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

Admin plays detective...what next?

Ever want to sleuth down one of the long term vandals? Well a couple of people think I've succeeded. My summaries of the matter are at User_talk:Durova#Editor_X_.2F_Joan_of_Arc andTalk:Joan_of_Arc#Return_of_Wikipedia:Long_term_abuse.23Joan_of_Arc_vandal.3F, which I daresay make interesting reading especially if you put on a pair of dark sunglasses and play The Pink Panther theme. If my evidence holds up to scrutiny, this guy has been disrupting Wikipedia's Catholicism, homosexuality, and crossdressing articles for 26 months without getting caught (December 8 will be his anniversary).

Trouble is, because he's been so slippery, I probably can't get a checkuser on this sock drawer. Doc Tropics suggested an RfC. I'd like to find out whether I'm right and if I'm on the mark I'd like to seek a community ban. So all of you Sherlock Holmes types, come on over and bring your magnifying glass. This one might boggle your eyes. Durova^Charge! 15:48, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

That took a while to read! You have amassed a bevy of suggestive evidence; statistically, Editor X could have won the lottery before being two people from the same town with the same in-depth knowledge and yet rather bizarre theories, unless of course, he has converts. In either case, the behavior is incredibly disruptive not just because of the behavior itself, but the subtly with which it undermines the article. The editor has already been almost completely unresponsive to discussion and attempts to reform their behavior including being dishonest when cornered - since it doesn't appear meaningful contact can be made, I'd support the idea of a community ban. Shell ^babelfish 16:06, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[ec] Blimey. That was a patient and thorough piece of work! I suspect that support for a ban based on this will be pretty much unanimous, but one could always take it to ArbCom in case of doubt. Gold star, either way. Guy (Help!) 16:09, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I can try and help you get a checkuser through but if he's on AOL it won't do any good. If you assemble a list of accounts with recent edits (<1 month) and a brief statement, go ahead and file it. I expect once more people read this they will support a ban without technical confirmation (which can only go back a few weeks in any case). Thatcher131 16:40, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I've invited one of these accounts to agree to a checkuser. How exactly does the AOL wrinkle crease this seam - would they be limited to confirming whether or not this person hails from Reston, Virginia? That could be enough in light of the other evidence. I'm not the least bit averse to naming him at AOL's abuse department and requesting they revoke his service. That would take considerably less effort than I've already spent undoing his damage. Durova^Charge! 17:00, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

If he's using AOL then I'm not sure how you can even be sure of his geographic location, since I think all US AOL addresses show up as Reston VA. Unless this editor made a specific slip-up which I am reluctant to discuss publically, the only thing checkuser could reveal is that each of the suspected accounts has edited from AOL. Since thousands of editors use AOL, this would not provide any confirmation that the accounts were operated by the same person. A check may still be productive if this person was careless in a certain way, or he may be using multiple ISPs where it would be easier to track him. Thatcher131 17:10, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I see. To the best of my knowledge he's been a loyal AOL customer. They host his website - and as extraordinary as this is for an AOL homepage, of the 3 million-odd Google returns for a "Joan of Arc" search he's consistently numero uno. So regardless of his actual residence location I'm pretty sure AOL's abuse department could pinpoint him and I don't think he wants his service interrupted. What worries me more is his disruption on other topics, which appears to have been continuous - the homosexuality pages especially. I'm getting set to roll up my sleeves and dig into that evidence now that people take this matter seriously - he's clever but not too clever. Durova^Charge! 17:34, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

The only thing checkuser can do then is, for any user name he has used in the last month or so, give you the IP address as of the time of its edits. This would probably not be released to you but could be forwarded to AOL's abuse department, so they could attempt to determine if the wikipedia vandal is the same person whose web site they host. I don't know what it would take to convince AOL to take action, though. Thatcher131 17:38, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Durova: All AOL users show up from Reston, Virginia. But the most important thing to keep in mind is that the IP address for AOL users is never linked to a specific account but instead is based on the page (URL) being viewed or edited -- see Wikipedia's information on this. It's very odd but that's how AOL IPs work for reasons known only to their engineers.

The upshot is that an IP check won't do any good and neither will reporting a set of IPs to AOL. They're likely to just ignore you because you won't be reporting a single and discrete user given that all users are on the same range of IPs. You will instead be telling them that some of the many millions of AOL subscribers happen to get those IPs while editing certain articles, which is not going to come as a surprise to them.

You can never be sure whether an AOL vandal is one person or a whole host of users who end up editing under the same IPs. Other websites such as BBs have the same problem. EReference 17:55, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the dissection of AOL's innards. Since I actually do have this vandal's real-life name, would AOL's abuse department take notice? Durova^Charge! 18:46, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, aren't you assuming that the IPs are linked to that real name? They wouldn't necessarily be linked to a given individual, or even a single individual. And since anyone can claim to be anyone else on here, a name is not proof of identity. AOL cannot suspend someone's paid account based merely on an allegation. This comes up repeatedly on many websites since there's no way to tell who anyone really is on the internet. EReference 19:02, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Durova, with all due respect for your detective work, I'm a tad uncomfortable with you referring to the guy as a "vandal" and "long-term abuser". Did he ever get blocked? He's not currently banned under any of his accounts, is he? From your description I take it that his main accounts were used subsequently, not in parallel for blatant illegitimate sockpuppetry, or were they? I mean, I have no doubt he may be a disruptive POV-pusher, but has he done anything actually "illegal" in Wikipedia terms besides POV-pushing? And what would we expect his ISP to do about that, at this stage? Let's ban him if he's as disruptive as you say, and then we'll see - any new reincarnations of his will probably be easy enough to spot, once people are alerted. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:06, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

So far as I know he's flown underneath nearly every radar except mine. In his earliest months Fire Star tried to offer him some guidance. He was still trying to behave like a regular Wikipedian back then. One quick answer about sockpuppetry is User_talk:Durova/Archive_5#Wikistalking (with several instances of blanking vandalism thrown in). User:Durova/Complex vandalism at Joan of Arc demonstrates that he violates WP:NOR, WP:V, WP:VANITY, WP:RS, WP:OWN, and WP:POINT. Possibly WP:COI also. The damage he caused at Joan of Arc has been incredibly pervasive and subtle - not just garden variety POV pushing but degrading footnotes, inserting inaccurate statements into previously cited material, and fraudulent citations. He even vanity published and faked the appearance of a legitimate scholarly journal in order to bypass site standards and cite himself. Note that the author name on the pseudojournal is the same as the name he self-identified on the original account, and that the IP inserted it while coyly avoiding use of the author's name at Wikipedia. Due to the high profile of the Joan of Arc article I acutally had to dig through several thousand edits to undo the harm that he caused - expending weeks of my time. If you need more evidence than I've already supplied at User:Durova/Complex vandalism at Joan of Arc then say so and I'll dig up other examples and more diffs. The peculiar POV he pushes and the amount of scholarly background it reflects identify him as unique - how likely is it that two different people would strain the evidence to draw identical conclusions about a 1929 scholarly work available only in French? And describe their views with the same syntactical structure and leap into edit wars? I know how serious this allegation is and I wouldn't raise it unless I had researched this with extreme care. Durova^Charge! 19:42, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

FWIW, I remember looking at the constributions of Center-for-Medieval-Studies (talk · contribs) after he edited some pages on the Dukes of Burgundy. He was accused at the time of being identical AWilliamson (talk · contribs) (see diff of him removing those from his talk page). IMO, this falls under the "users who aggressively and repeatedly violate fundamental policies" portion of the blocking policy, WP:OR in particular. Faking up a vanity journal to insert your point of view is absolutely the sort of behavior for which you should be run out of Wikipedia on a rail — it's a direct attack on our credibility. I haven't been involved in any disputes with Center-for-Medieval-Studies, and haven't been involved in the Joan of Arc article, so I feel I qualify as an uninvolved endorser of a ban. Choess 22:10, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I've got to give a nod to Switisweti. During my first weeks as an editor he clued me in to some of this activity. That guy had an awful time because he'd been trying to watch Williamson for a year but lacked the academic expertise to challenge him in detail. Plus there was another disruptive editor at the article who pursued an entirely different agenda. Switi and I wound up holding conversations at my user talk page in German in order to dodge them (I didn't realize that was un-Wikipedian at the time). Switi finally quit the project a year ago and I can't say I blame him, but I hope he rejoins us someday. Durova^Charge! 03:15, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I would also support a ban.—WAvegetarian•(talk) 17:18, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Durova has done an exceptional job of gathering and presenting evidence which, if accurate (and it appears to be), would certainly warrant a community ban for long-term systematic abuse. I had thought that ANI might not be able to respond to such a convoluted case, but between D's excellent summary, and the dedication of the editors who have posted here, I realize that I underestimated Wikipedians in general. Sometimes I'm actually quite happy to be wrong : ) Doc Tropics 18:30, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I would also support a community ban (disclaimer: I've been involved in a dispute with the editor in question). I'd be more comfortable if there were technical confirmation, but for the reasons explained above it seems unlikely that WP:RFCU will do any good--another reason to dislike AOL. --Akhilleus (talk) 18:44, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Cross posting the following from my user talk page: if any doubt remains, have a look at some diffs from Voln's talk page. This says "Archiving" in the edit note and an exceptionally small archive was created. The types of complaints and the topics covered bear an eerie similarity to AWilliamson, particularly The Bible and homosexuality and Homosexuality and Christianity; talk page blanking and misleading edit summaries are also trademark Williamson tactics.[1] He also performed a similar blanking that included the removal of a final block warning while marking the edit as minor.[2] Durova^Charge! 20:38, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Honestly, the evidence you have collected is damning. I also have no problem in supporting a community ban.--Aldux 21:36, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Burn at the stake - erm, I mean I would also support banning this disruptive and time-consuming user. KillerChihuahua^?!? 22:11, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

So far this is unanimous. Think the responses are enough to call a consensus? Much as I'd like to do the honors myself, since I am an involved editor it would be more appropriate for someone else to perform the ban. Then we could set up the suspected sockpuppets category. Who's got an itchy indef block finger today? Durova^Charge! 23:01, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Support permaban. Sneaky hoaxers are scrouge of Wikipedia. Still I fear that somebody would have to monitor the related articles and block the puppets. Alex Bakharev 01:59, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

A check of some of the allegations turns up the following.

• The most serious allegations revolved around the claim that the editor (or someone suspected of being the editor) was using a fanciful academic publication ("Primary Sources and Context Concerning Joan of Arc's Male Clothing" within the "Joan of Arc Primary Sources Series") and a fanciful nonprofit organization ("Academy (Association) for Joan of Arc Studies") to dishonestly include his own original research in Wikipedia. But a quick search finds the following entry at a government site which lists this organization as a registered nonprofit in good standing: search result
• And a search at Google Books finds the allegedly "bogus" book in print: http://books.google.com/books?ie=ISO-8859-1&q=Academy+%22Joan+of+Arc+Studies%22&as_brr=0
• A search at Google Scholar finds the "Joan of Arc Primary Sources Series" although only one item is currently indexed. http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&lr=&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=%22Joan+of+Arc%22+%22Primary+Sources+Series%22

The most serious allegations are therefore clearly mistaken and some of the other allegations were based on an erroneous understanding of the manner in which AOL IPs are assigned. The rest were I believe mostly or entirely related to allegations of POV-pushing or suspected sockpuppetry, which are more subjective. If people want to vote for a ban anyway then that's the decision. EReference 06:12, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

501c3 tax status is fairly easy to get and doesn't amount to validation of the content; I daresay some of these people were acting in good faith. I traded e-mails with Virginia Frohlick some years ago and she seemed very friendly, although she was much too quick to give credence to my assertions. She is, however, an amateur enthusiast who maintains a website[www.stjoan-center.com/] and the only Google Scholars entry for her is another publication from the same organization.[3] Likewise, the only Google Scholars return for Robert Wirth that does not appear to be incidental - there seems to be a medical doctor by the same name - is one of this organization's publications[4] (although this drew my interest briefly) For Margaret Walsh, the other claimed reviewer, there is a Margaret Walsh who is a professor of American economic and social history.[5] [6] [7] [8] [9] Some of these names also turn up random returns in the hard sciences, dentistry, and medicine so I doubt these are the same person. It's been three months since I wrote the original summary and it doesn't particularly surprise me that this group has produced a hard copy edition of Williamson's study, but I see no reason to conclude that this nonprofit is anything other than the pet project of four people who have no formal expertise in their field. I could create a 501c3 organization with three friends, throw up a website, and print out a few copies of my pet theories - but that wouldn't make me an encyclopedic source. I'll post more on Williamson himself in a few moments. Durova^Charge! 14:33, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

