a warning to anyone new on the page who didn't already know the history (I assume there will be more and more of those with time). It would help to have several administrators keeping watch, which we seem to have now -- and thank you for that. Noroton (talk) 05:44, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Consensus

It appears as though we have a strong consensus to take action to prevent the edit warring on the Barrack Obama article. Discussion, mediation and 3RR reports have so far failed. I support article bans following User:Ncmvocalist's suggestion above. Albeit, with minor alterations. A WP:1RR limit will be placed on all the above editors (mentioned in Ncmvocalist's list), administrators will have the right to block any of the editors if they exceed this limit. No editors will be blocked at this point as this is a preventative measure. It is advised that all the editors mentioned above will avoid the Barrack Obama article and all Barrack Obama related articles to allow the article's regular editors to clean up/re-shape/and actually contribute. This edit war has gone on long enough, it's time to put an end to it. If, at any time, any of the afforementioned editors refuse to adhere to this, then finite and infinite article bans will be proposed and carried out. Any community thoughts on this? Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 15:10, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Amendment - 2 week article ban for all editors involved. This includes article and talk pages for all Barrack Obama related articles. The article needs a rest, especially at this time. We need to allow the regular contributors and maintainers to work. Any user involved voiding this will/can be blocked in short increments at the administrators discretion. Edit warring is not to be tolerated. Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 15:45, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:02, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Various irregularities in AfD for Allegations of Israeli Apartheid

Resolved

Extended content

This here is a perennial AfD so there's always been a fair share of eDrama surrounding it all, but iteration #8 is getting to be quite a mess. HandThatFeeds files the AfD, admittedly on behalf of another user Wikifan12345 aka 70.181.148.148. (self-identified as such here, this isn't an accusation) It was pointed out that this is not allowed per Wikipedia:Speedy keep criteria 1. Was unaware of this rule myself, and no one else has commented on this angle as of yet. Wikifan12345 has ex post facto altered the nomination rationale, reverted by Thetrick here, then reverted back by Wikifan's IP. Wikifan12345 has been violating WP:CANVAS, namely the votestacking section, by only posting alerts to the AfD to editors of a particular (i.e. his own) side. This should not in any way be taken as casting aspersions those who were canvassed, but the fact that the users who he contacted... Humus Sapiens, Amoruso, et al...are either regarded by regulars who edit Israeli-Palestine articles as "pro-Israel" or may appear to wikifan to be such based upon their own userboxes, self-categorization, etc... (all of which is what WP:CANVAS suggests can be used as identifiers) is undeniable. Tarc (talk) 03:53, 10 June 2008 (UTC) I fully endorse Tarc's comments, and would add that the anti-Arab sentiments outlined in this statement would seem to undercut WikiFan12345's credibility somewhat. Seriously, this afd is even more of a partisan mess than previous nominations, and that's saying quite a bit. CJCurrie (talk) 04:08, 10 June 2008 (UTC) Comment I think it's reasonable that those most active in this area of discussion know what's going on. I merely made them aware of this important happening. I see nothing wrong with that. I personally wanted the opinion of the Israeli wiki section, as the discussion going on in the nominations page was going nowhere. It became a single-view for keep and the reasons remained the same. If I violated any rules, I'll gladly retract my statements made to the alerted people and accept the appropriate penalties. In response to CJ's concern, I edited those statements seconds after submitting. It was an error of mine and I regret it. Thank you Wikifan12345 (talk) 04:11, 10 June 2008 (UTC) Comment If we're talking about name calling, I'd like to mention several users involved in the discussion attacked me and others with inappropriate terms (Israeli Defenders, for example) that offered nothing to the issue. But, I'm quite forgiving and understand users get very heated in these types of discuss. I just don't want people to consider me something that I'm not, which seems to be the case here. Wikifan12345 (talk) 04:23, 10 June 2008 (UTC) I have little interest in this AfD because I know how it's going to end up (though in the interest of full disclosure, I have consistently voted to delete it in the past, and believe it should have been deleted long ago), but since Tarc's first bullet point raises a "process issue" that may affect other AfD's, I just want to respond to it. I believe the person who mentioned SK criterion 1 on the AfD page is taking one sentence of it out of context and misinterpreting it. If you read the sentence in question, all it says is, "Also, there are some cases where the nominator specifies they are nominating for the sake of process, for someone else, or some other reason but are not stating an opinion themselves." It doesn't say there's anything wrong with doing so. (And if you look at the Wikipedia:Guide to deletion, the last sentence of this section also states that this happens sometimes, and there is no suggestion that there is anything wrong with it.) If you read criterion 1 in its entirety, basically what it is saying is that if, at some point in the AfD, nobody (including the nominator) is currently supporting deletion, the AfD can be closed as a speedy keep. Then it goes on to point out that sometimes the nominator is doing so on behalf of someone else and this does not count as a support for deleting the article. It is irrelevant here, because four or five people have "voted" to delete the article, so there is no unanimity regardless of whether the nominator counts. (I think criterion 1 needs to rewritten so it can't be misinterpreted this way. I am not even sure why criterion 1 is necessary, since WP:SNOW also seems to apply, and does not require unanimity.) 6SJ7 (talk) 05:26, 10 June 2008 (UTC) It's a mess, but it looks like the AfD, like the preceding seven attempts, will come out as Keep. Wikifan12345 (talk · contribs) isn't really to blame for the fact that someone else had to set up the AfD properly. This account was created on June 7, and on June 8, he tried his first AfD, botching the mechanics of the process somewhat. He was trying at one point to post an AfD in the deletion review log [89]. He asked other editors for help, went to the Help Desk, and someone else stepped in just to get the process straightened out. So he shouldn't be bitten (WP:BITE) for that process error. On the other hand, this is close to being a Wikipedia:Single-purpose account. The canvassing is somewhat disturbing, especially after the CAMERA editing-team debacle. --John Nagle (talk) 06:05, 10 June 2008 (UTC) I've stated this more than 3 times, twice in the nomination page (if you were reading it): I've been editing at wikipedia for more than 6 months, it's only recently did I register an account. I pray this is the last time I have to say this. *prays* Wikifan12345 (talk) 07:05, 10 June 2008 (UTC) Comment I stand behind my interpretation of the WP:SK #1 guideline as discouraging nominations that the nom-poster immediately attempts to distance himself from. Especially when the nomination is controversial, this method of sparking an AfD seems like bad process. Townlake (talk) 16:33, 10 June 2008 (UTC) It may be your opinion that it's bad process, but the page that you're citing doesn't prohibit it, or even discourage it. Quite frankly, it is so badly written that that particular sentence doesn't really say anything. The Guide to deletion, on the other hand, says that this is what sometimes happens, and doesn't say there is anything wrong with it, which strongly suggests that it is acceptable (especially since WP guidelines are supposed to be "descriptive" of current practice.) In my own opinion, there is nothing wrong with a more experienced editor assisting a less experienced editor who is having difficulty navigating the bureaucratic requirements of the deletion process, even if it means that the "helper" actually has to post the AfD. Otherwise, we're saying that if you think an article should be deleted but you can't immediately figure out the process, just go away. That doesn't seem to be in the "spirit" of Wikipedia. 6SJ7 (talk) 17:08, 10 June 2008 (UTC) Reply I certainly agree with you on the community spirit of WP and how much we should all support it. We clearly disagree on SK #1. I'll respectfully bow out of the discussion here, since I don't want to sidetrack this ANI conversation. Townlake (talk) 17:32, 10 June 2008 (UTC) IMO, everything except for the WP:CANVASsing issue can be immediately dropped. For all intents and purposes, Wikifan12345 was the nominator and HandsThatFeeds was just giving him technical assistance. His ex post facto modification of the nomination should be treated as if he was the original nominator and just decided later to revise his nomination. Frankly, without Twinkle, I doubt I could get all my ducks in a row for an AfD. That's kinda hard. So I am very sympathetic to Wikifan's predicament. The canvassing issue can be debated separately. I have no opinion on that at this time. --Jaysweet (talk) 17:40, 10 June 2008 (UTC) Full disclosure: I am not an admin, but I feel I can help out here anyway. Question: Have any of the "canvassed" persons even posted to this afd? I don't see the named individuals in the list at all. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 17:52, 10 June 2008 (UTC) No disrespect intended, but I have to ask if it matters? IMO even if a canvas violation was a failure, it is still something that is not allowed. But to get to the answer to the question, yes; Oren neu dag (vote) and FrummerThanThou (vote). Ynhockey also voted in the AfD, but the vote cast precedes Wikifan's notification. Looking at the remaining contrib histories of the rest, none have been active since the notification; some as little as a few hours, others as much as a month or more, while one is even in the middle of a 60-day ban. Whatever user list was consulted in this, it was a peculiar and somewhat out-of-date one. Tarc (talk) 18:53, 10 June 2008 (UTC) Apparently they didn't vote until after these charges were brought up here. Maybe you'd have more of a chance of having canvassing stick had there been some foul play that could be directly linked to the canvassing charge, but it does not appear that the canvassing really had any real affect on the AfD. Looks like a snowball close anyways. What real admin action is required here? Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 06:30, 11 June 2008 (UTC) Comment I wasn't aware of any rule that restricted the notification of a deletion process to other wiki members. The members who I notified all belonged to the wiki-Israel project. I felt it was only fair to let the people most involved in this area of discussion know what's going on. As far as ethical violations, I did alert some people involved in the wiki-palestinian project, I think. Not everyone in the wiki-project Israel is "Israel Defender" or "Zionist Pig", as many of you describe them to be. Wikifan12345 (talk) 23:11, 10 June 2008 (UTC) Er, "Zionist Pig" ? "Many of you" who? This tactic of leveling veiled charges of antisemitism against one's perceived opponents here is a very bad road to go down. Tarc (talk) 02:04, 11 June 2008 (UTC) The lady doth protest too much, methinks. Wikifan has implied that his perceived opponents are anti-Zionist , or anti-Isreal, and as improper as that accusation is, you're responding with 'I'm not an antisemite' - a charge not levelled at all. Would you mind explaining what brought that about? Canadian Monkey (talk) 15:52, 11 June 2008 (UTC) Yeah read the nomination and discussion pages. There is one particular person (forgot name) who has made a strong effort to outline my unspoken political relationships as negatives. His name starts with an E...I don't feel like looking it up lol. 70.181.148.148 (talk) 03:02, 11 June 2008 (UTC) I did alert some people involved in the wiki-palestinian project, I think. This is a truly dishonest statement (with obvious placement of weasel words) from Wikifan12345 since his contribs are easily found and he made 13 consecutive notifications, all on the user pages of Wikipedia:WikiProject_Israel/Participants. Participants of Wikiproject Palestine are just as easily found yet none of them were notified. --Thetrick (talk) 06:47, 11 June 2008 (UTC) I have to admit, given Wikifan's subsequent behavior, I regret assisting in the AfD. I can understand the purpose of SK#1, but it really doesn't do anything to prevent POV nominations to AfD. I'll stand by helping the user properly format the AfD, and I believe some good discussion has come from it. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 22:31, 11 June 2008 (UTC) I put this sick dog down. Maybe someday we'll have a consensus on that festering sore of an article, to either heal it or simply amputate it, but for now it's painfully obvious that we don't. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:42, 11 June 2008 (UTC) Comment Several of the people who belonged to wiki Israel also belonged to wiki Palestine. I AM NOT THE PROBLEM. Don't use me as a scapegoat to defend a propaganda piece. Wikifan12345 (talk) 23:30, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I think I'll write a poem about this.