For starters, here's Allen Williamson's Google Scholar result - you decide if he looks like a real historian.[10] On his original user page he claims to be a historian who specializes in Joan of Arc and her portion of the Hundred Years' War[11] and claims to be a historian in talk page posts[12] [13] [14] and at mediation[15] but, to my knowledge, never identified his academic qualifications or affiliations. At User:Center-for-Medieval-Studies the first question the talk page receives is from Adam Bishop to ask which Center for Medieval Studies this is. The question went unanswered and the account blanked similar questions from other editors without reply.[16] The account blanks other criticism without response[17] including a suspected sockpuppet template[18] and finally blanks all remaining material and redirects to both the user page and the talk page to a new account User:Center-for-Medieval-Studies.[19] [20] on 10 May 2006, one month after User:AWilliamson got blanked and redirected to User:AWilliamson..[21] [22] Assuming the anonymous AOL account is the same editor, here's a post where he manufactures a fraudulent citation and admits in the edit note that he chose the source because he thought I hadn't read it.[23] Well I had read that source and he thoroughly misrepresented it. There can't be room for good faith in this instance because I had objected to the relevant passage the previous day and transcribed a quotation coauthored by the same historian in a later publication that vigorously denied any such claim.[24] If other editors are curious about the subject details I'll go into those matters at my talk page - but to summarize this doesn't strike me as someone who's out of his depth but as someone whose every move is tainted by the need to advance his own peculiar opinions by any means necessary and who plays just as fast and loose with his sources as he does with Wikipedia's policies - so much so that I doubt he could pass peer review at any journal he didn't control. To be candid, I hold only a bachelor's degree in history from Columbia University (my graduate studies were in another field) and my interest in Joan of Arc is an amateur one (although serious enough that I have traveled France to follow her campaigns). Yet I know the standard reference works and I can recognize when someone cherry picks data and distorts information in bizarre ways. Challenge me for more evidence if you aren't convinced: this case is so complex that I've held back to conserve space. I welcome scrutiny because I want to know whether I'm right and I think I have enough facts to satisfy reasonable doubt. Durova^Charge! 23:08, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't have time right now to respond to all the topics you've raised, most of which are rather obscure. I'll post a reply later today or tomorrow. EReference 05:33, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

This "book" by Allen Williamson is a great example of self-published scholarship. It's available in two flavors, print and pdf. On Amazon, the "book" costs a whopping $5.00, which means it's probably a bound print-off of the pdf. The title page lists not only the editor, but the names of two peer reviewers. In legitimate scholarship, peer reviewers are not given credit for the work--there's a reason they call it "double blind". This work definitely fails WP:RS, but if anyone has any doubts, Amazon still has 2 copies in stock--order now, and it will be delivered before Christmas! --Akhilleus (talk) 06:34, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I might as well add that the diff I showed for the IP's misuse of sources contained two fraudulent citations. His reference to Henry V's will is another bizarre distortion. What's insidious is how the reader has to know this material as well as the perpetrator to even challenge it. Durova^Charge! 14:05, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I have more time now. I guess I might as well cover several items in the same message since they're all interrelated.

Yesterday Akhilleus alleged that a certain book by this organization is not valid because the peer reviewers are listed. I don't think that's justified since this type of disclosure has in fact become more common in recent years for a number of academic publications. For example see the following guidelines here (see point 5 specifically) for an academic publication which lists the peer reviewers and accepting editors who recommended each article (only reviewers who rejected the work remain anonymous under their method).

The low price is not too unusual for smaller books, especially at Amazon.

Durova has brought up a number of subjects, mostly dealing with old debates and issues which are hard to follow. Some deal with the organization which you dispute.

For starters, let's look up the organization's website. On one page it lists at least fifteen members in two categories without listing whatever others there may be aside from these "recent" ones. You had said the total was only four people. Googling the listed names finds that Stephen Richey authored at least one published book on Joan of Arc. François Janvier is evidently an official at the CAOA in the Department of the Meuse, France. François Thouvenin seems to be a translator with the Council of Europe in Strasbourg. Others could be Googled if I had time. The website also lists a publisher's ISBN prefix, which is definitely not cheap to buy. It lists an Employer Identification Number, a SAN, several ISSNs (which might take months to obtain from the Library of Congress) and a list of current or upcoming publications which include subjects such as military records, government docs, a "transcription of BNF fr 4488 ff 463-476" and a bunch of other stuff. This clearly extends beyond four people with one pdf file, I think. Remember that this ultimately comes back to the allegation that a dishonest editor had created or invented a bogus org so he could insert his own stuff into the article. A bit of searching indicates that this is wrong.

Your objections to the people themselves have been of two types. One was based on a search for their names at Google Scholar, which is likely to be unreliable for several reasons. It looks like you initially didn't find the organization's publications there either although at least some of them do show up if you use certain keywords. It's also the case that Google Scholar is hardly exhaustive. The other argument was based on the assumption that certain anonymous IPs or accounts here are disguises for one of the members (which would be hard to prove). You assume that certain edits by these anons were deliberately made in bad faith and therefore undermine the person's credibility as a historian. In one case this was because (if I understand correctly) you believe he misrepresented an author's position with regard to specific pieces of evidence. After looking over the links to the old edits you provided it looks to me like the two of you were arguing about rather different issues (an author's mention of a document versus an author's view of a theory related to that document) and therefore misunderstanding each other. Here's why I think that. Looking at the first link you provided, we see him adding citations for two books which quote or mention some historical documents he was using to back up one of his own theories. Now, his edit comment specifically says he's citing a book by Pernoud because Pernoud "mentions this document" (he doesn't say Pernoud supports it) which his text lower down specifies is a letter from "the University of Paris.. to John of Luxembourg" which was among several documents which he said supported his theory that "Charles or his faction" attempted to save Joan of Arc. The other link you provided leads to your rebuttal which you based on a quote from one of Pernoud's other books in which Pernoud casts doubt on this theory and questions the reliability of the "Morosini" records... but it seems that neither of those two issues were the point. He wasn't saying Pernoud's book supported his theory but rather that this book by Pernoud "mentions" the University of Paris letter. This is "original research" on the anon's part but not dishonesty. You state that these rather ambiguous matters would undermine a specific real person's scholarly credentials ... which would not be the case even assuming that he was genuinely the anon in the first place.

You also objected to a comment the anon made about Henry V's will in the same link. As far as I can see this refers to footnote 3 in that text in which he argues (I'm summarizing here) that the decision to keep Joan of Arc as a prisoner rather than letting her be "allowed ransom" was similar to previous cases in which important prisoners were also retained in this way. He gives as an example the case of Henry V retaining "the duke of Orléans" according to a statement given in Henry's will. You didn't say why you object to this, but I'll do my best to try to figure it out. Is it inaccurate to say that the duke of Orleans was retained as a prisoner by Henry V ? Or as with the other disputed Pernoud citation are you objecting to the reference to Pernoud because perhaps Pernoud may have disagreed with this theory as was the case with the other one? Since this reference to Pernoud's book occurs in the middle of the sentence right after the mention of Henry V's will but before any mention of the theory which compares the two cases, he doesn't seem to be attributing the theory itself to Pernoud but only the claim that Henry V's will ordered the duke of Orleans to be kept a prisoner. But I'm grasping at straws here to guess the specific objection since I don't think you stated the problem. At least not in your last note. EReference 06:27, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Despite the practice of the Digital Medievalist, it is not common to disclose peer reviewers in most academic publications. Nor is it common for an association to publish original material that's authored by one member of the association and "peer reviewed" by two of the other members. This is a self-publishing house that isn't following standard academic rules. That's not surprising, because its members/contributors aren't academics--Chris Snidow and Catherine Hénon are musicians and tour guides (or perhaps I should say pilgrims?); Kevin Hendryx is, according to his webpage, "an editor, is a freelance writer by night, and ... loves Tolkien, the Beatles, and Joan of Arc..."; and Bob Perler apparently enjoyed the 2004 pilgrimage guided by Snidow and Henon. I'm sure that all of these people have a strong and sincere interest in Joan, but they don't have the credentials we expect from people who are running a research institute or academic press. At the risk of publicizing too much personal information (even though it's accesible through brief searching on the web), I'll note that the organization is headquartered at the residence of one of the members of the "academy", which is another indication that this isn't an academic organization.

By the way, ISBNs are not cheap, but they're not astronomical, either; a person could get a few contributors together to cover the cost, apply for 501c3 status, and voila, you have an "academy" that issues publications and a journal. --Akhilleus (talk) 08:01, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

The four people I listed were the four named in connection with this particular publication. As I stated before, some of them may have acted in good faith. My original summary was written three months ago, at which time the organization had no other members, and I wouldn't be surprised if they're trying to get something more serious off the ground. An author who self-publishes may have partners and a larger goal of building a real publishing firm.

My earlier post traces a history of unethical behavior by Williamson and his probable sockpuppets in which he consistently attempts to put himself forward as more authoritative than he actually is. To address the two specific instances of misused citations:

• Henry V's will To explain why this is worse than garden variety OR requires background knowledge, a good deal of which I can demonstrate through the same book that Williamson cites. Henry V died seven years before Joan of Arc entered public life.(168, 266) That will did forbid any ransom of Charles I de Valois, Duke of Orléans but did not in any way extend that prohibition into some general rule against ransoming prisoners.(193) Ransoms were one of the principal ways of profiting at war and the English accepted other war ransoms for French prisoners.(172, 190) The duke of Orléans was a special case because at the time of Henry V's death this duke was second in line to inherit the throne of France according to the Valois claim. This duke's son would later become king of France when the older line died out.(196) Henry V claimed legal right to inherit the French crown and had solidified his claim through marriage and treaty,(3) so his prohibition against this particular ransom had everything to do with dynastic succession and nothing to do with Joan of Arc: Henry V wanted to bequeath rulership of France to his infant son. Furthermore - even if by some stretch of the imagination this will did apply to her - Williamson claims this document held legal force in Burgundy, which it didn't. The English alliance with Philip III, Duke of Burgundy was not even a very cordial one.(170)
• Attempts to ransom Joan of Arc As my other diff demonstrates, there weren't any such attempts. Far from what Williamson tries to represent about Charles VII's actions, "cowardly abandonment" is the standard interpretation of his behavior while she was a prisoner.(167) Williamson's citation of a delegation from the University of Paris is completely misleading: Paris was not under control of the French king at this time and its university was solidly pro-English. The University of Paris endorsed the charges against Joan of Arc during her trial and many of her judges had some prior connection to that university.(125-126, 207-217) The delegation from the University of Paris that Williamson mentions is not any action on behalf of the French king - to make that implication in this context is absurd - and Morosini's rumor mill was unreliable: in August of the same year Morosini thought that Joan of Arc had escaped.(99)

To summarize, Williamson has been laying traps for the uninformed. This is someone who knows exactly what he's doing and who sets out to fool people. One of his own edit summaries admits that he selected citations because he believed they were out of my depth. Before I joined the project he had successfully disrupted one of Wikipedia's core biographies for a year because - I think I can use a strong term without exaggeration - his other crankery actually was beyond the depth of previous editors. He constructs sophisticated exercises in contextomy while giving them a veneer of plausibility and the above two examples are by no means the only offenses. The good faith assumptions of editors such as EReference account for much of why I waited so long to raise this matter: as absurd as Williamson's claims really are, Wikipedia has at most a handful of editors who know this material in sufficient depth to challenge it on its own terms. So I had to build my own reputation for editing, investigations, and integrity before my charge could be taken seriously. If Wikipedia were a university I would have referred him for formal academic discipline in November 2005. While this assault on Wikipedia's credibility is significant, my real concern is for the students who relied upon us while his edits stood. At best, those students' time was wasted. More likely their grades suffered. Durova^Charge! 15:58, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I see there's another round of allegations here to sift through and try to analyze. I would ask both of you to please read through the whole thing before thinking of replying. Maybe we can finally bring at least this one part of the matter to a close.

Akhilleus' post was first. I have to say that I've been confused by your statements here. I'm curious whether you also reject other publications which disclose peer reviewers? Remember that your original accusation held that this was an unethical practice, not merely that it was uncommon. Clearly some journals use that method (uncommon as it is) without being accused of an ethics violation, do they not?

You have now added the related allegation that this publication should be taken to task for using peer reviewers who belong to the same association. I may be mistaken, but doesn't (for instance) the Journal of the American Medical Association include articles in which both the author(s) and peer reviewers belong to the American Medical Association? My understanding is that they do, without being considered suspect. I think that's also the case with many small, narrowly focused organizations, isn't it? Your statement on this matter repeated the view that this is an "uncommon" practice, which is debatable but again it isn't the issue.

You objected to some of the members, for example by describing Chris Snidow as a musician and tour guide. It doesn't take much searching to find that Chris Snidow has a published book on Joan of Arc which was given the endorsement of a person who is a familiar name from one of Durova's links, Marie-Veronique Clin. Now, in Durova's link Marie-Veronique Clin was described as the co-author of a book which Durova was using as a source. Clin therefore would apparently be someone whose endorsement of Snidow's book would be significant, I would assume? Your characterization of Chris Snidow clearly is unfair I think. If I had time I could wade through these other accusations you've been making against quite a number of other people, but I think a clear pattern is emerging.

With all due respect, what I've been seeing here frankly seems to be a case in which arguments continually shift ground whenever one assumption is shown to be mistaken after closer examination. There has also been a great deal of speculation which assumes the very worst about all of the people connected with this organization without any verifiable evidence to substantiate that assumption. I'll assume you are acting in good faith but it's becoming more difficult to maintain that view when you repeatedly refuse to do likewise for the increasingly larger and larger circle of people you're trying to discredit.

Next is Durova's post, which sought to explain a few previous allegations.

You addressed the issue of the organization's membership. You said that when you had written the first allegation three months ago the org had no one except the four members who are listed in one of their pdf files. Their site mentions other members being brought in far earlier than that, such as Stephen Richey who came in more than a year ago. The rest of your comments consisted of speculation about their motives. You assume they are acting in bad faith (or worse) based mainly it seems on the following issues concerning the anon. I'll now look at those.

You first addressed the anon's handling of Henry V's will and the Duke of Orleans. You said the anon claimed that Henry's will held "legal force in Burgundy", therefore he was claiming that it directly affected Joan of Arc's circumstances. In the link you provided he never said anything like this. What he did say was the following. He said important prisoners were sometimes retained and he gave the case of the Duke of Orleans as one example which was rather similar to Joan of Arc's case. He never said that one case provided the legal basis for the other. It seems his point was that Joan of Arc was important enough that her enemies didn't want to allow her to obtain her freedom either. In your recent note you seemingly argued against this by saying that the Duke of Orleans was a "special case" who was retained only because he was so important, which makes it sound as if you're implying that Joan of Arc wasn't important enough to be retained like this Duke was. Didn't she have a significant effect on the war, much more than the relatively obscure Duke of Orleans in fact? Whatever their relative importance was, I can't find any statements from the anon saying what you thought he said. It's common in internet debates for misunderstandings to arise, and I think that's what happened in this case. Unless you feel he was dishonest for saying that Joan of Arc was likely considered too important to be allowed her freedom, I guess I don't understand why you charge him with dishonesty.

You then addressed the anon's handling of Charles VII's actions. You said (in summary) that the anon's citation of a letter from the University of Paris cannot be accepted as valid evidence of Charles VII's actions because this University was pro-English rather than pro-French and therefore could not have been acting on Charles VII's behalf. In the link you provided the anon never claimed this University was acting on Charles VII's behalf but rather that the University's letter mentions actions taken by Charles VII's government. The latter is not the same thing as the former. A letter can describe actions undertaken by an enemy ruler even though the letter's authors do not support him. I guess I don't understand how you're reading something different into this passage.

You then again charged him with dishonesty which you said was sufficient to undermine his credentials and credibility, which is a little hard to fathom. I'm sure you know that in order to make an allegation of this type against a real person by name you would need very substantial proof and there is no proof here. He clearly doesn't seem to be saying what you attribute to him, and it's an anonymous editor saying it.

You criticized me (and unnamed others) for our "good faith assumptions" about the anon and this organization but with all due respect I'm finding it increasingly difficult to see these allegations as anything other than a series of misunderstandings at best. We all tend to jump to conclusions in heated internet debates. Sometimes it's best to step back a bit.

A ban based on charges of sockpuppetry against whoever is behind the accounts might be justifiable, but all these other allegations against quite a sizable group of named individuals and their organization are frankly rather disturbing. If I had unlimited time and patience I could continue sifting through more of this type of thing, but since all the previous allegations have turned out quite clearly to be mistaken I would suggest it would be better to drop this portion of the matter. This has long since gone beyond a productive stage, especially since a siteban could be pursued by other means. EReference 08:47, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

EReference, you raise a lot of points, most of which I won't respond to. However, you're slightly misrepresenting what I said. I didn't say that disclosing peer reviewers was "unethical", I said that what the publication did--not only disclosing peer reviewers, but using "peer reviewers" who are members of the organization, is not typical academic practice and wouldn't be done in legitimate scholarship. There's two reasons: first, the publication seems to be giving them credit as co-authors, but more importantly, these "peer reviewers" are not independent of the publisher. If you want to use the AMA as an analogy, what the "academy" is doing is like the editor in chief of the Journal of the American Medical Association writing an article and submitting it to two members of the editorial board for "peer review". If that article were published, you'd have no confidence that an independent assessment of the article's quality had been performed. Similarly, we shouldn't have any confidence that Virginia Frohlick and Margaret Walsh performed an impartial assessment of this publication, since they are members of the association that published the book--this is elementary conflict-of-interest stuff.

Whether or not other publications disclose the names of peer reviewers is less important than the fact that Frohlick and Walsh are not independent peer reviewers. However, I note that the Digital Medievalist is not a historical journal, but a journal about the use of technology in studying history--its practice isn't directly relevant to how peer review is used in historical scholarship. It's more relevant to look at journals like the American Historical Review or the Journal of Medieval History, neither of which, I believe, disclose the names of referees. The Journal of the American Medical Association does disclose peer reviewers, but doesn't associate them with particular articles.

A more important issue than peer review is that none of the members of the Historical Academy (Association) for Joan of Arc Studies have the credentials we expect in a historical academy (association). Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think that even one of these members/contributors has an advanced degree in history or a related field, or a position at a college or university. We have seen evidence that they're amateur historians and devotees of Joan--this is fine, but the format of their publications is clearly designed to make readers think that they're getting the same kind of product they'd get from a university press, and that, I think, is misleading at best.

Chris Snidow's book is no evidence that this is a legitimate academic organization. Rather the opposite--the book is a print-on-demand work which you can order from iUniverse.com. This is self-publishing, which fails WP:RS. Snidow's book hardly gives me any confidence that the Historical Academy (Association) for Joan of Arc Studies is a reputable academic publisher, academy, or (association).

You wrote: "If I had time I could wade through these other accusations you've been making against quite a number of other people, but I think a clear pattern is emerging." I don't understand what you're implying. Could you spell it out, please? --Akhilleus (talk) 18:29, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

...sigh... I was hoping we wouldn't have a repeat of previous allegations without much substance to back them up, but that is seemingly what has happened again. And it's late. I'm hoping my fatigue will excuse any mistakes or apparent irritability.

Akhilleus, you have repeated many of your previous charges against these people without addressing my comments very much. To reduce tedious repetition to a minimum I'll just cover the following topics. You stated that you aren't making allegations of unethical behavior but then proceeded to do precisely that by claiming that this publication violates basic standards of scholarship. The "conflict of interest" allegation and hypothetical analogy given to illustrate it was insufficient for many reasons. Among these would be the fact that the author in this case did not also serve as the editor (as in your analogy) and more significantly you entirely sidestepped the point I had made about JAMA's similar practice of publishing articles in which the author and peer reviewers all belong to the AMA. In other words, if you applied your argument consistently you would need to also dismiss the Journal of the American Medical Association, one of the most respected publications in any field. Rather than addressing this you instead switched the topic to JAMA's disclosure of peer reviewers, which was not the issue. Worse yet, you alleged that the publication was listing peer reviewers as "co-authors" whereas on the contrary the publication states otherwise by clearly labeling them peer reviewers. If you want me to view this as a good faith discussion then you need to stop doing this. You also need to show that your objections can be applied consistently. Namely, if you're going to reject this publication because the author and peer reviewers are members of the same association then you also need to reject JAMA and many others for doing the same. Do you reject JAMA because their authors and peer reviewers often all belong to the AMA? I think this is probably an important point.

The allegations you have raised against the people are again based on unsupported speculation. You ignored the members I had already noted who clearly do possess more standard credentials or positions. You sidestepped the point I had raised about Chris Snidow's book having been endorsed by someone who apparently is (correct me if I'm mistaken) a respected author and perhaps recognized authority in the field since one of Durova's links to a previous discussion uses one of her books as an apparently authoritative work on the subject (please correct me if I've missed something here). The publishing method for Snidow's book would not appear to be relevant because the book's content and the expert endorsement it received would not be outweighed by this factor or other objections you have raised.

There may well be some problems with this group but this current discussion isn't accomplishing anything. Nor is it directly related to the siteban issue, so I think it's time to move on. EReference 09:28, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

EReference, I haven't addressed most of your comments because I don't believe they're germane. For instance, it doesn't matter whether Snidow's book has been endorsed by Clin--it's still self-published, it still fails WP:RS, and it in no way establishes that Snidow has an advanced degree in history or a position at a college or university. Similarly, nothing you've said about the other members of the Historical Association (Academy) for Joan of Arc Studies (HAJAS) has established that they have advanced degrees in history (or a related field) or positions at a college or university. The only member of the group that has a significant publication on Joan that's widely known among historians, Stephen Richey, is an independent scholar, not associated with a college or university. As far as I can tell, he doesn't have an advanced degree. To repeat myself, the members of this group don't have the credentials we'd expect from an academic association. They are, rather, enthusiasts and amateurs. There's absolutely nothing wrong with being an amateur, but the publications of such a group don't meet WP:RS.

Here's the byline on Primary Sources and Context Concerning Joan of Arc's Male Clothing: "Robert Wirth (editor), Virginia Frohlick (peer review), Margaret Walsh (peer review), Allen Williamson (authorial contribution and translation)". These credits imply collective authorship. Frohlick and Walsh are listed after an editor and before an author/translator; to me, this looks like they're getting equal credit for producing the work with Wirth and Williamson, i.e., they're basically co-authors. If I were to list this work in a bibliography, it would appear as "Wirth, Robert, ed., and Virginia Frohlick, Margaret Walsh, and Allen Williamson. 'Primary Sources...'", etc. If the intent is simply to acknowledge that Frohlick and Walsh were only peer reviewers and not authors, they should be listed in a separate line, or acknowledged in a footnote--most journal articles that I've read recently thank the anonymous referees in the first or last footnote of the article (and in all of those cases the referees remain anonymous, as in this article in the Journal of Hellenic Studies). An additional point that needs to be raised is that since neither Frohlick nor Walsh have formal expertise in this field, there's no indication that they're qualified to perform peer review--we have no way of knowing whether they're familiar with scholarship on Joan of Arc or historical method in general.

What you're saying about the AMA is ridiculous. It's obvious why it's ok for ordinary members of the AMA to author and referee articles that appear in JAMA--they're not directly connected with the editorial board of the journal or the administration of the AMA. In contrast, Walsh is the president of HAJAS, Frohlick is Secretary-Treasurer, and Williamson is "Founding Director". If the president or founding director of the AMA published an article in JAMA and it was refereed by the secretary-treasurer, I think most people would see a problem. Now imagine if none of them had an M.D., yet the article were about the treatment of Alzheimer's disease. I think you'd lose some faith in the editorial standards of JAMA at that point...

Failing to meet the standards of legitimate scholarship isn't necessarily unethical. As Durova stated, most of the members of HAJAS are probably acting in good faith; but since they aren't professional scholars, they're unaware of the standards that should be met. However, if someone is aware of the proper editorial processes in publishing professional work in history, including peer review, and still presents HAJAS is a legitimate academic publisher, then I'd say there's a potential ethical problem. That's just one of the things Editor X is accused of. --Akhilleus (talk) 23:49, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok. Since you won't let this drop I'm going to analyze the latest spate of accusations. If nothing else it should show why other editors really need to check allegations more closely from now on.

You again alleged that this organization is not scholarly because its members fail WP:RS. You justified this in part by stating that Stephen Richey's book fails this test because he's an amateur without a university position. This is puzzling since a search of Wikipedia finds that this book is cited as a source several times in the main Joan of Arc article and the Joan of Arc Bibliography article. The edit histories of both show that these articles have been repeatedly edited by you yourself. With all due respect, this puzzling pattern begs the question: Did you object to this book before or only after it became apparent that the author was associated with this organization you're trying to discredit? In the first of these articles that book is not only cited but also extensively quoted in the text itself (for example, see this part here. This fact could hardly have been overlooked since entire passages from the book are included so prominently in the text. Clicking on previous versions from the edit history shows that they've been there a very long time without being removed.

The WP:RS standard has nothing to do with the wider issue of scholarly merit since WP:RS is a purely internal regulation which governs WP inclusion but does not necessarily affect someone's legitimacy as a scholar. Snidow's book clearly has merit because it was endorsed by an expert. Richey's book appears to have received good reviews from De Re Militari for example. A scholarly organization can be composed of independent scholars without violating any rule and indeed many of these organizations contain quite a few independent scholars. Wikipedia's RS rule would only be germane if you want to remove any of their books from WP articles, in which case Stephen Richey's would appear to be the chief one which would require removal.

I think your other criticisms are also clearly irrelevant or unfair. In brief: the publication clearly states that the peer reviewers are peer reviewers. Listing them in a single line may be nonstandard but since they are labeled quite clearly to indicate their function your criticism on this point is petty. Your treatment of my AMA analogy was unfair, since your objections (the closeness of one group's members) would essentially boil down to the difference in size between the organizations. You need to assume good faith and remember that we're dealing with a very small and new organization which cannot be expected to have the same degree of distance between members that an old and large organization like the AMA would have. If you look at other small scholarly societies such as the Marie de France Society I suspect you could find the same objections to make. It's a small close-knit group, the founding members still have prominent positions and all the members obviously know each other pretty well since their website includes a jovial tongue-in-cheek group photo of them gathered together. Surely their peer reviewers must belong to the same small group unless there are lots of other Marie de France scholars out there somewhere who could provide meaningful critiques for this very obscure subject. The point I was making with the AMA example was that if the AMA also allows its own members to provide peer review (the procedure which you're complaining about) then the only point of objection comes down to how well the participants know each other. This seems a senseless objection when applied to a very small group which is just starting out.

If your criticisms have merit then you will need to remove the quotations and endnote references to Stephen Richey's book from the Joan of Arc article. I'll leave that up to you. I've been trying to bring this discussion in here to a close because I think it has gone beyond the productive stage and is turning into a classic Usenet debate. But ending it is also up to you since you are the one making public accusations which I've been trying to balance against some analysis. Some balance is clearly needed I think. EReference 09:52, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, where did I say Richey's book fails WP:RS? Apparently a feature of a "classic Usenet debate" is the failure to read carefully. At any rate, it seems that none of the members of HAJAS have advanced degrees or have a position at a college or university--it's a group of amateur historians. So I can't see how it can be described as a scholarly society, or how its publications can be regarded as reliable sources.