Roses are red

Violets are blue

This discussion is over

Even though this doesn't rhyme - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:40, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

How about Let's do something new! for the last line? It rhymes and God knows, it's needed... -- ChrisO (talk) 01:14, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

user:AvantVenger will need a close eye and/or a longer block

AvantVenger (talk · contribs)

See user's response to being blocked for gross incivility. (And I'm talking gross incivility, e.g. after having a relatively polite Wikiquette alert filed regarding him, his first comment at the WQA ended with "you can all go to HELL!") Maybe he just needs to cool down, but either this block needs extended, or somebody needs to be waiting tomorrow at 08:34 to make sure he is actually calmed down. --Jaysweet (talk) 15:20, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Instead of laying on more heat, I left a friendly note with some links. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:38, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

If it comes down to a re-block, we can cross that bridge when we get there; for the time being, I believe de-escalation seems more appropriate. It's difficult for some users to quickly get into the "wiki way," but we should do what we can to nudge those users along. – Luna Santin (talk) 02:19, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Sadly, no de-escalation will be helpful here. I now believe that AvantVenger is the real-world person Charles Collins <[email removed -LS]> - who appears to be the indefinitely-banned User:Fraberj. My evidence is here User_talk:AvantVenger#Is_AvantVenger_really_Charles_Collins.3F. SteveBaker (talk) 04:53, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

His/her response to Gwen Gale's helpful note... It starts off promising enough, but the last several K do not exactly demonstrate a desire to contribute constructively ;) This was after several hours to cool down.

Not for nothing, but if a person is responding to multiple warnings in a row with capital letter obscenities, as AvantVenger did yesterday prior to his/her block, I think the problems are a little more serious than just "nudging" them towards the "wiki way" ;) I'm fine with close monitoring with no prejudice for or against a future block purely as a matter of principle, but realistically we have to recognize that de-escalation is incredibly unlikely to succeed. In my mind, the main reason not to block now is because the user might just go away on their own, on then we avoid giving the impression that Wikipedia is ruled with an iron fist. :) --Jaysweet (talk) 12:38, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

As you say, there's only so far we can "nudge" someone. ;) I noticed they seemed to calm down significantly, last night, after I made a brief attempt at listening rather than chiding... but then I see we're back at full blast, today. I had previously wondered if the user might be a sockpuppet or somehow personally involved in the off-wiki dispute; Steve's post lends credence to both possibilities. – Luna Santin (talk) 13:03, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Geez, when someone gets blocked for breaking a policy then they keep doing the same thing then we extend the block. This whole idea that extending a block when someone is uncivil in reaction to a block is somehow unhelpful makes the unreasonable assumption that the point of the block is to help the person. It is not, it is to prevent them from continuing the disruptive behavior.

If someone gets nasty when blocked, then warn then, if they get nastier, then extend the block. If that makes them even nastier("YOU ARE THIEVES! YOU ARE PIGS!(repeat 20x)") then perhaps they should not be here. We coddle people who act nasty around here, thinking if we hold their hands they will suddenly reform. More often than they reform they just make life harder on people. I have seen more people give up chronic incivility in the face of ever increasing blocks than I ever had with hand holding and putting up with violations. We are here to write an encyclopedia, not to give behavioral therapy. _{1 != 2} 13:09, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

On the other hand, I believe their block is expired now, so maybe they just want away.

For the record, I am pretty sure that in my time on Wikipedia, I have still never asked for a block or extension of a block on a user where it didn't eventually happen (on a few rare occasions, such as this one, a "let's-wait-and-see" approach was taken, but it still resulted in a block). Let's see if I keep my perfect track record! ;) ;) --Jaysweet (talk) 13:24, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

That is a good point. The let's wait and see approach most often yields "more of the same". _{1 != 2} 13:39, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Oops, he's back. From today:

• "Go back under your rock where you belong and stay there with the rest of you stinking putrid liberals.", "Nefarious cowards!"
• More conspiracy allegations ("Who are you working for?")
• Another "go to hell",

I mean, it could be worse, he at least seems to be making some attempt at dialog, at least most of the time (despite edit summaries like [this http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Self-replicating_machine&diff=prev&oldid=218628917]). Normally I would try to address this at WP:WQA, but his response there was "GO TO HELL", so I am not optimistic. If that's what people feel should be done, though, I'll volunteer to do it. --Jaysweet (talk) 14:25, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

More of the same, who could have guessed. Oh and you missed "nefarious cowards!". I think you should just go ahead Jay, clearly not blocking this person isn't solving the problem, so blocking is really all that is left. _{1 != 2} 14:26, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

1 == 2, me != admin :) Anyway, EyeSerene (talk · contribs) appears to be on the case, so I am inclined to let him/her deal with it as he/she sees fit. --Jaysweet (talk) 14:31, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I thought you were. _{1 != 2} 15:51, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

It's really clear that the more you look into the past posts and behavior of User:Fraberj that he and User:AvantVenger are the same person. Fraberj has an indefinite ban - AvantVenger is simply a sock and should get the exact same treatment. I've filed a complaint at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Fraberj (2nd). Can we please just stick an indefinite ban on AvantVenger and get on with writing an encyclopedia? SteveBaker (talk) 14:38, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, between the incivility, the soap boxing, and sock puppetry to push a point of view, and the fact that he is evading a block all points to the need to block this fellow again. _{1 != 2} 15:51, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Just got online for today, reviewed the happenings I missed, and took a longer few moments to review the evidence presented at Steve's SSP case; currently I've blocked AvantVenger indefinitely. Any objection? – Luna Santin (talk) 21:47, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Only that you are a putrid liberal, a nefarious coward, and a patent thief. ;p But no, I cannot imagine any positive contributions coming from this user in the future. --Jaysweet (talk) 21:54, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Outing on my userpage

Hi,

I wanted to listen fully to a user who was critical of Baggini. This editor seems to now have more against SlimVirgin that the subject of the article. I assumed good faith and was kind to this editor, but he is now postings about speculations about SV's real life identity. I was aware of these speculations before, but I don't want them on my talk page.

I'm asking admin actions, and perhaps these things to be over-sighted from my userpage, if possible. I feel little inclined to continue discuss the topic with this editor now. I would appreciate if someone not involved with SlimVirgin took care of this as there are accusations of cabalism, etc.

Thank you, Merzul (talk) 19:37, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I EC'd with SlimVirgin in deleting the talk page to remove the revision. The user in question, Wikigiraffes (talk · contribs), was indefblocked by SlimVirgin. While I concur wholeheartedly with the block, it may have been better for SV to wait for an uninvolved admin to handle it. That said, I agree with and second her actions in this matter. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 19:45, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I presume someone has requested oversight; if no, I'll handle it in a bit. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 19:48, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

While not a fan of involved blockers or indef's, the user in question seemed to have earned this the old fashioned way (repeated poor behavior). --Rocksanddirt (talk) 20:43, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

There was no need for SV to wait for an uninvolved admin - wholly appropriate to indef block Wikigiraffes for that. Neıl 龱 09:20, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. This was an obviously appropriate block, no waiting necessary. GlassCobra 00:58, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Blocks by CSCWEM

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

For reference: Can't sleep, clown will eat me (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) Toddst1 (talk) 20:29, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I definitely think that 3, 6, 12 month blocks should be reserved for those persistent IP vandals that have already received the customary 24h, week-or-two and 1 month blocks. xenocidic (talk) 21:05, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I left a comment about these blocks on CSCWEM's talk page, but of course received no response; this isn't the first time I've had to ask him to respect the blocking policy. The most troubling of blocks are the ones that occurred without warnings, hours after an editor stopped editing, or those where CSCWEM changed another admin's block without discussion. Hodge04 (talk · contribs) was blocked on 7 May 2008 for one month, in what was already an excessive block, and CSCWEM unblocked and reblocked the account indefinitely without contacting the other admin (and no further abuse from the editor).[90] It needs to be made clear to CSCWEM that his actions are inappropriate, and the lengths of his blocks are excessive. - auburnpilot talk 21:15, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Without input from CSCWEM I can only make comments, with the application of liberal AGF. An indef block of a one post vandal, after the expiry of the initial month block, indicates a history that is not apparent from the talkpage to me. The block summary is not exactly comprehensive either, but as noted CSCWEM was executing a great many blocks in a short period. I note in the one example that there was no request for unblock/howl of indignation, sometimes (but not always, of course) and indication of a bad faith account being abandoned upon discovery.

However, I should prefer a response from CSCWEM and would enquire if anyone has mailed them to make them aware of this discussion/these concerns. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:38, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

In all fairness, do we really expect an editor who replaces an entire body of text with "YOU SUCK" to really constructive in the future? Granted that this is the sole edit of the account, but I have yet to run into a good-faith account who started off the bat with vandalism. On the flip side, it would be nice to see CSCWEM reply here. seicer | talk | contribs 02:02, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

And if that were the only questionable block, nobody would be complaining, but this is a recurring problem. For example, the last time I had to point out CSCWEM's inappropriate blocks, I made a list of ~250 registered accounts seen here and here (note all have email disabled as default). That was several months ago, and he's still making bad blocks - auburnpilot talk 02:12, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

• As a note, CSCWEM doesn't answer his talkpage. The only reason it isn't 100 screens long is because I set up the archivebot awhile back, maybe even the archives themselves I don't remember. Avruch^T * ^ER 22:50, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

An admin making questionable blocks who doesn't answer his talkpage, not exactly ideal is it? Maybe it's time they gave up the mop, as it seems it's all too much trouble for them. RMHED (talk) 23:22, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

"Users are responsible for the editorial and administrative actions they undertake, and must be willing and prepared to discuss the reasons for their actions in a timely manner".[91] Daniel (talk) 01:17, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

All I can say is that I have asked CSCWEM a few times to cease and desist his questionable blocks, and like others had received no response. I'm all for the community forcing an answer out of him. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 01:51, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Is he editing from an alternate account or something? He just has an incredible number of logged actions for someone with zero edits. But I guess it really doesn't matter - if he's issuing blocks and not stopping to talk about it, that's a big problem. I support a block until such time as he is willing to discuss his actions. --B (talk) 02:13, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

In all fairness, I am with the several other editors who have asked politely and have been rebuffed (I believe I may have had the same experience at ANI over the issue). AGF does not mean willful ignorance in the face of repeated actions that show otherwise. I strongly suggest an RFC, regardless of a block; I will sign it myself if someone opens it. The Evil Spartan (talk) 02:17, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like a number of users are concerned, here; an RfC sounds appropriate. – Luna Santin (talk) 02:23, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

(ec) He has not edited a single page since 11 April. I have not checked deleted contribs, but expect them to be similar. He has, however, continued to perform blocks up until 28 May. This is problematic from a procedural basis, simply because he is blocking users withotu actially templating them to let them know when, why, and for how long they are blocked. Some of the blocks are problematic, as noted above - for example, do we block IPs for two years? Most of the edits look like tests and vandalism, so block away, whatever, and I am familiar with escalating blocks... but two years? UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 02:20, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I have randomly clicked on some of his blocks. A lot of them are just factually incorrect (ie, saying "repeated vandalism to various articles" when the IP only had one edit). This block of a US Department of Justice IP is slightly troubling and even though that isn't on the list of sensitive IP addresses, it's still a darned good idea to put some diligence into it. He has not blocked anyone since May 28, although there are frequently holes in his logs, so that may not mean that he has stopped for good. I think an RFC is appropriate, but regardless of that, I think that he needs to understand (and I will leave this message on his talk page) that if he makes another questionable block, he will be blocked as a preventative measure unless/until he is willing to discuss his actions. --B (talk) 02:29, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

This address falls within the 149.101.0.0/16 - United States Department of Justice block as noted on the sensitive IP addresses, and also on the IP talk page. Kevin (talk) 03:36, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Oops ... I missed that one. --B (talk) 03:52, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

This reminds me that i had occassion to contact CSCWEM in April with regard to a spam block he made without any warning on a user who had made three edits. Sure, the guy was adding links to his own website but he was never warned at all and also had the email disabled. He said he sent CSCWEM 4-5 emails directly over a six month period but all were ignored and eventually he sent a fax to the Foundation. I raised it was CSWEM on his talk page (User_talk:Can't_sleep,_clown_will_eat_me/Archive_2#DoctorGs) but, like everyone else, was ignored. I don't think people should be using admin tools at all if they are not prepared to respond to messages from users and fellow administrators and I am concerned that he seemed to be routinely disabling people's email for no apparent reason (I haven't checked to see if he still does that so it might not be an issue anymore). Sarah 03:19, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

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

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

I love CSCWEM who did a great job back in the days, but I must admit that I am concerned by the blocks he placed on 28 May. He can't really be using his admin tools and be unwilling to communicate. -- lucasbfr ^talk 07:59, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Let me ask a silly question here - has any checkuser reading this looked to make sure this isn't a compromised account? CSCWEM was one of our best anti-vandal admins. --B (talk) 11:42, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

The whole "Repeated vandalism to various articles" phrase is one that he's been using for years. I have to say that none of this is new. CSCWEM has been blocking single-edit IPs for "Repeated vandalism" for as long as I can remember - and I've been around a while. Why is this only a problem now? It seemed like his actions were quietly accepted back then so what happened? —Wknight94 (talk) 11:49, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

He communicated before. If he was misusing block summaries, that was always a problem. Was it ever brought to ANI bringing wide community attention to it? --B (talk) 11:53, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

(ec) I highly doubt that. This seems like an admin who has burned out and lost some of his better judgement because of it. That happens. More importantly, I don't see how an RfC would help. CSCWEM should be blocked indefinitely to be forced into talking, as admins especially are required to do. An RfC would just take time and lead to no clear conclusion while the problem persists... It reminds me of a commercial I saw long ago where a group of bystanders form a committee to solve the problem of a man sinking into quicksand right next to them. Some problems need a quick (and obvious) solution. (I won't block him, because I have to go to bed and don't have the time to deal with the fallout right now.) Grandmasterka 11:57, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Let me ask a stupid question, then. CSCWEM does not edit talk pages, or any other kind of page for that matter - that's part of the problem. Would a block have any effect at all? I mean, technically, would a block prevent him from blocking other users and continuing just as he has been? UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 12:00, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

The heavy-handed blocks of accounts I have zero problem with. There is no reason to preserve an account with only vandal edits, and if the user wants to become productive they can create a new account (not the same situation for an account with some productive edits and some vandal edits, in which case they may wish to legitimately preserve their contrib history after apologizing for and ceasing the aberrant behavior).

The heavy-handed blocks of IPs are not as cool, especially with the misleading block summaries. If he knew for sure they were static IPs and said as much in the summary, that wouldn't be so disturbing. But, as others pointed out, this behavior has been tolerated in the past, and could be tolerable now.

The failure to communicate, on the other hand, is absolutely unacceptable for an admin. "Ignore the man behind the curtain" is not my understanding of how adminship functions here on Wikipedia. Admins have a responsibility to do more than just play around in their little corner and ignore everything else. I mean, could you imagine if there was an RfA today and the candidate said, "I want the mop so I can block people, but I don't intend to help out anywhere else, do any sort of conflict resolution, and I can't really be bothered to answer messages on my Talk page."? Would there be a single support !vote?!

I remember several months ago seeing CSCWEM's edits all the time when I was doing vandal patrol, and I very much respected his quick response time, tirelessness, and willingness to get tough on vandal-only accounts. He was a great help to the project. But if he has altogether ceased communication with other admins, we can't have that, regardless of his other contributions. Sadly, I think I see a bit of rouge on this clown.  ;( --Jaysweet (talk) 12:49, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Again, I don't see much difference between now and the last couple years except he doesn't respond at all any more. But he rarely responded back then in my experience. And someone would bring him up here and a few people would hollar but none of their records were spotless either and CSCWEM generally helps far more than hinders in his vandal-fighting efforts and the whole thing would disappear. I guess this is just a new guard now, eh? —Wknight94 (talk) 13:31, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

But that's the whole point, isn't it? He doesn't respond at all to, well, anything. And that's simply not acceptable, just as it wasn't acceptable a couple of years ago. So in that regard, nothing has changed. Additionally, I don't think there's any point in blocking him, as admins can continue to use their tools while being blocked. At least it was like that a year ago or so, so maybe that's changed by now. --Conti|✉ 13:44, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

Maybe. But I see a big difference between "slow responses" and "no responses".

Also, maybe there is a reason why the "new guard" values dialog so much more highly than the old guard. The fact is, Wikipedia is accumulating a very negative public image because of the legions of people who show up, violate some policy, get reverted/warned/blocked, and it is never adequately explained to them what they did wrong. I have a close friend, for instance, who is going for a Master's degree in political science, and I know she has vast knowledge of The Federalist Papers, for which many of the articles on Wikipedia are very short (and sometimes misleading) stubs. But I am having trouble enticing her to contribute, because of an earlier experience on Wikipedia where she got reverted multiple times and it was never adequately explained to her what the problem was. (In fairness, she was doing a hatchet job on an acquaintance in another article in WP:COATRACK fashion, but she made the common new editor mistake of thinking that because it was "true", it was okay to add)

Let's say CSCWEM blocks a vandal, and the vandal doesn't understand what they did wrong, so they ask. If nobody explains it, they'll tell all their friends, "Yeah, I tried to edit Wikipedia but some guy called "ScaryClown" or something banned me from the site after like two minutes! Those guys are jerks and won't let me in their club!"

I was stunned the other day when I complained to my wife (who has a handful of edits here, and is a frequent contributor to our city's Wiki) that some people view Wikipedia as a "cabal of nerds who won't let you in their club unless you memorize a bunch of arcane acronyms" and she said, "Oh yeah, it's totally like that." And this is someone who is PRO-Wikipedia!

We have no shortage of vandal fighters. What we need in admins these days are liaisons to the public, ambassadors for Wikipedia who can articulately explain what we are all about and help people to understand how this place works.

As valuable as CSCWEM's vandal-fighting work is, there are at least a dozen or two dozen people clamoring to take his place whom I am sure could do just as good a job. If we are really in a shortage of vandal-fighters with mops, then start allowing RfAs for people with weak mainspace contribs. Seriously, how many RfAs have you seen get turned down because "We are sure you would use the mop responsibly, and your vandal patrolling work is good, but you just haven't done enough work building an encyclopedia. Come back when you have a few thousand more edits and have created a few articles."? If losing CSCWEM's vandal-fighting prowess is really a priority, that shouldn't be reason to decline an RfA, should it?

I think those declined RfAs communicate the message loud and clear: Wikipedia has enough cops. What we need now are ambassadors and mediators. --Jaysweet (talk) 13:51, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Of course I can counter your argument by saying that today's Wikipedia has a whole new culture of subtle POV/fringe/agenda pushers and that more policing is necessary rather than less. But then you could counter with stories of overly-paranoid admins who blocked legitimate editors who left forever because of it, etc., etc. If someone can point out especially egregious blocks or diffs (preferably in an RFC or RFAR or the like), please do. Otherwise, I view CSCWEM as one extreme end of a spectrum which also has an extreme opposite end somewhere (probably partaking in this discussion). —Wknight94 (talk) 14:06, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

That's an entirely different type of policing, though. If CSCWEM is working to combat the subtle pov-warriors, then I retract everything I just said! Anyway, Ncmvocalist has a point (below), so I won't drop another couple kilobytes of essay here ;) --Jaysweet (talk) 14:16, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

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

This is an issue that the community is capable of handling. One of three things will happen - (1) he will return as an active user, respond to those who express concerns, and edit/use the admin tools normally; (2) he will never make a logged action again; or (3) he will continue this unusual pattern of blocking. In the first two cases, the problem is solved and there is nothing to be gained by arbitration. In the third case, there would be near unanimous consent for an indefinite block until such time as he agrees not to take those actions and if he violates that by unblocking himself (or, I've never tried it, but if you still have access to special:blockip while blocked and he uses it), there would be unanimous consent for an emergency desysop. Either way, I don't see anything to arbitrate - the problem will work itself out. --B (talk) 17:36, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

In re: Blocked admins blocking other users, admins can block and unblock themselves or others while blocked from editing, per my extensive research (i.e. I tried it.) So, unfortunately, a block in this circumstance would not be effective. Given that CSCWEM has ceased blocking/admin actioning, I would recommend we strongly urge him to discuss the blocks and concerns before acting again, and that we take a failure to do so as an indication that arbitration (the only procedural means by which a user may be desysopped) is warranted. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 17:46, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

• It is with regret that I am starting to believe that perhaps opening an ArbCom to have CSCWEM desysopped pending a reasonable explanation of their actions may be the only way to resolve this. A RfC without the participation of the subject party is a hollow process, and is then only a step toward ArbCom; so that delay may as well be dispensed with.