Regarding the byline: when "'Primary Sources and Context Concerning Joan of Arc's Male Clothing" was added to Joan of Arc bibliography by an IP user (presumably Editor X), the author was given as "Robert Wirth et al." (see this diff). The same credit was given to another work published by HAJAS. So, I'm not the only one who thinks that Wirth, Frohlick, and Walsh are being given credit as co-authors--Editor X does also. Or, perhaps he just doesn't understand how bibliographies should be formatted, in which case I hope he's not doing any copyediting at HAJAS.

Last (and least important): why do you assume that the peer reviewers of HAJAS must be members of HAJAS? Is it because no one else would pay attention to their work? Perhaps a quote from peer review is in order: "Typically referees are not selected from among the authors' close colleagues, students, or friends. Referees are supposed to inform the editor of any conflict of interests that might arise." HAJAS would be on better ground if it recruited peer reviewers who aren't members of the organization, and who are recognized experts--for instance, professors in history departments! This is the practice of most academic journals--they find referees who are experts in the subject that aren't members of the editorial board. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:39, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

You have said that these people lack degrees or university positions. A bit of digging would find that Margaret Walsh is/was a university professor. If I had time I could check others.

In your last post you denied having ever said that Stephen Richey's book fails WP:RS. In your post the day before that one, at 23:49 on 10 December 2006 you said the following: "Stephen Richey, is an independent scholar, not associated with a college or university. ....To repeat myself, the members of this group don't have the credentials we'd expect from an academic association... the publications of such a group don't meet WP:RS."

You quite clearly have said that Richey does not have the right credentials, by which I assume you would mean his book fails the standard you've been applying.

The rest of your comments probably require only brief observations. The method chosen by an anon at WP to list one of the group's books does not change the fact that this book quite clearly and explicitly does identify the peer reviewers as peer reviewers. Finally, I already cited examples of two other journals which also evidently use peer reviewers who belong to the same organization. Yet you do not criticize or dismiss these two for that practice.

I will ask again that you please allow this increasingly pointless discussion to finally drop. We both could be doing better things with our time. EReference 09:27, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

• That's pretty frickin' impressive, Durova. I definitely support both a community ban and your actions here. Good job. Let's take this misinformationist down once and for all. ♠PMC♠ 09:29, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Durova did a lot of hard work, but my analysis has indicated that much of it was probably honest misinterpretation or was in various degrees unsupportable, as happens with all of us in this type of endeavor. She should certainly be commended for her anti-vandalism efforts though. EReference 09:50, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

The bottom line here is whether this editor and sockpuppets deserve a community ban. I think the final smoking gun is here.[25] For that account - which was created last August to impersonate me - almost the entire contribution list is blanking vandalism of old talk pages and talk archives pertaining to Allen Williamson's posts and favorite topics. I took the liberty of banning that account because I know for certain that it isn't me. With the exception of EReference (and regarding whom I'm on the verge of requesting a checkuser), support for a community ban has been unanimous. This discussion has continued for a week. Shall we proceed to the bans? Durova^Charge! 02:41, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Let me join the horus of 'awesome job'. It's not often that we manage to take down such a giant problem; unless some convincing evidence is raised that would suggest RfC or other form of DR, I agree with permbanning the problem.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  23:31, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

• OK, I have blocked User:AWilliamson, User:AWilliamson. and User:Voln. Any more for any more? Guy (Help!) 00:07, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm admittedly coming into this discussion late & perhaps after all is said & done (sorry, I've been busy with personal affairs), but I would endorse that Durova has more than adequately performed due dilligence on this matter: there is something questionable about the sources AWilliamson, et alia have been quoting. (I'm especially worried at AWilliam's sockpuppet's failure to provide bona fides to Adam Bishop (Adam's a real medieval scholar, & could easily verify any personal information.) This is one of the problems that I would assert every Wikipedian worries about: wonky information being slipped into Wikipedia. (Remember the NPA personality theory article?) Durova deserves our thanks for her hard work uncovering this.

As for EReference, I want to point out that any user who describes her/himself as "distinguished" more often than not does not deserve that title. Speaking from a few years of experience with Wikipedia, I'd say that there are a couple of dozen editors that this adjective could be applied to, but most of them have screwed up in one way or another in their time with Wikipedia. In short, one should never describe oneself or another Wikipedian as "distinguished" -- we have Barnstars that work just fine for that purpose. -- llywrch 00:29, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Per WP:RFCU#AWilliamson, EReference has been banned as a Williamson sock. I guess that about wraps things up for this thread although I consider it highly probable that Williamson will try other sockpuppets. He's been known to switch tactics before when the detectives are hot on his trail, so here's my best estimate based on the patterns I've noticed:

• His underlying topics of interest will remain the same but he'll attempt to focus on pages where he estimates a good chance of avoiding scrutiny.
• He'll probably disguise some characteristics, such as his past switches between registered accounts that bickered on talk pages and IPs that avoided talk pages and bickered via edit summaries.
• POV pushing, deletion vandalism, and edit warring are likely to remain dominant characteristics. Also misleading edit summaries. Vague and evasive attempts to pose as an authoritative expert are also probable. His pet theories can be distinctive since they're bad OR, which makes him identifiable by comparison against past behavior.

Durova^Charge! 06:56, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Rogue reverter, won't listen or respond

At the recommendation of admin Steve Block, I'm asking on behalf of User:CovenantD, User:Doczilla, other editors and myself who have tried many times and ways to talk and work with a persistent rogue editor, User:Asgardian, over his repeated wholesale reversions to several sites in WikiProject: Comics. He insists he doesn't have to follow the comics project exemplar, he reinserts misspellings and other erroneous edits, he removes authoritative reference sources that I and others have used and cited, and he won't give straight answers to our questions and comments.

There's some discussion about all this at this article's talk page. There had been much more criticism of his edits at User talk:Asgardian — with other editors complaining about his clumsy wholesale edits of Galactus and other articles — but he erases all comments.

Could you suggest a way to go on this? Maybe have a third party compare, for instance, the properly formatted and written version of the short "Awesome Android" article here and Asgardian's consistently reverted, "nyah-nyah-nyah" version here. Just by skimming, not needing to know details of the character, the differences are obvious to the naked eye.

As you can see from these comments he erased from his talk page and retrieved from its History here, here, and here, other editors have tried to speak with him about his wholesale reversions that go against both consensus and editorial policy/guidelines/exemplar. The word "stubborn" comes up a lot in these posts. Several editors are at their wits' ends.

What can we do? Please help us: Dealing with him is taking up so much of so many people's times that could be put to good use writing and helping to improve Wikipedia articles. Thank you so much for any help. --Tenebrae 17:55, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Sometimes he responds. It's sporadic. Sometimes he takes a lesson to heart when it's explained in great detail. Sometimes. And sometimes he just repeatedly blows off style guidelines no matter how many people disagree with him. I first got drawn into his mess because someone else in WikiProject Comics begged for people to come take a peek and try to help find a way to resolve Asgardian's relentless edit wars over the Thor articles. At that point, he'd only been at it for a month. I think it's been three months now, fighting the same edit wars. See how he stubbornly insists on reverting Hercules (Marvel Comics) to tightly in-universe perspective. One night I spent hours trying to edit his version bit by bit to give him a chance, then he just redid all the same mistakes and guideline violations. It wears you out. So many of us got so tired so long ago of fixing his edits that we just can't devote the energy to selectively keeping his good edits when he makes so many bad ones, therefore a lot of people have to revert articles even when it means reinserting some problems he'd fixed because he did more damage than good. Several of us repeatedly advised him to make one edit at a time so he could learn from each. It's just bizarre. There are now at least two competing versions getting edited, bouncing back and forth for almost every article he keeps hitting. He has some good information. He makes some good edits. He's just so amazingly stubborn.

He got warned about 3RR. He got blocked for violating 3RR. I saw other times I could have reported him for violating 3RR after that, but chose not to because I really was trying to find a way to work with this intelligent, knowledgeable person despite how aggravating it could be. He deleted WikiProject Comics notices about his edit wars until I warned him very strongly that to do so was deceptive when he knew darn well that edit wars were going on. Lately he hasn't been as overtly contentious. Lately he simply hasn't been replying to people as often. Admittedly, a lot of us have given up on explaining all of our fixes to his edits when we've already offered the same explanations repeatedly. I still think there's hope for him. I really do, based on the times he has learned lessons, but after this much time, I question whether he's worth the effort because he creates so much work for so many people voluntarily helping edit Wikipedia articles. Doczilla 02:52, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Summary:

• He is willfully lowering the quality of Wikipedia articles.
• He is fully aware that his edits are contrary to various policies and guidelines.
• He isn't responding (well, severely unresponsive) to light methods of behavior correction.

He's doing no good and shows an obvious disinterest in collaborative efforts. Block him for a month; hopefully that will make him realize that, hey, we're here to improve articles together, not single-handedly make them shit. EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:07, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I stumbled across this user's edit war with Covenant D over the Thor comics articles about two months ago. Sadly, since that time, I have seen little progress, only regression. The edit war still continues and has expanded to other comics articles. I reported the disputed articles on the WikiComics Project notice board in order to get more people involved and, ideally, settle the dispute. However, rather than trying to work toward consensus, he erased my notice. [26] I know that we have to assume good faith, but actions like this strain credulity. Nonetheless, I have tried to work out compromises by changing problem sections within disputed articles in a piecemeal fashion, rather than a wholesale reversion. Initially, this seemed to be effective, but things eventually degenerated back into blind edit warring with little to no discussion. Occasionally, he will justify his edits on an article's talk page, but he is more likely to ignore or erase requests for discussion. When he does comment on talk pages, he is frequently incivil [27] [28] [29] and more than a little combative. [30] [31] Sadly, he actually makes some valid points in his arguements, but they are all but lost in the edit wars he provokes. Like Doczilla, I, too, had hope for Asgardian. But that hope is fading. --GentlemanGhost 08:57, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

• The posters here assume a great deal and present a fairly weak case. On behaviour, their own has been self-righteous and condescending on more than one occasion. Citing users such as CovenantD is also not a good idea given his track record and some of the comments he has made (such as "as long as that silly list appears, it gets reverted"). As for deleting comments on my user page, what of it? At least two of the persons cited do it all the time - as is their right. As for the argument that I am lowering the quality of the articles - I believe that's a very silly thing to say. They both know I have created over half a dozen sourced entries on characters that did not exist. Not for my benefit, but for the everyone's use and enjoyment. I have also added references and tidied up many, many more. They KNOW some of the entries were a mess prior to the fix. Rather, we are tussling over fine grammatical points, NOT revised articles per se (example - much of the Thor article is my version).

On co-operation - the posters here seem to have missed the discussion on Galactus, another comic character. I trimmed it back to an acceptable length, and was acknowledged by some as being quite good. Others responded with petulant insults. It is here that many posters fail - it is NOT about who knows more but the enjoyment factor, and of course presenting the information within a "Wiki context." I then offered another poster a chance at presenting his version of the Galactus article. I don't think he's been able to repost yet, but true to my word I've stayed off the page until he has had his chance and we can then discuss it. If that's not co-operation, I don't know what is.

As for 3RR, the first time was simply an experiment. I wanted to see if Wikiepdia followed through (I wrote a paper on Wikipedia and procedues). The second time I believe the moderator got it wrong - I was editing and improving on an article, not swapping backwards and forwards three times or more times. I explained this and simply received a "you should know better." I actually expect better from a moderator.

I am happy to discuss this, but there needs to be more objectivity and less exaggeration. At present, some of the argument smacks of "X must be stopped!" and is a tad immature. The fact that certain users have followed me to pages they had never previously visited speaks volumes (or those that I've created). There needs to be a little less "my way or the highway" from everyone, not just myself.

I won't be making any edits for the next fews day or so, but would hope that when I do that a discussion can follow - not a simple revert and complaint. They are simple grammatical issues that can be thrashed out courtesy of the Exemplars. So long as people are reasonable and a little less self-righteous, then a compromise can be achieved. I'll start with a topic over there in about two days and hopefully some positive change can come of it.

Regards

Asgardian 02:07, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• • Re: "As for deleting comments on my user page, what of it? At least two of the persons cited do it all the time - as is their right." Actually, I stopped deleting comments on my talk page because a remark someone else made on your talk page made me realize that wasn't how Wikipedia does things. (I'd thought of it like deleting old e-mail. Somehow I'd missed that Wikipedia policy along the way.) The one exception to this in the last several weeks was to revert a heading Asgardian should not have added to my note about my own talk page. Doczilla 06:31, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• • Wait a minute. It just hit me: Asgardian, you just said you deliberately violated 3RR as an experiment while writing a paper. You're not editing much this week because you're taking finals, aren't you? Did you start these edit wars as an "experiment"? Doczilla 06:40, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• • That's it, isn't it? That would explain the thing that has baffled me beyond all else about you. Why else would anyone spend three months making nearly two thousand edits (seriously) on the same bunch of articles over and over, editing, reverting, defying Wikipedia guidelines, reverting, and reverting without branching out and taking an interest in other articles any more than you have? Doczilla 09:08, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Asgardian's answers here are simply spin. He is at the very least guilty by his own admission of violating Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point.