I am extremely reluctant to take this step, since CSCWEM was the type of admin who inspired me in requesting the sysop bit and further help the encyclopedia, and I remember the helpful and invigorating presence he had when he was a frequent contributor to the noticeboards. However, I will make the RfAR myself if required, as I will attempt as far as possible to request the removal of the flag to be non-prejudiced in that CSCWEM may have admin rights returned by application to the Committee with a reasonable explanation and an undertaking to be more communicative in future. If there is a consensus for such a request I shall then do it tomorrow. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:35, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't think desysopping is in order, but maybe a temporary ban from blocking would be a good idea - until they can prove they can block appropriately...... Dendodge .. Talk^Help 20:42, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Or maybe desysopping UNTIL we get an explanation, to prevent further such blocks...... Dendodge .. Talk^Help 20:48, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I think you have to open an RfArb to do that, i.e. I don't think there is any process by which someone can be even "temporarily desysopped" without an RfArb.

I reluctantly endorse an RfArb, unless somebody has a better idea about how to get CSCWEM's attention. The aggressive blocking is probably tolerable, but the refusal to communicate at all is not. (In my humble non-admin opinion, that is :) )--Jaysweet (talk) 20:53, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

• When an admin becomes this jaded it's a shame they don't have the self awareness to just ask to be desysopped for their own good and the good of the project. They could then take a nice long break without the temptation to log in and take admin actions that will likely prove controversial. RMHED (talk) 21:03, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I know we would have to open an ArbCom case, but I think one's in order (in fact, I endorse it more the more I think about it), I'll give it about an hour and, unless someone stops me, I'll open one...... Dendodge .. Talk^Help 21:07, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

There have been no blocks since May 28, and no contributions since April 1. What about we notify him of this thread (already happened, of course) and ask him not to do any more blocks until he is willing to discuss them? We don't need to desysop him for that, just ask politely. If he starts blocking again without any kind of discussion, then ArbCom might be the way to go, IMO. --Conti|✉ 21:16, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Sounds Ok to me, I'll just mention that on the user's talk page and then - we wait...... Dendodge .. Talk^Help 21:20, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I will have retired for the evening in an hours time, so I shall not be around to help as I would like. I intended to open a RfAR "tomorrow" (UK time) as it would allow any good arguments/suggestions to be made here in the meantime, as in this case it would be best if it was as uncontested a request as possible. However, if you wish to proceed I would only ask that you frame the request as an "unprejudiced desysop", pending clarification of the communities concerns. I feel the Committee and the community will better support the action if it is understood that CSCWEM may apply for re-instatement along with an reasonable explanation of both their actions and their lack of commucation. This would be my approach, anyhow. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:22, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

(reply to Dendodge) Communication is exactly the problem. It appears people have been waiting, and nothing happens. I agree (partly) with Ncmvocalist, it is time to act - but as considerately as possible. I am still intending to open a RfAR in 20+ hours if nobody has acted before, or has a better idea for resolving this. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:26, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

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

I agree. There's no urgency, since CSCWEM hasn't blocked anyone in about two weeks now. If the blocks and the non-communication resume, I'm all for an RfAR, tho. --Conti|✉ 21:41, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

If he's reading this I would urge CSCWEM to ask to be desysopped, no stigma should be attached to this, quite the opposite, such an action I'm sure would be applauded. Take a good few months off and when you're ready to resume communication with the community ask to be resysopped. RMHED (talk) 21:46, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Of course, ArbCom may totally agree with you and Wknight94 - but we won't know unless we ask. I would prefer to be turned down than to be reminded it is not good practice to lock the stable door afterwards... LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:52, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't think we should wait, but I was acting on (the) consensus (at the time). I'd be more than happy to have a RFAR ASAP...... Dendodge .. Talk^Help 21:55, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

RFC

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

As of right now, he has no logged actions in the last two weeks. So there is no evidence that the dispute has failed to be resolved. If he issues another block, then it becomes a problem, but as of right now, this RFC is uncertifiable and I would strongly suggest waiting until there is evidence that this dispute has not been resolved at this point. --B (talk) 12:03, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Those who are urging restraint are right - no blocks issued since June 11, there's a note on his talk page, leave it st that unless something changes. Neıl 龱 13:02, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I think the last block was late on 28 May, actually - so it's even less urgent. Agree with holding off a bit. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 13:07, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Zachary Jaydon

Clarification : primary problem is at The Mickey Mouse Club, not Zachary Jaydon itself.Kww (talk) 00:56, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm here to seek input about what steps are appropriate. User:TragedyStriker (whose signature reads "Skyler Morgan", so don't get confused by that) has a pretty single-minded contribution history: the inclusion of every detail of Zachary Jaydon's career in Wikipedia. He has been accused more than once of including details of Jaydon's career that are counter-factual, specifically the claim that Zachary Jaydon was a cast member on The Mickey Mouse Club, a claim he has been making for nearly a year. Editors of the article have consulted two works that claim to provide a complete list, The Wonderful World of Disney Television: A Complete History, by Bill Cotter. New York: Hyperion (1997) and Disney A to Z: The Updated Official Encyclopedia, Dave Smith, Hyperion, ISBN 0-7868-6391-9, and have found no Zachary Jaydon. Editors have scanned the credits of the YouTube copyright violations, and found no trace of Jaydon in the credits. The only sources that list Jaydon on the MMC are IMDB and another "edited by user contribution" site.
After a lull of several weeks, TragedyStriker included the following:

• [[Zachary Jaydon]] (Seasons 1-7)<ref>Stevens, K: "The ALL-NEW Mickey Mouse Club!", pages 33-36. The Disney Channel Magazine, April, 1989</ref><ref>Venable, B: "MMC Rocks The Planet", pages 16-17. The Disney Channel Magazine, June-July, 1992</ref><ref>Stanza, M: "MMC, The Album", pages 14-19. The Disney Channel Magazine, May, 1993</ref>

A nice set of paper references, but, unfortunately, nearly impossible to verify. I live on a Dutch-speaking island in South America, so our local library hasn't been eager to stock house magazines from American cable children's networks. I've put out requests for people to look it up via e-mails to editors on the article, postings on the reliable sources noticeboard, and the talk-page for the article. So far, no one has been able to physically obtain a copy of this information to validate it. Accordingly, User:Saratoga Sam,User:C.Fred, and myself have been reverting this information, until someone can physically validate this source or TragedyStriker can pony up some credible scans. TragedyStriker has been blocked once for 3RR for this, and socks seem to be involved as well (sadly enough, on both sides of the debate: this, this and this seem suspicious, but here we have an editor with one edit created two minutes before that one edit, and he is removing Zachary).
So, my real question ... what's appropriate behaviour in a situation like this? If Tragedy never comes up with the scans, and no one ever finds a copy of this magazine, can we just keep blocking the addition of the information? Or do others think that our supply of good faith should come in larger bottles?
Kww (talk) 22:12, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

There is a blog post out there that I won't link to with a lot of allegations about Mr. Jaydon which indicates that he also goes by the name of Skyler Morgan (you can find the blog posting if you Google Mr. Jaydon's name). I am not making any claims one way or the other, but the blog posting is worth reading if anyone wants to delve into this. Corvus cornix_talk 23:11, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

It's also worthing noting that there was already a consensus deletion of this article: [[92]]. Corvus cornix_talk 23:17, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

That was overridden in the second deletion review. Most people don't deny the existence of Zachary Jaydon, and his verifiable accomplishments can be seen as sufficient to warrant an article.Kww (talk) 23:28, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

We have a problem - I don't find a single mention of a "Zachary Jaydon" in any of the references provided ([93], [94], [95], [96], [97], [98], [99]. IMDB is not a reliable source, as it is created by submission (and this ref uses the IMDB list as its source, and still only lists Z Jaydon as an "uncredited extra"). The only references on the entire list of article references that actually mention Zachary Jaydon are his own MySpace site, and IMDB (which is unreferenced). And not even these mention his puprorted "writing of songs that have sold over 30 million copies worldwide". I have a very strong feeling we have being BS'd by a hoaxer/self-publicist/fraud, and a bunch of people at AFD have fallen for it. Nominated for AFD here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zachary Jaydon (3rd nomination) Neıl 龱 14:08, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm on the fence as to whether we are discussing existence fraud or resume inflation, but the listed birth name in the article is "Jaydon D. Paull", and the ASCAP source does validate work being done under that name.
Kww (talk) 16:16, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Interesting, this - of the three songs on that list that were "recorded" by notable artists, we'll pick one as an example. "Be There", as an example, is listed as being released by NSync. I can't find any song they ever released entitled "Be There". The reference given in the article for this has no mention of such a song. They did have a B-side on called "Are You Gonna Be There" on No Strings Attached ('N Sync album), but this Google search is telling: [100]. Neıl 龱 16:45, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Following a lot of hunting around by various people, it's looking like a blatant hoax, and the AFD is fast snowballing towards a delete. Neıl 龱 20:59, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Georgian article vandal

Resolved

A vandal with the IP 68.81.195.69 is daily vandalizing articles having to do with Georgia. He or she is changes mostly speaker counts or inhabitant numbers, sometimes only slightly, without giving a source. I've had quite an edit&revert war with him, as I thought after some time he'd stop anyway. He didn't. That person is getting very annoying, so I hope someone can block him now. Thanks! — N-true (talk) 23:14, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

He has not edited past your final warning (at 23:17 UTC on 10 June). Let us know if he does so. EdJohnston (talk) 23:22, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Indeed he did now, as expected. He vandalized again the Georgian language article and also messed up another article about a Brasilian football player or something like that. I reverted both. Enough to block him now? — N-true (talk) 23:57, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

OK, he is now blocked for one week, since he is deliberately introducing subtle errors to articles, and he won't respond on Talk. EdJohnston (talk) 01:56, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

The CAMERA lobbying effort may be on again. Maybe.

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

• 70.181.148.148 (talk · contribs) a/k/a Wikifan12345 (talk · contribs) - started AfD #8 on Allegations of Israeli Apartheid. (This matter is covered in an incident above.)
• 24.62.5.76 (talk · contribs) - editing CAMERA to add Gabriel Ini's (CAMERA staffer and banned user Gni (talk · contribs)) comments to the press on the CAMERA/Wikipedia controversy.[101]
• 128.252.174.116 (talk · contribs) - edited If Americans Knew to insert very negative statements about organization's board members. (Many edits; see contribs.) Article now semi-protected and worst items reverted per WP:BLP.

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

I don't know if this has anything to do with CAMERA in particular, but there has been a definite uptick in IPs and new / single-purpose account activity promoting a "pro-Israel" agenda on a relatively small subset of pages, esp. Muhammad al-Durrah, of late. Probably bears a little scrutiny. <eleland/talkedits> 07:09, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

The histrionics created by the raising of the complete non-issue of the CAMERA affair has given wikipedia's alleged anti-Israel bias plenty of media coverage, which of course is going to bring more editors in to edit the way they see fit. The parties focusing on the CAMERA incident were of course subsequently going to assume conspiracies if anyone ever subsequently came near these articles for ever more. This predictable end result of taking this road with CAMERA was pointed out time and again when the issue blew up, by several level headed and impartial people, but sadly ignored. Well, you reap what you sow to be honest. Wikipedia it seems really is a battleground now. MickMacNee (talk) 13:24, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

It's not that bad. Once an editor registers, there's someone to talk to and talk about, the editor starts to develop a reputation, good or bad, and the usual Wikipedia processes can deal with problems as they arise. Contentious editing from anons is a headache, but can be dealt with via semi-protection, since this particular problem is confined to a small number of well-known articles. Watching for unusual anon behavior in this area is appropriate right now; that's all. --John Nagle (talk) 16:23, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with some of the other articles in the dispute, but as I'm an uninvolved admin, I've decided to take on the supervision of the Muhammad al-Durrah article. Page protection has been lifted, and I have set Talk:Muhammad al-Durrah#Conditions for editing on the talkpage. I'm having to nudge a few folks (including some "involved editor" admins) to abide by the conditions, but so far the conditions seem to be working. --Elonka 13:45, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

User:The SRS

Various issues have been coming up revolving this user:

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

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

I have an opinion on the matter, but I'd rather not express it. I will submit to whatever decision is reached here without objection. Cheers, The Hybrid 11:01, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

The editor is 14 (and a half and a bit) years old and appears to act it. The contributions to the mainspace are generally in areas where there is a surplus of good editors (I presume, because WWF and its ilk mean little to me - and the little I know does not encourage me to learn more) and the rest is pretty much social networking and teenage moping. Perhaps this is an instance where the encyclopedia might take itself away from this person? LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:56, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I think he should have his powers taken away if he called all of us a-holes. Altenhofen (talk) 23:06, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm... we should at least delete his user page, that could calm his "MySpace" tendencies a bit. - Caribbean~H.Q. 23:13, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

He'll prolly go nutz if you do that. Best off trying to get him to rationalize it a bit first, as we did with User:Hornetman16, back in the day. Has anyone tried this yet? - Alison ^❤ 23:16, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't know, to me going arround throwing tirades with sockpuppets of blocked users seems bad enough. - Caribbean~H.Q. 23:20, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

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

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

Also see this. He's clearly in contact with another blocked sock. I suggest getting the mop out... D.M.N. (talk) 14:41, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Admin in breach of 3RR and abusing admin privileges

Resolved

 – Edokter admitted he probably shouldn't have protected the page, but no harm was done and there is really nothing else to see here

USer:Edokter is in the process of edit warring over the images Image:TARDIS-trans.png and Image:TARDIS.jpg he has now breached the WP:3RR, and used his admin powers to protect his prefered version of the page. I would appreciate if someone would look into the appropriateness of his behaviour Fasach Nua (talk) 13:45, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Complainant seems not to understand the issue of tagging on Commons; perhaps someone should explain it more clearly. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 13:49, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Oh look—you're both edit warring. Perhaps you should give us a bit more context to work with here, including an explanation of why you (Fasach Nua) shouldn't also be blocked for edit warring. (3RR is an electric fence, not an entitlement, blah blah blah.) For some reason I get the sense that this is a small part of a larger dispute; I do hope that no one is trying to game the system here. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:53, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh. It turns out that you've explicitly admitted to trying to game the system: [102]. Gloating about reaching 3RR – "...You have reached you three reversions in the 24 hours, so I will expect the image to be left as is!" – isn't cool. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:00, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Edokter looks to be in the right here, but probably still shouldn't have used his admin tools like this, and neither user has particularly covered themselves in glory. I have unprotected the articles given that this conversation should probably prevent any more edit-warring. Black Kite 13:59, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

No, I shouldn't have protected the local pages. On the other hand, I did tag the images on Commons as Fasach has been told to do numorous times, so he should be happy. — Edokter • Talk • 14:03, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

You cruel, abusive, inhumane bastard! Not only did you make the edit that Fasach was trying to make, you went and made it in the correct place, and you did it twelve minutes before he filed the complaint about you. Apparently, the most serious defect in your conduct was that you protected the image page here in an – apparently futile – attempt to keep Fasach from continuing to shoot himself in the foot. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:24, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

You sir, are out of order. I am not, I repeat, not inhumane! — Edokter • Talk • 15:36, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Since Edokter has implicitly admitted to being a cruel, abusive (but not inhumane!) bastard, I am being bold and marking this as resolved ;) --Jaysweet (talk) 17:35, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Question on SUL & blocked users

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

Your home wiki is the wiki on which you have the most edits. If your home wiki account is blocked (not banned - banned is not a technical term, rather a "legal" one, such as it is), then you cannot use SUL. I don't know if creating an account of the same name and with the same password on another Wiki and overtaking the edit count of the original account on en.Wikipedia would then change the home wiki and allow you to then use SUL (or is that WP:BEANS?). Neıl 龱 14:27, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

To be more clear, you can't unify your accounts using SUL if your home wiki account is blocked. You can still edit on other wikis using your unified account if your home account is blocked following unification. Avruch^T * ^ER 14:28, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Not that we're encouraging anyone to try it out. ffm 16:10, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Fawn_Lake

Resolved

 – Blocked indef by R. Baley

Adminstrative attention would be helpful. PouponOnToast (talk) 14:43, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I couldn't agree more. Wiki-stalking another editor's edits is unhelpful. - Fawn Lake (talk) 14:45, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Poupon, what specific concern do you have? My assumption is that you removed those two items because they lacked sources, but - as I don't see a message to Fawn Lake explaining that - Could you confirm? UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 14:52, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Fawn Lake is MyWikiBiz. Comcast + wikipedia internals + poker. PouponOnToast (talk) 14:54, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Poupon, you have some proof? Is this meant as a joke? You reverted his edits without an edit summary explaining why. Bstone (talk) 15:00, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I stand behind my statement. A cursory review of the users editing history by individuals familiar with the MO would be more than enough. Edits by banned users are revertable on sight. PouponOnToast (talk) 15:04, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

This is either Kohs, or someone trying to impersonate him, look at the first edit to his user page. Clearly warrants following his edits around and reverting at whim. R. Baley (talk) 15:43, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Update, I've indef'd the account, so unless new info come to light. . . R. Baley (talk) 15:45, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Allegations of Israeli apartheid

Strongbrow (talk · contribs) moved this article to Israeli and the apartheid analogy which is a controversial page move particularly since the original article is under AfD and a page move is being discussed as a possible option but the option does not yet have consensus. The move was made entirely without discussion and should have been a requested page move rather than made by her/his self. --Ave Caesar (talk) 16:36, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Note: Strongbrow (talk · contribs), not Strongbow made the move. --Onorem♠Dil 16:39, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I was reading over the discussion and it looked like there was general agreement that the old title sucked and I thought this new title was more neutral. I'm still new at this so I'm sorry if I acted incorrectly but let's see what people think of the new title. I'm not going to edit war over it but I really do think it'll be acceptable to both sides. Strongbrow (talk) 16:41, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

As I just posted on the article talk page, renaming just for the sake of renaming was a poor choice to make in this case. Discussion about what to move it to, if anywhere at all, should precede a rename. Not the other way around. Tarc (talk) 16:45, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Right, I would suggest that you take controversial page moves to WP:RM next time. --Ave Caesar (talk) 16:49, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I'm sorry for getting it wrong - just trying to help. I tried to move it back and can't - hopefully there will be a consensus to keep the change. Strongbrow (talk) 16:50, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Placed a CSD G6 tag on the Allegations of Israeli apartheid article --Ave Caesar (talk) 17:00, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Would someone please move it back without messing up the edit history? There's enough move history on this article (it started as Israeli apartheid years ago) that cleaning this up is hard. Thanks. --John Nagle (talk) 17:28, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

OK, somebody did that. Thanks. --John Nagle (talk) 17:36, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Oops, looks like the article page was moved back but the talk page wasn't. Now the article and talk are out of sync, and there's a double redirect on the talk page. --John Nagle (talk) 18:00, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

ok, I moved the talk page back. Please post if I screwed up somehow. -- SCZenz (talk) 18:12, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

3RR and removing AfD tags

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

I don't think WP:3RR is used in the re-adding of WP:AFD notices. Not for sure though. <3 Tinkleheimer TALK!! 17:15, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not that sure either, but didn't want to risk. Anyway I'm getting tired of doing it. Samuel Sol (talk) 17:20, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

They will come under 3RR as soon as they are warned. You will not be blocked for reverting the removal of the tags, but they will be for removing them. -MBK₀₀₄ 17:23, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

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

I've deleted Chiacig_crime_family as a purely unsourced, negative biography of living persons. I invite a review of the deletion, as I both added a comment to the AfD and blocked the article's author. It is a BLP violation, though, up to and including accusing a living person of murder. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 18:42, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. 100% unsourced, negative material about living people. Clear WP:CSD#G10 material. GRBerry 13:25, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Steven Greer's page

Resolved

The admins have just closed an AFD(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Steven_M._Greer) as keep on his(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_M._Greer) Wikipedia page. Ignoring this decision 129.138.90.90 (talk)- who is a known vandal - deleted and redirected the page. Would you please undo this edit and restore the original version after the afd? Thanks in advance. I-netfreedOm (talk) 18:12, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Done. There was no consensus for a redirect on either the talk page of the article or the AfD discussion. BradV 18:16, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Moved further discussion to editor's talk page --Jaysweet (talk) 19:12, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Disruptive Editor following my contributions

Resolved

 – Johnb316 is not wikistalking and has not been disruptive

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

All I can find is a content dispute on [Prestonwood Baptist Church]] which continued when both editors made one post each to WP:EAR. I see no pattern of wikistalking. Can you provide diffs please? --Selket ^Talk 19:11, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I was about to say the same thing. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v E pluribus unum)} 19:12, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

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

Note - I have changed the title of this section; stalking is a serious situation that involves threats of physical and psychological intimidation that has the potential to be actuated in real life (e.g. calls to employers or threats that include addresses). Following someone's contributions on Wikipedia does not fall into that category. Please don't use the term "stalking" when you mean someone is tracking your edits. I concur with Selket's and Jeske's read. Risker (talk) 19:22, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, "Wikistalking" is sort of an accepted term, for better or worse...