Three editors here and a larger number throughout the affected Talk pages are all corroborating the extent and the nature of Asgardian's behavior. I don't know if he's been behaving as he has for purposes of some Sociology or Media class project, but it's extremely unfair to let him continue when so many responsible editors are spending so much time and effort on him. I don't want to give up on the Comics Project, but all it takes for his kind of behavior to flourish is for good Administrators to stand by and do nothing. --Tenebrae 22:28, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• The comments are still somewhat self-righteous and quite a few assumptions have been made once again. I suggest more discussion on character pages where needed. Have there been any reverts of late? No. Cooperation? Yes - see Galactus. Some of the articles mentioned still need work (eg. Awesome Android) and some will also have to accept that a touch up is inevitable. I'll start with an Exemplar discussion today as some of the "accepted" features need to be readdressed. See you there.

Asgardian 02:44, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

"Have there been any reverts of late? No." How can you say that? Here's the most immediate example of how that's just not true: Your last four edits before this noticeboard report were all reverts.

[32] reverted all changes since [33].

[34] reverted a lot of changes since [35], keeping (or adding, whichever) two little edits

[36] reverted all changes since [37]

[38] reverted all edits since [39]

And we could keep going back through your edits, pointing out how very many of them are reversions. You tend to edit your version of each article and not the version most other people are working on. Doczilla 03:36, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

• You seem to forget that I rewrote much of the information on those pages and it is still in use. The changes are also minor and acceptable. You are also not taking in what I've been saying. As this is an Admin Board, forward any direct comments to myself or place it under the relevant character.

Asgardian 05:06, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, this is an Admin Board, and this information is for the benefit of whichever admin looks at this because they'll be unfamiliar with what you've been doing, even though I've worded these newest remarks in second person to Asgardian. I say them to you because part of me still hopes you'll work with other editors (remember, I personally made sure you knew about this so you could contribute to this discussion), even though experience says how stubborn you are about not taking other people's remarks to heart. I haven't forgotten your edits. I know you've reworked a lot of things, and I've tried to incorporate your better changes to see if you'd accept that as the compromise you mention further above, but you just don't back off. You've kept reverting and kept reverting for three months. You've got your own version of each of those articles. Someone reverts your version, other people edit, you revert back to your own version, it gets edited, it gets reverted. Notice how many different people have been reverting away from your version. You're the single person repeatedly reverting back to your version in spite of all the reasons people have outlined over the last three months regarding what's wrong with your changes. Yes, some of the edits in your versions still need to be added to the version everyone else is working on. I've entered some of your edits into the other version of some articles and I've left some for you, hoping you'd start working with the other regular contributors to those articles. It's just not working. If you really want a compromise, act on the suggestion that several of us have made: Make one edit at a time and learn from other people's responses to them. There have been good edits I'd have backed you up on if you hadn't made twelve bad edits at the same time. But you've gotten this advice and gotten this advice, and yet here we are now. Doczilla 06:51, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

So let us begin with Exemplars. One final observation I will make is that the more serious contributors seem to fall into two groups - those that focus on technical edits, and those that contribute creative edits (I'd be the latter. I'll let anyone else reading decide what camp they sit in). Marrying the two together seems to be the challenge, which is not always easy. Asgardian 07:00, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I find it interesting that when you refuse to follow the consensus or the exemplars, you dismiss it as a "technical edit". Being a "creative" type doesn't justify stubbornness, unresponsiveness, incivility, or an unwillingness to work with other editors. --GentlemanGhost 01:11, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

• You are making an erroneous assumption.

Asgardian 05:36, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Asgardian uses a fallacy called a false dichtomy to try and excuse the fact that he feels the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia do not apply to him. --Tenebrae 01:27, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

• Not said. I am making an observation. Most of those I've talked with to date on Wikipedia perform more technical as opposed to creative edits. If still in doubt, ask yourself how many articles you've written or added to as opposed to correcting little technicalities. Anyway, this is not the place to be discussing such things at length.

Asgardian 05:36, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Using the erroneous "technical vs. creative" dichotomy not only splits editors along a nonexistent line, but also serves as a futile attempt to demean other editors (in short, an ad hominem attack). Regarding your assertion that it is hard to "marry the two together," apparently many have done so, with positive results. --²¹⁰physicq (c) 05:51, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

• I have to disagree.

"Erroneous" is an assumption on your part. Analysis of many of the comic entries shows that some contribute via a technical "dotting the i's and crossing the t's" edit, while others are creative and may rewrite or create an entire new entry. Edit Histories will show this. It is certainly not a "nonexistant" line - people are different, and their contributions will also differ accordingly. Neither is better than the other, making your claim that it was ever a "futile attempt to demean other editors" a tad ridiculous. As for marrying the two together, not so easy with the comic entries. There's often a greal deal of passion involved but not as much logic. Just study the entry for Thor. It took months to get that article to the standard it is at now. People with pet fetishes, people wanting it to look like a fan site, people insisting such and such happened in issue X and so on. Asgardian 06:48, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Since you used it as example, I checked your last Thor edit. How does, among other things, repeated refusal to follow the exemplar for identifying him as a fictional character help keep the page from looking like a fan site? Doczilla 07:12, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I just noticed that since Asgardian has refrained from doing much on Wikipedia this week, Hercules (Marvel Comics) has gone three days in a row without inspiring other contributors to fix it. The last time it went three days (two whole calendar days) without edits was also when Asgardian refrained from immediately undoing someone else's reversion of his work. That just happens to be the only page my watch list includes from Asgardian's edit war list. I expect this phenomenon can be found on other pages he has kept at. This illustrates what I have kept saying about how much work Asgardian creates for other people. Doczilla 07:28, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

• You make a good point and a not so good point. The "fictional" issue needs more discussion over at Exemplars (after all, of course Thor is fictional!) as do 1-2 other terms that aren't too clear. As for creating "work" for other people, you again sounding a tad self-righteous. Please remember no one owns Wikipedia, and that some changes are inevitable. There's being conscientious, and then there's taking the hobby (which is what it is) a tad too far...

Asgardian 09:17, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Remember no one owns Wikipedia. Words to live by. Can you take your own advice? --GentlemanGhost 22:47, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

• Since I said it, I should think so.

Asgardian 00:10, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

This is not "a hobby", but an avocation. Lay historians are contributing to a new form of academic encyclopedia. A hobby is for fun. We do it from a sense of duty.

And since you asked, go here to see I've created about 120 mostly lengthy articles, including several biographies of unsung, important comics creators such as Syd Shores and George Klein. Your schism of "technical editors" and "creative editors" is false and obscures the central issue: That by your actions you demonstrate your belief that the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia don't apply to you.

The consensus emerging is that you are doing more harm than good by being here. If this is just a hobby to you, and you aren't serious about collaborative historical scholarship, one has to ask whether you would be happier working on a comics fan site. --Tenebrae 00:16, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

For me wikipedia is just a hobby and sometimes a obsession. Brian Boru is awesome 00:20, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

For me, yeah, it is just a hobby (more like a habit), one I wish I'd spend less time on. Its being a hobby is a strong reason not to make waves (or at least not massive tidal waves), a reason to defer the exemplars, policies, and guidelines set by those who devote more serious time to it and to the consensus of contributors in general. If I disagree with an exemplar, etc., I shouldn't inflict my will on the articles. I should investigate the logic behind them and then, if I still disagree, I should discuss changing the exemplar. I'm puzzled by Asgardian's talking about the exemplar talk pages here when we've previously told him to take up these issues over there and yet he continues reverting to versions for which he has been repeatedly informed that they violate the Wikipedia way of doing things. Are you saying that you will now only take up these issues at the exemplar talk pages? Are you promising that you will finally stop making changes that you have been told violate the exemplars, policies, and style guidelines set by consensus? And beyond that, what about non-policy/exemplar-related changes you want to make that umpteen other people disagree with? Doczilla 01:23, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

• Why don't you contribute to the Exemplar discussion I've started? Two others are participating and some progress has already been made on an issue. Also, Tenebrae - I am not demeaning your contribution when I say "hobby" , but in all fairness we have all gone a tad too far before now. I am the first to admit this. Yes, Wikipedia is important in it's way, but it is not life and death when we are arguing over whether Thor has super speed or not. There is also someone who to judge by their entries sits in front of the computer hour after hour, watching for the slightest change. Condemn me if you will, but I believe that is going too far. In fact, in the interests of OH & S perhaps users should only be able to tweak a finite no. of entries in 24 hrs? It may help reduce edit wars and sometimes, obsession (another Wiki-related sin). Anyway, a good thread has been started at Exemplars. See you there.

Asgardian 08:59, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

• • You didn't answer the questions: "Are you saying that you will now only take up these issues at the talk pages? Are you promising that you will finally stop making changes that you have been told violate the exemplars, policies, and style guidelines set by consensus? And beyond that, what about non-policy/exemplar-related changes you want to make that umpteen other people disagree with?" Wryspy 09:43, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Propose a ban

I would just like to note that the arbitration committee takes a dim view of people needlessly changing an article to suit their personal preference. See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/jguk 2. I would suggest we are close to a similar situation here, and I would urge participants to resolve this dispute through some method other than arbitration. I would recommend parties file a request for comment on the issues or behaviour they feel most pertinent, and if that fails to settle the dispute, seek mediation. If that proves unsuccessful, then I think ultimately an arbitration request will have to be made. In the meantime, the arbitration committee has made it plain that where editors tendentiously focus their attention in an obsessive way ... they may be banned from editing in the affected area. I'd like to ask my fellow administrators if they feel Asgardian (talk · contribs) is editing in such a manner that a ban from editing comics related articles for a period may be neccesary. Steve block Talk 09:54, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Amoruso (talk · contribs) requests unblock

Hello. I have unblocked Amoruso yesertday in response to his request. However, Dmcdevit has convinced me that it would be proper to restore his block and solicit wider consensus. So I have reblocked him and taken the matter here.

Before you opine, see:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:Amoruso
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Dmcdevit#Amoruso
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Crzrussian#Amoruso
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RR#User:Amoruso_reported_by_User:RedMC_.28Result:48_hours.29

I have restored the original unblock request on Amoruso's talk page. Thank you. - crz crztalk 21:46, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

• He's clearly revert-warring without reference to the talk page. That he's four minutes outside 24 hours is frankly beside the point. I would also support page protection. Mackensen (talk) 21:50, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse block - "which he didn't trip, making his 4th revert after 24 hours and four minutes" stinks of gaming the system, the purpose of WP:3RR is to prevent edit warring, not to permit provided specific rules are followed --pgk 21:52, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse as well. There's no reason we should encourage edit warring. Once people revert more than once you already have an issue. WP:IAR overrides such technicalities of four minutes. Cowman109^Talk 21:55, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• My reasoning for the block was that for someone who has been blocked for 3RR before, 4 reverts in 24 hours and 4 minutes is simply gaming, and, compounded by the incivility, the block was valid and uncontroversial. 3RR is not an entitlement to edit war. Dmcdevit·t 21:57, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

copied form user talk

I'm disappointed by the POV of some users concerned in their remarks. User:Patstuart's claims for "warrior and single purpose" for example are completely false. While I was blocked once for 3RR it was controversial since I saw that as a serious infringement of WP:BLP. At this time I was involved in the edit-war and accidentally reverted 4 times against someone working against consensus. There was no incivility and I believe you were right in cutting the ban to essentially 12 hours. 48 hours was inappropriate especially since I contacted user:Dmcdevit personally and also apologisied for reverting 4 times and agreed not to revert the article ever again - this even though I never violated WP:3RR. Amoruso 22:01, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Yet he removed my explanation (as blocking admin) as to why WP:BLP did not apply for that case, then proceeded to request an unblock as if such an explanation never existed, writing: "Not only is that ruling wrong, but it's also supposed to be max 8 hours per first offense. But really in an edit war like this, no block should have been made, perhaps page protection" El_C 23:03, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

He also got away recently without a block for persistent edit warring on Pisgat Ze'ev (cf page history), although another user was blocked for five days for a similar level of edit-warring on the same article. This user is a persistent problem. Palmiro | Talk 23:08, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Being the editor who reported Amoruso for 3RR (for which El_C blocked ), I disagree with Amorusos report of the events. First; if anybody worked "against consensus", it was in fact Amoruso. Only three editors worked on the article at the time; two of us were in agreement, and Amoruso disagreed with the two of us. Secondly; I found Amoruso extremely incivil, e.g saying I made "outright lie"s, etc., which I find very offensive. (And nobody reviewing the edits/block have agreed with Amoruso) Regards, Huldra 05:09, 12 December 2006 (UTC) (who is, btw, a "she", even if Amoruso insists on referring to me as "he".)