In any case, I have been in correspondence with both editors prior to the ANI being filed, and this report is meritless. Romans9:11 and Johnb316 happen to share an intense interest in the same megachurch and its pastor. There are theological disagreements regarding certain things the pastor has said, and the megachurch just recently got hit with a scandal when one of its ministers got arrested. Nobody is following anybody around, as both of them have made clear their interest in the relevant articles long before they came into conflict with each other.

Both editors should take care not to engage in edit-warring, of course. Beyond that, this is a content dispute, nothing more. --Jaysweet (talk) 19:30, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll just point out that a longtime contributor was recently blocked in part for suggesting that another editor was "stalking" his edits. Let's stop using this term. Risker (talk) 19:48, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Jaysweet, come on! Johnb316 followed me to sysop Toddst's talk page, then to the Editor Assistance page and then, good grief, I knew he would...followed me here! Romans9:11 (talk) 19:40, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Romans, the idea that Johnb316 "followed" you to the Administrators' noticeboard is frankly somewhat absurd. If you read the instructions at the top of this page for posting an incident report, you are supposed to notify the involved parties when you do so. You failed to do that, but Johnb316 noticed his name being mentioned anyway and decided to <gasp> defend himself. I see no problem with that whatsoever. He has every right to answer your allegations.

Similarly, on Toddst1's talk page, Johnb316 had a vested interest in that conversation as well, since it involved a content dispute over a page on which the two of you were recently edit warring.

Please do not make spurious ANI reports. --Jaysweet (talk) 19:54, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, I didn't know I was supposed to notify parties involved - my bad, and thanks for letting me know. But, either johnb316 is the luckiest man on earth and just happened to notice my comments in all 3 areas, or he's wikistalking me. I'll assume for the sake of peace at this point that he's the luckiest man on earth and hope he stops. Johnb316 if you continue to be really lucky, I'll come back here with evidence. Romans9:11 (talk) 21:34, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Surely Johnb316 looked at your contribution list, and noticed these reports, and that's why he is here. That is not Wikistalking -- particularly since you've been forum shopping your false allegations against him. If somebody were running around criticizing me, I'd check their contribution list too! In fact, just as a matter of course in understanding this dispute, I have looked at both you contribution list and Johnb316's several times today. That is not Wikistalking.

Romans, my patience with you is exhausted at this point. Please do not make any other spurious allegations against Johnb316, or you will be blocked without further notice, as per Toddst1's notice on your talk page. Thank you. --Jaysweet (talk) 21:37, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Jaysweet I must have offended you somehow, because, it appears that you are making personal allegations against me. I have in NO WAY been "forum shopping" and am insulted by your accusation of such. I've been trying to do the RIGHT thing and stop, what I see to be, a disruptive editor who's making it very difficult for me and others to make a contribution to Wiki. If you and Toddst don't see it that way, well o.k., perhaps I need to have better documentation next time I make a complaint. And, next time I guess I'll try and be the first one to make a complaint on the board - in my experience the first one to complain usually gets the benefit of the doubt. Again, I'm sorry if I've offended you and as I said in my last post here, I'll give Johnb316 the benefit of the doubt and not make any allegations against him without more evidence.Romans9:11 (talk) 12:19, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

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

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

Oversight needed

Resolved

This (link redacted) edit seems to contain a person's real name, location and phone number. Somehow this has slipped by for almost 2 years. Request this edit be oversighted. Angrymansr (talk) 20:34, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Good catch! I have sent the link in question to the e-mail address specified at Requests for Oversight, and I redacted the link above.

In the future, for links that need oversight, it is better to send them directly to WP:RFO rather than post here, because posting the diff here has the unfortunate effect of increasing the visibility of the edit in question :)

Why do I know this? Because I made the same damn mistake a couple weeks ago :D Thanks again for the good catch! --Jaysweet (talk) 20:39, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I've deleted the talk page as it was the single edit on the page (other than your blanking) and not constructive to encyclopedia building. Not sure if oversight is necessary in this case, but we've already emailed for it, so... (Was it?) xenocidic (talk) 20:40, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, they got back to me in under 3 minutes -- and I know my company's e-mail is laggy, so it was probably even less than that. That's service!

Marking as resolved. Thanks againg Angrymansr! --Jaysweet (talk) 20:42, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick action and the advice on where to send oversight requests. Angrymansr (talk) 21:00, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Radiolbx

As another user has previously removed my personal attack warning on his talkpage, can someone please chat with User:Radiolbx regarding comments such as these [103] & [104]. Thanks JPG-GR (talk) 20:54, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Radiolbx is within their right to remove the warnings off their talk page Interesting to see that another editor removed the warnings butI don't know if they can remove warnings on another editor's talkpage but still Radiolbx has no right to attack you for what ever reason. Bidgee (talk) 20:57, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm fully aware of his right to remove the warnings on their talk page... but they weren't the one to do so. I would appreciate some admin intervention as I worry that any future warnings I may post will just be once again removed by the other user (User:Milonica).

The issue here was that they were being removed by a different editor. I've left notes for both of them, and suggested that if they feel it's important to pursue this issue, they take it to dispute resolution. I'll take a longer look when I have the opportunity. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:06, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks. JPG-GR (talk) 21:08, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm with you comment by Milonica (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) could be assuming bad faith to JPG-GR (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) to say that they have them on a hitlist and also threatening to report if they (JPG-GR) post another personal attack warning. Bidgee (talk) 21:15, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I am not assuming bad faith with JPG-GR. I didn't know that the comment in question existed above. When I said I'm with you, I was referring to another issue, which has nothing to do with this one. I apologize for removing the warning, I sincerely thought it was for another issue, which is between JPG-GR and I, not radio. Milonica (talk) 22:17, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Image placeholders

Just FYI, I wanted to mention that based on this discussion some users have been deleting placeholder images eventhough there was no consensus. I have already noticed 2 and I am sure there are plenty more.--Kumioko (talk) 21:24, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Is it the school holidays?

There has been some disruptive, childish, and possibly libellous editing by a group of users who would appear to be either friends at the same school or sockpuppets to articles such as Horsforth School, St Margarets Primary School, Limbo (dance). The users are primarily: Canpop (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Hardguy999 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), McSaucePaste (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Coolguy911 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), and Farsleyceltic (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). The users leedsunited325 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and farsleyceltic (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) also appear to be associated but have vandalised less. Could someone keep an eye on these and revert/block as appropriate? Thanks, DWaterson (talk) 22:12, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Ahhh, summertime. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 22:26, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Dreamer.se

This user has persistently engaged in fair use violations together with the good image uploads. His response has been to blank his talk page. Importantly, I gave this user a last warning at his sockpuppet username (User talk:12345blake, though the diff is obnoxiously deleted, and which username was blocked indefinitely for vandalism). I ask and beg to community to enforce the standards of policy, which he has flouted ever since creating an account. The Evil Spartan (talk) 22:32, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Please block User talk:142.192.200.200 for page blanking

Resolved

 – user blocked Toddst1 (talk) 23:41, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Dear admins, I kindly request the long-term block of IP 142.192.200.200. This IP is registered to NCO Group, a US collection agency. The IP has been blanking large parts of the article. 3 years of warnings have done nothing to curtail this vandalism/page blanking. Thus, I turn to the administrators for further assistance. Bstone (talk) 23:36, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the speedy action, Toddst1!!!! Bstone (talk) 23:48, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

"The Network" vandalism

Has anyone else come across this rubbish? Vandalism from

12.16.153.2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

65.42.208.135 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

65.91.32.56 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

65.117.70.226 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

146.145.79.140 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

198.202.202.169 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

216.9.250.42 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

216.9.250.107 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

and possibly others,[105] all with edit summaries crapping on about how "The Network knows all", "The Network is watching you", etc. One such edit seems to be claiming that this is coordinated vandalism by Tau Kappa Epsilon,[106] but I'm inclined to believe it is just one wanker working through open proxies. Does anyone want to do a proxy check? Hesperian 00:13, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

In my time here that is not something that has ever popped up. I think it should be added to the watch out list. By the way. I love the comment here. Best laugh I got all day. Rgoodermote  00:46, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Seems to be the same mob at Talk:The Brady Bunch#Jeopardy! trivia. Hesperian 01:15, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

See this archived item from WP:ANI for more info, and this abuse report that was rejected after what was probably only a cursory look. &#151;Whoville (talk) 01:28, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Probably time to re-do that abuse report then. Thanks for those by the way. Rgoodermote  02:05, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

User:RestoreTheEmpireSociety - Swastika and Racist attacks

Resolved

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

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

Extended content

“ 卍卍卍卍卍卍卍卍卍卍卍卍卍卍卍卍卍10,000 YEARS TO CHINESE EMPIRE卍卍卍卍卍卍卍卍卍卍卍卍卍卍卍卍卍卍卍卍卍卍卍卍卍卍卍卍卍卍卍卍萬歲 中華帝國卍卍卍卍卍卍卍卍卍卍卍卍卍卍卍卍卍卍卍卍卍卍卍卍卍卍卍 卍卍卍卍卍卍卍卍卍卍卍卍卍卍卍卍卍10,000 YEARS TO THE EMPEROR卍卍卍卍卍卍卍卍卍卍卍卍卍卍卍卍卍卍卍卍卍卍卍卍卍卍卍卍卍卍卍卍卍卍卍萬歲 皇帝卍卍卍卍卍卍卍卍卍卍卍卍卍卍卍卍卍卍卍卍卍卍卍卍卍卍卍卍卍卍 If you lie once than everthing you say is a lie and i will revert all your edits. Bomb Bomb Bomb Bomb Japan Shogun Tokugawa Ieyasu- proof that Japanese look like fat ugly toads. RESTORE the Chinese Empire and put an emperor on the throne. This user is against Korean stealing of chinese territory in Manchuria and knows that the current border between north korea and china is actually BEHIND the limits of ancient chinese territory! id2 ALot of Korean claim manchuria and liadong peninsula is their lost territory LOL, just because Goguryo ruled it. Well i have news for them..... BEFORE GOGURYO EVEN EXISTED, HAN DYNASTY CHINA HAD COMMANDARIES STRETCHING ALL THE INTO THE KOREAN PENINSULA BEYOND CHINAS MODERN BORDERS, THEREFORE YOUR EXCUSE THAT MANCHURIA AND LIADONG IS KOREA TERRITORY IS USELESS BECAUSE WE CAN NOT ONLY REFUTE THAT, WE CAN CLAIM NORTH KOREA AS OUR TERRITORY...... ”

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

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

Notable examples

• japanese have small brains at User_talk:No_2_Hinoh, at User talk:Fourteenth hinomaru
• User_talk:Ishikawa_Minoru#your_comments_on_shanghai_talk_page... japanese people are a very primitive people, all japanese writing systems are derived from chinese or the roman alphabet....(the user Ishikawa_Minoru seems to have a serious problem too..)
• the article on the dumb german- russian

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

Looking at the user's edits, I came to the same conclusion. User page nuked out of the water, user blocked.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 01:59, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

The ironic thing is, before the Germans ruined it for everyone, the swastika was considered a 'good luck sign'. HalfShadow 03:05, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Makes sense, when you think about it. Anybody wearing one would need good luck to not get jumped.--Koji†Dude ^(C) 03:12, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

BTW, though I agree that the other content on the user page is at best inflamatory and at worst racist, you guys have misinterpreted his use of the swastika. From the Swastika page: These two symbols [卍 and 卐] are included, at least since the Liao Dynasty, as part of the Chinese language, the symbolic sign for the character 萬 or 万 (wàn in Chinese, man in Korean/Japanese, vạn in Vietnamese) meaning "all" or "eternality" (lit. myriad) and as 卐, which is seldom used. When he wrote "...卍卍萬歲 中華帝國", he's saying "long live the Chinese empire." Refer to the ten thousand years article also for more context. —Umofomia (talk) 09:07, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

As a note: Nazi swastikas turn rightward, while all of the ones used by this editor turn leftward. Durova^Charge! 16:12, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

May have been the only one to be had in the UTF-8 character set. This reversed version can still be seen in a non-political context in Japan, on maps, to mark Buddhist temples. Also, as I recall, the symbol was used by at least one tribe in the southwestern desert of pre-Columbian North America. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:21, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

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

User:Thamarih is back …

… this time with threats on top of personal attacks. He's taken repeated escalating blocks. MARussellPESE (talk) 03:42, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I've given them a final warning as well--one more legal threat or personal attack and they're blocked. Given the look of their talk page, it may be pushing WP:AGF a little to think that it might stick this time, but seeing as how they've made it a couple of weeks without being blocked already I support giving them a chance to demonstrate that this was simply a slip-up by someone who's trying to do better. --jonny-mt 03:51, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

More Sportsbook.com headaches

Resolved

1. (Deletion log); 02:01 . . Persian Poet Gal (Talk | contribs) deleted "Talk:Sportsbook.c0m" (content was: '#REDIRECT Talk:Sportsbook.com' and the only contributor was Persian Poet Gal)
2. (diff) (hist) . . Talk:Sportsbook.com‎; 02:01 . . (+15,904) . . Persian Poet Gal (Talk | contribs) (and bingo)
3. (Move log); 02:01 . . Persian Poet Gal (Talk | contribs) moved Talk:Sportsbook.c0m to Talk:Sportsbook.com (fix)
4. (Deletion log); 02:01 . . Persian Poet Gal (Talk | contribs) deleted "Talk:Sportsbook.com" (content was: '3154164756188460809363030286645451701265196562623238703163237107951353874490069346209438629475170296 6362361422994450686916698686600279039593446893432936551204206347823658766440668754025307664209877402 09696099459832925057839282835708425...')
5. (Deletion log); 02:00 . . Persian Poet Gal (Talk | contribs) restored "Talk:Sportsbook.c0m" (45 revisions restored: real talk page)
6. (Deletion log); 02:00 . . Persian Poet Gal (Talk | contribs) deleted "Sportsbook.c0m" (content was: '#REDIRECT Sportsbook.com' and the only contributor was Persian Poet Gal)
7. (diff) (hist) . . m Sportsbook.com‎; 02:00 . . (+2,363) . . Persian Poet Gal (Talk | contribs) (and bingo)
8. (Move log); 01:59 . . Persian Poet Gal (Talk | contribs) moved Sportsbook.c0m to Sportsbook.com (fix)
9. (Deletion log); 01:59 . . Persian Poet Gal (Talk | contribs) deleted "Sportsbook.com" (restored wrong page)
10. (Deletion log); 01:59 . . Persian Poet Gal (Talk | contribs) restored "Sportsbook.c0m" (168 revisions restored: actual page)
11. (Deletion log); 01:56 . . Persian Poet Gal (Talk | contribs) deleted "Talk:Sportsbook.c0m" (CSD G8 - talk page of a deleted page)
12. (Deletion log); 01:56 . . Persian Poet Gal (Talk | contribs) deleted "Sportsbook.c0m" (content was: '#redirect Sportsbook.com')
13. (Deletion log); 01:55 . . Persian Poet Gal (Talk | contribs) deleted "Talk:Sp0rtsb00k.c0m" (content was: '#REDIRECT Talk:Sportsbook.com' and the only contributor was 2005)
14. (Deletion log); 01:55 . . Persian Poet Gal (Talk | contribs) deleted "DRAGNET.TV" (content was: '#REDIRECT Sportsbook.com' and the only contributor was Persian Poet Gal)
15. (Deletion log); 01:55 . . Persian Poet Gal (Talk | contribs) deleted "Talk:STEVE JOBS" (content was: '#REDIRECT Talk:Sportsbook.com' and the only contributor was Persian Poet Gal)
16. (Deletion log); 01:55 . . Persian Poet Gal (Talk | contribs) deleted "Sp0rtsb00k.c0m" (content was: '#REDIRECT Sportsbook.com')
17. (Move log); 01:55 . . Persian Poet Gal (Talk | contribs) moved DRAGNET.TV to Sportsbook.com (revert)
18. (Deletion log); 01:55 . . Persian Poet Gal (Talk | contribs) deleted "Sportsbook.com" (content before blanking was: '#REDIRECT DRAGNET.TV')
19. (Move log); 01:54 . . Persian Poet Gal (Talk | contribs) moved Talk:STEVE JOBS to Talk:Sportsbook.com over redirect (revert)
20. (Move log); 01:53 . . Fadeintoyou (Talk | contribs) moved Talk:Sportsbook.com to Talk:STEVE JOBS
21. (Move log); 01:50 . . Fadeintoyou (Talk | contribs) moved Sportsbook.com to DRAGNET.TV
22. (Move log); 01:40 . . 2005 (Talk | contribs) moved Sp0rtsb00k.c0m to Sportsbook.com over redirect
23. (Move log); 01:40 . . 2005 (Talk | contribs) moved Talk:Sp0rtsb00k.c0m to Talk:Sportsbook.com over redirect
24. (Move log); 01:39 . . 2005 (Talk | contribs) moved Talk:Sp0rtsb00k.c0m to Talk:Sportsbook.c0m
25. (Move log); 01:39 . . 2005 (Talk | contribs) moved Sp0rtsb00k.c0m to Sportsbook.c0m

Suggest that large cluestick be applied to 2005 (talk · contribs) and Fadeintoyou (talk · contribs) for general disruption. Persian Poet Gal (talk · contribs), who cleaned up the mess, should be encouraged to apply for adminship. And we really need a semi-automated tool for cleaning up bogus moves. --John Nagle (talk) 04:01, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, guess what, PPG is an admin, or else she wouldn't be able to delete the pages seen in that log you just posted. -MBK₀₀₄ 04:12, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Nothing is wrong with any of the above, except Fade's obvious vandalism, for which he/she was warned. 2005's moves were valid. PPG is an admin, as was pointed out. Do your homework. Tan | 39 04:16, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Then what was "(Move log); 01:40 . . 2005 (Talk | contribs) moved Sp0rtsb00k.c0m to Sportsbook.com over redirect" supposed to be for? Was 2005 (talk · contribs) breaking something or fixing something? When doing weird moves, edit comments would be helpful. --John Nagle (talk) 04:54, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

OK, looked back further, found the vandalism by Fadeintoyou (talk · contribs) that 2005 (talk · contribs) was fixing. Thanks to everyone who cleaned up the mess. --John Nagle (talk) 04:59, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Solomon Trujillo - legal issues, and media coverage

There's some media coverage of this story at the moment, and I think that that link, and this one should be posted to the article talk page to give further info to any passing editors. Foundation legal counsel clearly seem to be informed. I am unable to do so currently, and it's good to get second through tenth opinions regardless... cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 04:44, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

A sensible decision. I'd suggest pre-empting the normal 'new at bottom' sectioning and put it at the top, for new editors to find, with a heading making it clear that this is pertinent BLP relevant information and 'mandatory' reading for all editors. Link the BLP policies there as well, and make a 'pelase do not archive note as well. ThuranX (talk) 04:54, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Legal threats on my Wiki? No way. -- Ned Scott 04:55, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

But we're not addressing the Legal Threats, we're discussing how best to make sure that editors act in an especially responsible manner while the foundation sorts things out. We don't need to leave new editors blind to the situation. It might also be worth it to use a hidden comment at the top of each section directing new editors to read that section before editing. ThuranX (talk) 04:58, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

That's what office actions are for. -- Ned Scott 05:04, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

So you oppose PM's idea because you'd rather wait for someone else to handle it? ThuranX (talk) 05:06, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I oppose the idea because of WP:NLT. If the Foundation actually needs to take some sort of temporary measure while it sorts this issue out, then they'll do that. We don't need to second guess them. -- Ned Scott 05:09, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Apathy then. I'm going to say it. You're wrong. There's NO reason to not notify editors that there is an ongoing concern about the article, and care should be taken when editing it. No one's suggested making a Legal Threat there, nor is the fact that a legal action has been filed the same as a threat. these people followed through. Taking those facts, not threats, to the editors and saying "hey, look at this before editing, and be sure that anything you want to do can be supported, because we don't need more trouble" isn't making a legal threat, it's protecting the project and warning them that things are going on. ThuranX (talk) 05:13, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not wrong at all. PM's suggestion was to put links to the legal threats on the talk page, plain and simple. It creates intimidation and a chilling effect. My suggestion, on the other hand, is to handle this as a sensitive BLP issue. Huh. -- Ned Scott 05:17, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

For those of you playing along at home: March 7 letter, see also. Daniel (talk) 04:56, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

This man is threating to sue the project if an anon user isn't blocked? does he know that IP addresses change constantly? has the foundation expressed anything about it? - Caribbean~H.Q. 05:00, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Nogt the topic of this section, and not for us to comment on. Let his lawyer and the foundation has hit out. Let's focus on PM's suggestion that we make it readily available on the article talk that a BLP situation exists and caution is needed on that page.ThuranX (talk) 05:05, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