I wasn't talking about that 3RR Huldra, you read it wrongly. Amoruso 17:43, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse. In general, I believe once a block is reversed on an editor, it should not be reinstated. Assume good faith, prevent edit wars, make the administrators look more consistent.  :) However, there are too many other issues with this particular editor and I believe a 48 hour block is justified. It's only two days, anyway. --Yamla 23:10, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

• Coincidentially, I'm just finishing up writing a few words on this user based on his edits from last week alone, which I intend to post tomorrow/when done. This user has been engaged in some heavy disruptive behaviour and edit warring for months, and I'm surprised he hasn't been blocked more than twice. I think some furter action is warranted. -- Steve Hart 23:36, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

• I respectfully disagree. I know this is not a popular opinion and although I do not support Amoruso's every edit (in this case, I wish he had waited and not called his opponent a vandal). Please let's keep in mind that we deal with the area of WP inundated with daily attacks of all kinds. In his defense, I'd like to point out that Amoruso usually does discuss his edits on the talk pages and is far from being the worst violator of WP policies. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 01:26, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Here is a recent example of a user with worse violations who made 5 RVs in 24hrs weaseled out of block. I find such discrepancy in applying penalties unacceptable. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 02:24, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Discrepencies mean that it should be better enforced, not that we should unblock them all (otherwise you are aguing for that unblock). Dmcdevit·t 03:03, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
      • Agreed. Since we discuss technicalities here, 24 hrs is 24 hrs - I saw users casually being forgiven for reverts made over period longer than 24 hrs. And finally, Amoruso's opponent was a sockpuppet of a banned user: #The return of User:Panairjdde/User:Kwame Nkrumah etc. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 04:37, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
• I've edited on the same pages as Amoruso for quite awhile now. Like Humus, I don't endorse every edit he has ever made, but I completely disagree with Steve Hart and Palmiro that he should be singled out for censure and criticism. I would ask you Steve, when you make the list yo mention, to look at ALL parties concerned and their behavior as well as Amoruso's. It obviously takes more than one editor to make an edit war. Amoruso is interested in some very contentious pages. These pages are also plagued with frequent vandalism. The general contentiousness of his topics of interest, and the way MANY OF US deal with them, are at the root of the problem. Given the contentiousness of the topics, we would all do well to pay very close attention to WP policies about NPOV, civility and assuming good faith (note to self and others). Singling out one editor for severe censure is not as helpful to the project as learning to compromise, to state things neutrally, to allow more than one pov on a particular page. Elizmr 01:52, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

• Editors are judged on their own edits, the misbehaviour of other editors is not an excuse for violating the rules. I'm not going to include other editors as I'm not involved in the case, but do report them if you want. Your wise words about NPOV and civility is actually the root of the problem, since this user has a longtime history of not adhering to these policies. When a user such as Jmabel posts to the Notice board for Israel-related topics that, quote, "I'm not particularly interested in staring into Amoruso's soul. I'm interested in understanding the purported reason for the removal of material" [40] (partial quote) it should ring a bell. -- Steve Hart 07:56, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately Elizmr if Amoruso is being singled out, he's being singled out for not being blocked and not being banned when the users who are behaving like him are blocked and banned. For example crz's 5-day block of User:ILike2BeAnonymous for being essentially one half of an edit war on Pisgat Ze'ev with Amoruso, who remained unblocked. Or User:PalestineRemembered, who looked rather like the mirror-image of Amoruso and was indefinitely blocked if I recall correctly. Palmiro | Talk 21:42, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Wow, Palmiro, this is a strong personal attack against Amoruso and I feel you should retract it. I'm quite familar with User:PalestineRemembered's editorial history. This user ran afoul of many core Wikipedia policies including WP:AGF and WP:NPOV on many occasions. Please refer to the history of her talk page to see the lack of any development as an editor in terms of adherance to policy or "culture" in terms of civility, etc. In terms of WP:AGF, she accused everyone who ever disagreed with her of poor faith, attacking her personally, etc. She once accused me of trying to get her to make a racist remarks. In terms of her understanding of WP:NPOV, she once said that "infidels" had no place editing pages in English Wikipedia that have to do with Islam. Saying that only one class of EDITORS should be editing on a particular topic raises a very red flag when it comes to her participation in this project. Finally, her understanding and implementation of WP:NPA was completely lacking. Calling non-Muslim editors "infidels" and refusing to retract that remark was highly uncivil. She did not even attempt to be CIVIL to anyone she considered a "Zionist" (which was basically a curse word to her). If you are going to compare Amoruso to this woman, you are way way off base. (Also please note that many editors who share PRs viewpoints are great Wikipedia editors and I very much enjoy working with them, but she was not by any criteria a good editor). Elizmr 00:07, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Elizmr. Yes, it's quite rude of Palmiro to say what he did. But it's not surprising since Palmiro was involved in many rude edit-wars and is probably thinking of himself in that sense. Which is a shame. Amoruso 02:58, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose block per Humus and Elizmr. It also seems to me that if the "3RR" is going to be applied the way some people are applying it, the reference to 24 hours should be eliminated from the policy page. If the rule is really that you can't revert more than three times in an unspecified time frame as determined subjectively by an administrator after the situation has occurred, let's say so. 6SJ7 02:16, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse, User:Dmcdevit's judgement was correct. This is particularly the case when the user who posted the Amoruso 3RR report was himself blocked just before from a report posted by Amoruso. Also, ANI should not have been brought into this rather obvious case. (→Netscott) 02:24, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose block per Humus, Elizmr and 6SJ7. Amoroso was not violating 3RR so the reverse of the block was correct. I agree also with Humus that he has thrown himself into the maelstrom of some very contentious pages and that there needs to be evenhandedness here. I've personally stopped editing some contentious pages involving religion because the arguing is endless and never resolved. He might want to step back from some of this editing but I think that singling him out for severe censure is not warranted.--Mantanmoreland 03:05, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

• Edit warring in general is discouraged. I think that WP:3RR likely contributes to the erroneous notion often held by edit warriors that they have a right to revert 3 times within 24 hours, as long as they do not exceed the electric fence. This is false and it should be clarified that edit warring is bad, without specific reference to the numerical requirements of 3RR. Khoikhoi 03:34, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

The fact of life is, we do need an electric fence because some users won't listen to any arguments and some policy must be enforced. The problem is, it is enforced inconsistently. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 03:48, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree...but four minutes? WP:3RR even says "users may be blocked for edit warring or disruption even if they do not revert more than three times per day". Khoikhoi 03:52, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Amoruso's editing is aggressive, but those he is opposing seem equally aggressive, if not moreso, and Amoruso does use the Talk: page to support his edits. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:58, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose block per Jayjg. Once we begin overstepping the actual 24h limit, we're down a slippery slope. Does 4 reverts in 24H+ 55 min count as gaming, too? 25 H? Isarig 04:26, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

• If Amoruso was indeed engaging a banned user then I would support a lifting of his block. Obviously the original blocking admin User:Dmcdevit could independently verify this. (→Netscott) 04:58, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose block per Humus and Elizmr explntion. He is a revert warrior but is a longstanding contributor in a very contentious area where we have recently seen the formation of a clique dedicated to protecting their member's views. FrummerThanThou 05:34, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose since he was reverting a blocked sockpuppet (per Humus et al). While I don't agree with many of his edits, I don't see why he should be singled out, especially as he does utilise Talk and generally respects policy. Tewfik^Talk 06:16, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose per humus and others, I can recall of many precedents were it was decided that 3RR specifically means that the user reverted at least four times in a twenty-four period (at least one of Irishpunktom's blocks comes to mind, [41]). Anyway, Amoruso isn't really a problem user, while he can be very aggressive I would primarily attribute it to reactivity to the behavior of other users rather than anything malicious on the part of Amoruso.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 07:58, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: I'm disappointed to see several editors who share Amoruso's political viewpoints, to the extent that a couple of them has exchanged barnstars with him, suddenly comes out in support. Editors should not value political leanings over rules and procedures. And I don't think edit warring with a sock puppet changes the facts of the case, unless he knew it was a sockpuppet, in which case he should have reported him instead of revert warring. Dealing with a sock puppets is not a carte blanche to do what pleases us. -- Steve Hart 08:03, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Please read over the WP:AGF policy before you decide to comment on the presonal motivations of other editors.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 08:29, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

• WP:AGF does not exclude me from raising the point that sometimes editors let their personal opinions stand in the way of upholding our policies. -- Steve Hart 09:25, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Moshe's right; just because it a number editors who have 'exchanged barnstars'with Amoruso are supporting him in this does not mean that we can assume that it is their shared viewpoints that lead them to do so. That being said, I note that a good number of the arguments are "but the others are worse!" Not a relevant statement, and one that one hears from people who are supporting someone for the sake of supporting someone. Hornplease 09:32, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose block, per Humus and Moshe. I don't believe Amoruso and I have a single political viewpoint in common; nevertheless, he has made plenty of worthwhile contributions to the wikipedia and I have never found him to be disruptive despite laboring on many an article alongside him. It's easy to cherry pick a few bad edits out of the bunch, as below, but I'd hate to see the write up someone could do about me! -- Kendrick7^talk 10:35, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

This block is wholly unjustified by the 3RR, and appears to be inconsistent with WP:BAN#Enforcement_by_reverting_edits

Wikipedia:Three-revert_rule#Reverting_edits_from_banned_or_blocked_users clearly states that

Editors who have been banned from editing particular pages, or banned or blocked from Wikipedia in general, and who continue to edit anyway, either directly or through a sock-puppet, may be reverted without the reverts counting towards the limit established by this policy.

As Amoruso was blocked because of his reversions of the edits of RedMC on Masada, and since RedMC has been blocked indefinitely as a sockpuppet of an indefinitely banned user, Amoruso's reversions on Masada qualified as "reverting edits from banned or blocked users", and thus did not violate the 3RR or otherwise constitute revert warring. Moreover, Amoruso's alleged incivility on Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RR#User:Amoruso_reported_by_User:RedMC_.28Result:48_hours.29, "characterization of others' edits as vandalism", was actually quite appropriate language when employed to describe the edits made by a sockpuppet of banned user. John254 22:15, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

:Thank you... and yet I served the whole 3RR so I would like to ask someone to ban and unban me after a second and say it wasn't a deserved block for the record. Because else people will use the bad record of block against me. Thank you. Amoruso 12:00, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Longtime disruptive behaviour by User:Amoruso

(note: there's a preceding debate above regarding a disputed 4RR by this user, I wrote this up before that situation arose).

Attention to User:Amoruso per WP:DE. This user is engaged in editing Arab-Israeli articles where he, as I see it, is on a personal mission. While I believe he has violated pretty much every policy and guideline we have in the months he has been here, I will limit diffs to a few of his recent edits (mostly from Dec. 3 - 8):

• removing the flag of Lebanon from the article 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict: [42]

• page move, moving Sirhan Sirhan (militant) to Sirhan Sirhan (murderer) [43]

• deleting material properly sourced to BBC: [44], ABC News: [45], PBS, others; blanking text in references: [46]

• adding material based on partisan sources without independent verification, e.g.: [47] [48]

• a tendency of being uncivil on talk pages, e.g.: [49] [50]

• consistently removing warnings on own talk page, e.g: [51] [52], including removing an olive branch response by one editor addressed not to him, but to a third editor: [53]

• and finally, what I read, perhaps wrongfully, as a suggestion to editors of WikiProject Israel to take the edit wars over Israel to other country articles in the region, I quote: "See the concerns over Talk:Israel#Permanent semi-protection. I wonder how we can address the issue that Israel's article will be attacked fervently but it seems that nobody is concerned with articles concerning Syria, Jordan, Egypt, Iran... ... I feel that this line of thought is an attack on Israel's sovregnity as state and I just wonder if there can be some perspective or edits by us on other country articles in the region atleast to attempt to balance the heavy and undue bias.", [54] (partial quote)

I should provide additional diffs on request. I briefly wrote about this editor's behaviour three months ago, here: [55]. There was a brief discussion on AN/I last month which involved the editor and a bad faith request to have a page unprotected: [56]. You should note that I was involved in a dispute with the editor in August [57], but I also received some kind words from him [58]. I'm generally not editing the same articles as him, we crossed paths as I was working on the NPOV backlog.

People are allowed to hold strong opinions and still edit articles. But it doesn't exempt them from following rules. In this case we're dealing with a user who for a long time has replaced well sourced material with text and links to partisan sites, is edit warring when other editors objects and often resort to calling those who disagree with him vandals.