We shouldn't pay the legal threats any mind. Increase protection of the article, maybe. Put a bigger notice about BLP, maybe. But the legal threat itself shouldn't be there. -- Ned Scott 05:07, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

So, though if PM does it now, we can try to avoid stacking up the troubles with new problem edits, you instead prefer we ignore it and wait around until the office deals with it, and if in the intervening time, moer bad edits are made, then that's not our problem, because we're not the office? Doesn't this go against all the recent discussions about the community being responsible? ThuranX (talk) 05:10, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Funny, that's not what I wrote at all. -- Ned Scott 05:12, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Sure it is. You said, do nothing and ignore it because others will do it. ThuranX (talk) 05:14, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Still, this can set a very negative precedent, completely ignoring it doesn't seem prudent. - Caribbean~H.Q. 05:15, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

To Thuran: Bullshit. " Increase protection of the article, maybe. Put a bigger notice about BLP, maybe. ". I never said we should do nothing, I just said that linking to the legal issues wasn't a good idea. -- Ned Scott 05:18, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

There has been no issues since the initial one from my research, and to be honest I don't expect there to be. The protection was due to expire, and due to concerns, it was extended to indefinite. Since the initial problem was solved by oversight/deletion and semi-protection, there hasn't been any further problems with the article, and I can't see why there would be any more in the future (this page has been watchlisted by many who were aware of the concerns, myself included). I really don't see why any editorial action needs to be taken. If someone wants to leave a brief note with relevant links urging caution in editing on the talk page, they are free to, as they would any other edit. Daniel (talk) 05:13, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

In other words, this is old news and not really an issue? -- Ned Scott 05:20, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

only 'cos it's in the papers at the mo, Ned.... if I knew how to mark this 'resolved' I would... anyone? cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 05:27, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I wasn't sure if there was more to it or not. I find it odd they would make a news story about something from March that had no new activity, and they didn't wait for comments from either party. I figured there was something else? It's still good that you left us this notice, though, even if I didn't like the suggestion of putting the link to http://www.chillingeffects.org/defamation/notice.cgi?NoticeID=18099 on the talk page. I guess we could use that "in the news" template, where ever it is. It would give it a different spin, making the issue not as intimidating, but still saying "btw, this happened". Maybe I'm just thinking too hard.. -- Ned Scott 05:44, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Lets just keep it from happening again and let Mike et al. continue to deal with this (there is a chance that this is still an active issue, a chance which we shouldn't rule out). Our job is to watchlist the article, revert and/or delete/oversight anything nasty, and maintain it to a standard which is acceptable within both the letter and spirit of our policies on living people. Let's let Mike do his job, if he still has any involvement with this, otherwise. Daniel (talk) 05:41, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

IP making disruptive, harassing comments

Resolved

 – IP blocked 31 hours for edit warring --Selket ^Talk 05:59, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

see Special:Contributions/74.4.179.205. Perhaps a short block? Part of a larger mess over the Saab Lofton article which I don't quite have time to try to sort out right now. The subject of the article is quite upset. -- phoebe / (talk to me) 05:37, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Also, sproted the article. Too much unsourced negative BLP from anon-users. --Selket ^Talk 06:06, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Just a night on the job

I'm drive-by blocking some disruptive users without talk page notices. Just for the record. Keegan^talk 06:22, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Main page FA protected

I put a one hour semiprotection on Durian, as there is obviously a collaboration offwiki to disrupt the article, and the IPs are from all around the globe. Keegan^talk 06:43, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Once it comes off FA, I'm deleting the vandalism. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v E pluribus unum)} 06:58, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I have semi'd it again for an hour due to the same thing. Black Kite 09:05, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Quick note, when protecting a main page FA becomes necessary, it is important to not set an expiry time of an hour or so. When the semiprotection expires, so does the move protection. It's best to manually remove the semiprotection (while keeping the move protection) when the coast is clear. --Bongwarrior (talk) 09:21, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

8bitJake disrupting article, and in edit war with Tallicfan20

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

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

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

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

I've reverted to Nwwaew's version and protected. Work out the issue on the talk page. It takes two for a straight-up content edit war, which this appears to be. Request the involvement of other editors. At first glance, this doesn't appear to be tendentious, disruptive editing - it appears to be two people involved in a heated content dispute. FCYTravis (talk) 07:46, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Nwwaew has an axe to grind. I think he is unfairly biased against me and I don't feel comfortable with him dealing with me as an admin. --8bitJake (talk) 07:49, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Nwwaew is Wikistalking me. He was not asked to get involved in this article and I feel that he is incredible biased against my contributions. He just undid all the verifiable work that I put unto that article. If his harassment continues I might be tempted to leave Wikipedia or create a new account to get away from his harassment. --8bitJake (talk) 08:36, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

The reason I reverted is because you were in a very severe edit war with another person. Reversion is standard in those cases. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 14:49, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

well jake, at this version it seemed our little war calmed down. I say we take it back to this version at that part and leave it. Tallicfan20 (talk) 07:57, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

8bitJake, please WP:AGF. Anyone can edit any article, unless they are restricted by ArbComm or the community. And if I was an admin, I would have recused all use of the tools in anything involving you. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 14:40, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

AIV helper not helping

Resolved

This user [107] is vandalising, even though the block log shows that Nakon blocked indef in May. The helperbot is helpfully removing my note at WP:AIV. Kevin (talk) 09:57, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

That si very odd - as soon as he was reblocked all the recent contribs dissapeared...? Viridae^Talk 10:00, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I re-blocked, then realized it was their user talk page they were vandalizing (which another admin deleted and salted). Too early in the morning it seems. RFPP would've been the best course of action. Marking as resolved. xenocidic (talk) 10:02, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

MartinPhi restricted

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

The restriction is logged on the ArbCom case page,[108] and Martinphi has been informed.[109] Vassyana (talk) 10:53, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

User:CyrilleDunant

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

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

copied from an earlier section to unify discussion

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

Left a quick note with them, asking them to check out the article's talk page; between your message and the fact they seem to have stopped editing for now, not sure if there's much else to do right at this moment. – Luna Santin (talk) 02:55, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate the effort although they had already been engaging the talk page, the problem was they were posting the possible identity of someone who has purposely kept their identity and location private due to ongoing death threats. I believe that violates WP:BLP. Perhaps I erred but they also filled their user page with multiple copies of a copyrighted picture which has been added and removed multiple times from the article. This perhaps led them to copy my user page onto theirs. Perhaps not a violation but I would like help in how to approach this since I'm now of such interest to them. Any advice appreciated. Banjeboi 09:51, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

A personal attack?

WillyJulia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has made a statement on their user page "Benjiboi is a ripe fruit that bruises easily. When in doubt ask!"[110]. Could that be classed as a personal attack and/or assuming bad faith with another editor? Bidgee (talk) 11:09, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi, actually they copied my user page to theirs and I'm unsure how to handle it per thethread above. Banjeboi 11:12, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok. I missed it. Thank you for the message. Bidgee (talk) 11:15, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

That's a single-purpose user that probably won't be around long, so the situation should take care of itself. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 11:18, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

There's a thread further up about this called 'help please'. Does this mean the stuff is continuing? :( Sticky Parkin 11:20, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Help!!!! This is continuing and we may need oversight to clean-up this] edit summary and some of their other work. Banjeboi 11:33, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

This is continuing, WillyJulia also added a WP:AIV on him, reasoning that he removed comments. It has already been removed by an administrator. Arienh4^(Talk) 11:55, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

There was a recent case at MfD where an editor copied someone else's User page, Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Tamr007. That one closed with Delete. EdJohnston (talk) 14:01, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

and the editor continues[111] with the other editor then the issues with the article. Bidgee (talk) 15:27, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

The editor also told me to stop reverting the blog that they where reverting [112]. The blog in question is about the article rather then the person there for there isn't a problem with the BIO [113]. Bidgee (talk) 15:45, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I can see why they might be confused. The blog link at the top of the talk page mentioning wiki in the news is the exact same link that keeps being removed per BLP at the bottom... --Onorem♠Dil 15:52, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Which I've stated more then once in my edit summarys which the user must be reading for them to reply. Bidgee (talk) 15:55, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but that makes no sense to me. I agree that the link can't be used as a reliable source, but if it's a BLP violation just to include it in a discussion, then it should be a BLP violation to prominently display it at the top of the talk page. --Onorem♠Dil 15:57, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I have warned the user about a personal attack against Benjiboi, and observed that they were just edit warring against Bidgee about the removal of a copyrighted image from their User page (which was eventually deleted from commons as <gasp!> a copyvio).

This user is frankly just causing problems. I would endorse a short block to get their attention until they can learn at least one Wikipedia policy. (So far, I count WP:BLP, WP:NPA, WP:RS, and WP:COPYVIO as all being violated in the space of like 20 minutes) --Jaysweet (talk) 15:48, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

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

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

"could you please do me a favor?"

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

As long as he doesn't ask for any personally identifiable information, I don't see a problem with it. It sounds like a valid topic for a thesis, and I can definitely sympathize with the need to get 3rd party objective opinions in order to validate the data in a Master's thesis (in my case, I was able to get my friends to do it in exchange for beer, ha ha ha...).

The only caveat I would add -- and this is an obvious one -- is that anyone who chooses to participate should have their virus protection up-to-date before clicking the URL, should not download any executables, and should not click on it at work or anywhere that a shock site would do more damage than just a minor scar on your psyche. ;)

When he does post the URL, it might be worth it to report back here and have somebody volunteer to click it, just to make sure it's not spam or malicious, and doesn't ask for personal info. Until that point, I am inclined to WP:AGF (especially since the story rings so true to my ears). --Jaysweet (talk) 14:23, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

CorenSearchBot

Resolved

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

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

Just do it - I'm pretty sure you won't destroy Wikipedia (deliberately, anyway!). Neıl 龱 14:11, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

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

Molobo

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

The user had a long history of edit warring and personal attacks. He blew his last chance(s). WP:NOT therapy. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:54, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

• Support block Edit history shows edit-warring, incivility. This user was warned many times. Enough is enough. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 14:15, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
• Support block per Otolemur, and support community ban due to the sockpuppetry. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 14:42, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse block - I don't know this particular user very well, but this thread is convincing, along with a brief review of the block log and its relevant reasons. Rudget (Help?) 14:50, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse a block to avoid further damage to WP, not to teach him a lesson, which hasn't taken anyway. Bearian (talk) 15:19, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

His talk-page still says he's only blocked for a week. BradV 16:45, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Mark Levine recent edits in need of arbitration

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

featured article contains vandalism

Resolved

 – Vandalism removed

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

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