This user has been subject to every attempt of dispute resolution except ArbCom, so it would be nice with some discussion on AN/I. I believe that this kind of behaviour is out of line and has been allowed to go on for too long. While I wouldn't call for a ban myself, I do think that the editor needs a break from editing Israel-Palestine related articles, at least for a month or more. -- Steve Hart 09:34, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Use Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. If you want to call for a lengthy block, then it should be clear from the discussion above that you won't get consensus for it. I understand that you find some edits by Amoruso objectionable, but overall, this is a productive editor with a history of positive contributions. Beit Or 09:49, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Alternatively use an user conduct WP:RFC. (→Netscott) 09:55, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

First of all, I would like the editor to move this back where it was, in its own section. This sections deals with a disputed 4RR and I have said what I have to say about that (and I'm not calling for a lengthy block). Second, I stated that every attempt of dispute resolution but Arbcom have been tried. This will go to Arbcom I presume, but I would like a discussion on ANI first. -- Steve Hart 10:19, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I moved this thread here as it is directly related to the above thread. It is generally poor form to have two discussions about a given user separately on ANI. Obviously no one owns ANI so if you feel that my moving the thread here was unjustified then feel free to move it back. I'm still reviewing this post myself. (→Netscott) 10:22, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

No, I'm not reverting. But my post has nothing to do with the 4RR and should not have any bearings on that discussion (it is a separate case), and it was mostly written before the 4RR occurred. What I would like is a broader discussion on what kind of edit behaviour is actually acceptable. -- Steve Hart 10:34, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Steve Hart, I understand. Although it does happen occasionally, ANI isn't really meant for such discussions, it's generally for reporting nefarious editor behavior where timely admin intervention is likely to be necessary and also for review of admin actions. Again I'd suggest a user conduct request for comments. (→Netscott) 10:44, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Steve Hart: earlier you assumed bad faith, and now you are piggybacking on another case to besmirch your opponent who is temporarily unable to respond at ANI. Not a good place and not a good time, colleague. See WP:DR. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 11:18, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to Amoruso editing at WP or for that matter an unblock per se. Nor do I care much for either side in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. What I am concerned about is allowing this kind of editing pattern to continue, a pattern which even according to some of those opposing the block is aggressive and revert warringish. -- Steve Hart 13:30, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

So why aren't you pursuing with equal vehemence editors on the other side of the Arab-Israel question who are equally if not more guilty of edit warring? I'm really uncomfortable with the way this is being handled.--Mantanmoreland 15:20, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I certainly will do. It's not like I'm immune from doing something when I see it [59]. -- Steve Hart 16:47, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but listing an article for deletion is not on a par with pursuing a campaign against an editor. The list of so-called "offenses" above, such as your objecting to Sirhan being called a "murderer," indicate political bias here.--Mantanmoreland 17:00, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not going to justify myself to you or give you "a list". If you disagree with my edits, drop me a note or file a report. As I have stated: I don't care much about the conflict at all. If you believe that editors should stand silent while properly cited material are removed and replaced with unverified statements from dubious partisan sources under the pretext all or nothing you're free to do so. I, however, disagree. -- Steve Hart 18:12, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

You just called for removing Amoroso from editing Arab-Israel subjects for a month or more. This is a harsh and in my view unjustified penalty, based on the flimsy "evidence of disruption" that you've accumulated here. Your citing his justifiable Sirhan page move is, I think, significant as that was a good move and a good edit.--Mantanmoreland 19:26, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I forgot, to your objection, you might wanna read up on Let the facts speak for themselves. -- Steve Hart 18:20, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

And in your view it is a "fact" that the convicted murderer of Robert F. Kennedy, who has spent the last forty-odd years in a California prison and was never a member of a millitant group -- that that convicted murderer is more accurately described as a "millitant" than as a "murderer." OK, you are entitled to your opinion, but it is anything but a mainstream one and speaks to what are clearly strongly held opinions on your part. (see below) --Mantanmoreland 19:26, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Mantanmoreland, the Sirhan Sirhan (murderer) is different from the assasin Sirhan Sirhan. (→Netscott) 19:30, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

(restoring margins) Thanks for clarifying, Netscott. Then Amoroso's edit seems even more justifiable. That Sirhan was a murderer of children! Good gawd. Just underlines my point that this was a good edit and that political motives are involved in this effort against Amoroso.--Mantanmoreland 19:57, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Amoruso has published a reply on his user page. I'm taking the liberty to post a copy. If I'm out of line, I'll remove it: -- Steve Hart 13:33, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Steve, it appears to me that Amoruso's responses to your specific allegations are more than adequate, and that in general this has the feel of a personal issue, rather than an AN/I issue. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:15, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

So you feel it's ok to delete material which is relevant to an article and properly cited to reliable sources? Or to include material based on partisan sources, even over the objections of other editors? In that case we will never agree. Yes, this is personal issue, but in the sense that I'm tired of seeing propaganda in articles. This is either an encyclopedia or not an encyclopedia. Amoruso isn't the only one doing this, he's just the worst offender I have come across so far. -- Steve Hart 07:18, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

This is a usual content dispute on which I have no opinion. Anyway, AN/I is not an appropriate place to resolve such issues. Beit Or 08:38, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Steve Hart, I believe I completlely refuted your claims. Saying I deleted material which is relevant to an article is simply a false statement. Partisan sources is your POV in the matter, it's a regular content dispute - I and others believe it's a very valid source , and frankly if we take the Lebanon flag example your allegations seem to have been made in bad faith. You couldn't have missed the original user who explained that Lebanon wasn't a combatant and removed the flag before me, and you couldn't really have missed the user who added the flag who admitted his mistake and even apologised. One would think you chose that example to make a quick slur which people won't check, and it's disturbing. I want to assume good faith here and I hope you won't resort to this again. I hope we can continue happilly as fellow wikipedians now. Cheers. Amoruso 11:56, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Amoruso, you certainly have not addressed my issues (see above), ..I found it quite insulting (+totally wrong) the way you accused me of making lies; I think an apology is due. Regards, Huldra 19:40, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Huldra, I answered you on my talk page at the time. You were confused, misunderstanding - you talked about the previous 3RR while I talked about this ban. There was consensus here not there, I said "this time" and you thought I meant the other thing. You read that wrongly, so it's in fact you who needs to apologise ;) Amoruso 17:43, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

One by one respones to allegations of Steve Hart

I will reply one by one to the allegations made by user:Steve Hart here.

• removing the flag of Lebanon from the article 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict

Too bad Steve Hart didn't (hmm.) go a bit further and saw that the user who placed the Lebanon flag admitted he was mistaken. Lebanon wasn't a combatant in the conflict and therefore the flag was out of place. The editor who placed the flag removed it himself. [60]

• page move, moving Sirhan Sirhan (militant) to Sirhan Sirhan (murderer)

Yes, I did. Murder is NOT WP:WTA as far as I know concerning someone who murdered a whole family. Perhaps Steve Hart can explain us how is such a person a militant ? A militant could belong to an organization like HAMAS or Islamic Jihad MAYBE but this person was acting SOLO. So perhaps Steve Hart wants us to change the definitons of Criminal Law ? This page was not a page in contention and no edit war or reverts took place.

• deleting material properly sourced to BBC: [134], ABC News: [135], PBS, others; blanking text in references: [136]

Did I ? I would like to remind Steve Hart that Blanking = vandalism and that's harsh accusation incivil one and he should avoid that ASAP. This was according to policy, another banned user pushing this, not Timshifter apparently possibly (who got 3RR for this) but BlueDome (actually another sock-puppet of the banned user in question ) and policy explained here [61] and here [62] by many users. User was acting against consensus of atleast 4 users in good standing.

• a tendency of being uncivil on talk pages, e.g. [139] [140]

none of the two example seem to be incivil. Actually, the Paranoia remark seems very light-hearted and a WP:LOVE behaviour if anything, just jokingly. If someone got offended by it, I'd apologise of course. In fact, like Steve Hart said I (wrongly it seems) was particulary civil to him too even though he deleted material of mine. Seems strange allegation. [63]

I'll just note that the "paranoia" comment was directed towards myself and in all honesty based upon what I was saying to User:Amoruso at the time that was a pretty tame response. At this point the whole discussion that was occuring surrounding that comment is now a moot point. (→Netscott) 15:58, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

• consistently removing warnings on own talk page, e.g: [141] [142], including removing an olive branch response by one editor addressed not to him, but to a third editor.

Ah, the ol' "don't remove from your page" think. Have you looked on other user talk pages at any chance ? Are you seriously pushing this allegation ? Note that the alleged olive branch response was made by user:PalestineRemembered a user now banned for 1 month for disruptive behavoiour on people's user pages. Seems Hart is missing a whole lot of information here. The timeshifter allegation was addressed already above - it was completely inappropriate and therefore removed.

• and finally, what I read, perhaps wrongfully...

Yes, you read that wrongfully. The topic on hand was how leads should be written for country articles. I suggested we try to reinstate some format into this in the name of WP:NPOV. I feel it's my right to discuss such issues with my fellow wikipedians at the project page ? There was no malice or ill-intent there, just concern to make Israel on par with other country articles.

Steve Hart notes that he was involved in a dispute with me back in August. That's true. In fact, this seems to be what it's all about. Steve Hart not just disputed but edit-warred over that page and reverted constantly and was also warned about it [64]. He also wanted to ban me from the head-start which was almost a threat and perhaps a violation of WP:BITE - "Frankly, I'm not sure you will be allowed to edit for much longer if you are to go on like this" and didn't seem to be concerned of WP:NPOV issues [65]. He says he already mentioned something bad about me in August right when I was a newbie but forgot to say I refuted his claims[66]. Finally, his repeated violations of WP:AGF saying that other users are biased towards me for political reasons even though this has just been contradicted by a good faith editor who disagrees with my political opinions completely and utterly.[67] Another proof of Steve Hart's agenda which revolved again over his war edit in August can be found again on this noticeboard. Steve Hart violated WP:CIVIL (I shall file him a complaint over that because it seems repetitve) by saying "Let me be perfectly clear: There's no reasoning with these guys. You will have better luck convincing a priest that God doesn't exist" [68] and making sure we all realise his crusade "One day someone's going to write him up and report him, and he'll be gone. Not even WP's forgiving policy enforcement is going to save him" (see same edit). <sigh>. Amoruso 11:13, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Amoruso, I knew I shouldn't have said anything on czr's talk page, because you would accuse me for having it out for you. As I said on his talk page, I happen to be on your side quite frequently. But, looking over your edit history, how can you tell me you're anything other than a single-purpose account to promote Israel? Your contributions speak for themselves. I might remind you that WP:AGF specfically says, "there is no need to assume good faith when there is evidence to the contrary". Otherwise, we'd never be able to address what we see as problem editing. -Patstuart^talk|edits 14:16, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I answered you in your talk page. Cheers, Amoruso 11:49, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

A possible way forward

As explained here, Amoruso's block is not justified by the 3RR since he was reverting edits by a sockpuppet of a banned user. Such reversions are specifically exempted from the 3RR, and, to my knowledge, are not otherwise considered to be "edit warring". With regard to allegations of edit warring and WP:NPOV violations by Amoruso generally, it would be a mistake to block only this one user, but to refrain from blocking other users who have been engaging in at least equally severe policy violations through pro-Israel and anti-Israel revert warring on a large number articles related to the middle east. As just a small example of this phenomenon, some users have repeatedly added entirely unreferenced anti-Israel material to Terrorism against Israel. Blocking a single user is not going to stop pro-Israel and anti-Israel editors from carrying on the Middle East conflict in the form of edit warring on Wikipedia articles. Rather, it might be advisable to identify the articles suffering from the worst pro-Israel/anti-Israel revert warring, and instead of fully protecting them, community banning the editors most involved in the revert warring from editing those specific articles for a period of several months. Unlike outright blocking, temporarily banning the editors responsible for the revert warring on a per-page basis would allow such editors to continue to contribute to any other articles that they could edit in a constructive manner. John254 01:52, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• I think this is a great suggestion. I would also like to see a zero-tolerance policy against adding unverified statements, claims of facts, and so forth, which we see from both sides. Dubious or contested material should always be moved to talk until it's either verified or consensus is reached. -- Steve Hart 06:59, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree that one should always add referencedd statements which are true, and this is something I've always adhered too. We should be careful not to exploit this doctrine in order to enforce one POV over another. Amoruso 11:50, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Just to throw something else into the mix here that may be relevant...I've seen calls before in other discussions, incuding Jimbo's talk page, for a Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser to be done on Amoruso and Mantanmoreland. Has one been done, and if so, what were the results? Cla68 00:27, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

(sound of applause) Hear hear! I knew that this thread would attract a troll pushing the User:WordBomb line of swill, and Cla68 has filled that role handsomely, as he has in the past and I am sure will in the future. Meanwhile, I think he should get a block to remind him that being a meatpuppet of a banned user is not the way to go.--Mantanmoreland 03:09, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I just noticed that Cla68 engaged in the above trolling in not one but two AN/I threads![69]. Bless my soul he is a dedicated troll.--Mantanmoreland 03:34, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I checked the reference again ([70]) and it's a message from Fred Bauder accusing Mantanmoreland and Lastexit of being the same, not Amoruso. I apologize to Amoruso for casting aspersions on his/her account. Cla68 03:41, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

The Pareto principle appears to apply to many of the users whose actions are discussed on this page. It seems that the same names are always being discussed for corrective action such, as in this case, disruptive editing. Would the administrators agree that 80% of the disruptive editing problems caused on Wikipedia that demand their attention come from the same 20% of Wikipedia's editor population (besides anonymous IP editors)? Cla68 04:13, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I believe less than 20% of editor's cause repeated problems. I would guess 10%. Cla68 04:14, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Why would you apologize to Amoruso and not to Mantanmoreland, as a matter of interest? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:08, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm going by what Fred Bauder reported in the diff that I posted above because I understand that Fred has a lot of credibility on Wikipedia. If he's wrong on what he reported, then of course I retract and apologize to Mantamoreland for presenting false evidence that he used sock puppets in the past. Let me make it clear, that even though Fred presents evidence that Mantanmoreland was using sock-puppetry in the past, I'm not accusing Mantanmoreland and Amoruso of being the same person right now. I realize I need to apologize to Mantanmoreland also for implying that. I'll expressly state it: I apologize to Mantanmoreland for implying that he and Amoruso are sock puppets of the same person. Cla68 06:18, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Cla. Whatever Fred was referring to was back in March and has been dealt with, so it's best not to keep on raising it. It's pretty clear that Amoruso isn't a sockpuppet. Thanks again for the apology. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:23, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Cla, what is your explanation for your making the same allegation in this other AN/I[71]? If you have an explanation, that is.--Mantanmoreland 15:27, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

SlimVirgin states that no sockpuppetry is going on here. I trust what she says and thus, as far as I'm concerned, the matter is closed. Cla68 02:40, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Cla68's cyberstalking and trolling

His last comment and "apology" to Amoroso -- conspicuously not to me -- was a repetition of the same old User:WordBomb cyberstalking and harassment directed at me. Cla68 engaged in more than just trolling and disruption in two unrelated AN/I threads. He acted as a sock/meatpuppet of a banned user, as he has in the past, for which he was warned to desist[72]. I reiterate my request for an appropriate block. --Mantanmoreland 03:51, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Cla68 is a respected and dedicated editor, the author of many superb articles. Please do not waste people's time with absurd claims that he is a "sock/meatpuppet" or a "dedicated troll". It will achieve nothing, and reflects very poorly on you. --Robth^Talk 06:26, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

In fairness, Rob, Mantan was responding to Cla's allegations. The best thing is for these claims not to be recycled, then no one will feel they have to defend themselves. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:35, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Rob, Cla68 has a history has pushing the agenda of banned User:WordBomb [73], and of making false sockpuppet allegations against me[74]. In this AN/I he made scurillous sockpuppet allegations -- in two AN/Is, one having nothing to do with Amoroso -- against Amoroso and myself. When called on it, he offers up a lame excuse and apologized to one of us. This is nothing less than Wikistalking, and I think appropriate sanctions are warranted.--Mantanmoreland 15:18, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

It's true, Cla68 has made such malicious allegations before - it seems very strange this behaviour and I don't know what he was looking for in this discussion. Amoruso 13:59, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

To repeat what I said above...SlimVirgin states that no sockpuppetry is going on here. I trust what she says and thus, as far as I'm concerned, the matter is closed. Cla68 02:38, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Derek Smart edit warring and User:Mael-Num

The Derek Smart article is in a sorry state of rampant edit warring which lead to the semiprotection of it and its talk page too.

Mael-Num (Mael-Num|talk • Mael-Num|contribs) has been pushing to have two cited incidents from reliable sources, namely the notable incident involving the alleged assault by Derek Smart of a coke machine, and a cite from ben kuchera of ars technica. User :Mael_Num has claimed a consensus for deletion of the cited information based on a discussion in the talk page that has lasted only a few hours, and with only three contributors out of many, which is not acceptable. He has warnings for civilty on his talk page. He can be possible SPA by his contributions Mael-Num|contribs.

I kindly request the admins to mediate and offer a acceptable solution to this long running (>13 months) edit war. I would also request for a checkuser to be performed on Mael-Num and Supreme_Cmdr and WarHawkSP to see if there is any violation of the blocks placed under WarhawkSP and SC.Kerr avon 01:52, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• I mirror Kerr avon's stated concerns. Except the check user is much more complicated. Besides the 3 usernames, there are also anonymous IP addresses that have recently appeared editing the Derek Smart article and it's talk page. They all purport the same viewpoint, share writing styles (mostly) showing uncanny similarities to recently blocked WarhawkSP and Supreme_Cmdr, and always agree with each other. The IP addresses are 63.28.69.164 and 63.44.66.100, which are both Fort Lauderdale IP Addresses, where Smart lives and runs his business. Also, it should be noted that these violations may fall under WP:Auto policy because it is likely the person is Derek Smart himself. --Jeff 02:19, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• Addendum: I don't believe Mael-Num is a sockpuppet. Supreme_Cmdr/WarHawkSP and the IP Addresses are. Mael-num has a distinct writing style, but there are still issues that need some oversight over at the derek smart article.--Jeff 04:20, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm concerned as well. I'm concerned that there is organized off-wiki attempt to push a POV on this article that removes cited sources. As mentioned above on this page, WarHawkSP and Supreme Cmdr have been single purpose accounts blocked from editing due to this. There have been numerous more single purpose accounts and now a rash of anon edits. Checkuser is inconclusive, but did not rule out the possibility that these are socks. I mentioned above, this edit war does not appear to show signs of slowing down soon, and I believe it will likely continue until everyone is 3RR blocked, or it goes to ArbCom. We absolutely need some administrator intervention. Users are misquoting policy, especially BLP to remove cited, reliable material. This is a major problem. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 03:04, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

This is beyond tiresome. I believe this page needs full protection until all parties can form some sort of agreements. --InShaneee 05:27, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Note: I'm working with Mael-Num to try to keep him civil and try to find a reasonable solution to this. I guess you could call it informal mediation. However, I do think this case would be good for a formal mediation attempt, which I have neither the time nor the interest for conducting myself (not to mention I'm not AMA). I agree with InShaneee. This page needs to be full protected, a mediation needs to be conducted, administrator oversight towards those who continue to be uncivil needs to be enforced with short blocks, and hopefully this can be fixed without the time and frustration of an ArbCom case. Unfortunately, I think that it will end up coming to that otherwise. For further reference, see the cross conversation on my talk and Mael-Num's talk. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 05:35, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• Screw it, I'll go ahead and do a full mediation on this. I posted on the talk page. Got nothing else going on anyway. Hopefully this will at the very least determine who is willing to help advance the article, and who is not. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 05:43, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I've fully protected. It's getting hard to keep track of all the SPAs on that article. -- Steel 12:48, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm requesting a moderate length block on WarHawkSP: after agreeing to mediation, and after the article was protected, WarHawkSP is now deleting comments off the user talk that disagree with his position. He cites WP:BLP as his validation, and calls it vandalism, but the comments he deleted were a) opinion and not subject to libel, b) nothing that would even be considered a personal attack if you were to subsitute a wikipedia editors name in, and c) directly related to the validity of inclusion of a link in the article, which is why the page is protected in the first place.

WarHawk is a single purpose account, that has been blocked for 3RR on this account. It's inconclusive as to whether he is a sockpuppet or not. I'm requesting a block length of 48 hours so that further talk page discussion can go on undisrupted by him. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 01:54, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Anything? Hello? ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 06:08, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi Swatjester, looking at the talk page there appears to be a reasonable enough discussion about WP:BLP, specifically concerning the removal of poorly sourced material from talk pages per policy. To be honest, I don't see anything to support a block... Addhoc 22:08, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

As far as I know, reverting someone's opinion on a talk page is considered bad taste, and to do so while WP:BITING them by declaring them to be vandals, and this is a continuation of his prior behavior on the page which is full of personal attacks and incivility (not that there hasn't been that on all sides). It's one thing to be incivil, it's another to be incivil, remove someone's valid talk point opinions, and then call them vandals over it. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 09:54, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Robert Priddy - this section moved here from WP:AIV

Andries (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Andries is a self-professed critic of Sathya Sai Baba and said he will continue to revert the Robert Priddy article [75] despite specifically being warned by Admin to stop [76]. Since the time of Admin's warning, he included the link in defiance of Admin and the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sathya Sai Baba 4 times, 3 times today so far. See: [77][78][79][80]. I have placed 4 warnings on his talk page. SSS108 ^talk-email 17:56, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I am relisting this incident because no one responded to it. This has been a persisting problem and I fail to see how it is going to be resolved if Admin does not step in to resolve it. SSS108 ^talk-email 17:56, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Please take it to WP:3RR. User:Zoe|(talk) 22:11, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Zoe, he reverted the article 3 times but no more. So it does not violate 3RR. Originally reported it as Vandalism, and the Admin there moved it here. Who else is going to deal with this issue if not the Admin here? SSS108 ^talk-email 00:07, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Andries readding the link again: [81]. SSS108 ^talk-email 16:53, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

SSS108 and I have a dispute about how to proceed with dispute resoluton. See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Arbitration_enforcement#User:Andries. [82]Andries 12:20, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

User Coredesat , User JDoorjam , and User Psychonaut

I was communicating to people who were affecting articles such as Srebrenica Massacre, Bosniaks, Markale Massacre, etc. Most of them were Bosniaks, although some of them were Serbs and non-Serbs. Some users have complained about user Coredesat and user JDoorjam rolling back and deleting comments that I left them, here are some of many example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Bosniak#re:_comment_on_my_talk_page and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:JDoorjam#My_User_Page By the way, user Psychonaut is either Serb or pro-Serb oriented and he defends Serb interest on Wikipedia and constantly complains about non-Serbs to administrators, which brings his fairness and good faith into questioning, just so you know. Peace Bosniak 02:01, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I admit that I have recently posted three WP:ANI reports about users who self-identify as Bosnians or Bosniaks:

• Bosniak (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive149#Block request for User:Bosniak, 14:43, 26 November 2006 (UTC))
• Bosna 101 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive150#Serial copyright violator User:Bosna 101, 23:21, 30 November 2006 (UTC))
• Ancient Land of Bosoni (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive152#Ancient Land of Bosoni, 21:52, 1 December 2006 (UTC))

These reports were made because the users in question had repeatedly violated Wikipedia policy in defiance of warnings, and not because the users were Bosnia{n|k}. Whether or not I am a Serb is irrelevant. —Psychonaut 02:30, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

• Uninvolved outsider here, but I'd like to point out that any POV-pushing here is definitely a 2 way road. [83] Characterization of other editors as vandals for content disputes, attempting to rally editors along ethnic lines, accusations of conspiracy, etc. are all uncivil and will simply polarize a situation even more than before. I also found this rant[84] rather disconcerting, in which he "thanks God" that another editor has stopped editing and effectively vows to have an article created despite its deletion by community consensus. --tjstrf talk 02:17, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not a Serb, or a Serbophobe, or a Bosniak, or an anti-Bosniak. I didn't even know "Bosniak" was a word until yesterday. I'm simply anti-spam. It was requested up the page that a neutral admin roll back the dozens of spam messages User:Bosniak posted; I did so. Don't spam Wikipedia. JDoorjam Talk 04:07, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Bosniak left the same message on Talk:Srebrenica massacre which I deleted according to the talk page guidelines as it did not pertain to the article. I now see that it is also mentioned here, so I thought I'd better left a note. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 04:18, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Less cries plz, Bosniak;) - Ivan K 07:08, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm oriented to block Bosniak for two weeks, for his endless pattern of disruption, spam, pa and uncivility. What I especially find frustrating is that he got his last week-long block just a few weeks ago, and he doesn't seem to have as yet grasped the rules. Opinions?--Aldux 18:39, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, he seems to have stopped. If he starts again, two weeks might be a good minimum. --Coredesat 03:27, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I second that. Stop The Lies 09:03, 16 December 2006 (UTC)Stop_The_Lies

Full support. I just don't understand why have all the previous filings been ignored.... --PaxEquilibrium 18:04, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

No objection here. But then again, I'm an involved party. —Psychonaut 23:17, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Cat depopulation?

It appears at a casual glance that Str1977 (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) is on a mission to depopulate "Category:Christian mythology" (note the last 2 dozen edits in Contribs). Given that the changes are occuring rather quickly, with 20+ deletions in 20 minutes, I thought I should mention it here. Doc Tropics 08:05, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Is it being replaced by something else? Viridae^Talk 09:05, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

In some cases, such as Child Jesus[85], yes. In most, no. Some of them appear to be valid recategorizations, others are rather reactionary seeming and misunderstand that the Category:Christian mythology is for Christian wikt:mythos in the technical sense, not myths in the colloquial sense of unsupported/false tales. --tjstrf talk 10:49, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Doc. I appreciate that bringing it here is a result of your concern over a series of rapid decategorizing, but I think it's misguided in this case, though certainly well meant. Str1977 is a longstanding valuable member of the community, with well over 10,000 edits to his credit, many of which are reversions of vandalism, archiving talk pages, helping other users with formatting, etc., and many of which are also completely unrelated to Christianity. So "on a mission" seems rather loaded language. It seems likely that he saw an article in that category which didn't seem to belong, removed the category, and then looked in the category to see what other articles were in it, and removed the ones that he thought misplaced. It seems that the first place to express concerns should have been at his talk page. Bringing it here suggests that admin action (rather than user discussion) is required, especially by using the {{user5}} template instead of simply the {{user}} one. I don't think we need a quick access to this, though others may disagree :-)

It's possible for good editors to disagree over the appropriateness of categories. Sometimes it's more about POV pushing than about honest disagreements between users. For example, there could be a notorious serial killer, who happened to have Jewish parents, but who was himself an atheist. Someone who shows by his pattern of making anti-semitic edits that he has an axe to grind adds the murderer's article to the category (if there is one) of famous Jews. Other editors quite rightly protest. There can also be misunderstanding of what it means to be in a category. Months ago, I took Margaret Roper out of the category of Catholic martyrs,[86] because she wasn't a martyr; her father was. Geogre reverted me, and gave a very reasonable explanation on the talk page, which I accepted.

Str1977 seems to be offline at the moment, and someone has already left a message on his talk page, about him, not to him (i.e. in the third person!), and I'm sure he'll be open to discussing it when he next logs on. In this case, I would certainly agree with some of his decategorizations (or recategorizations), and can see the reasoning behind the others. AnnH ♫ 14:20, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the responses, and the time that you all put into reviewing this issue. I'm not always clear on when to talk versus when to call for attention, and I did have concerns about the speed of the changes being made. I didn't realize that "appears at a casual glance...is on a mission" would be considered loaded language; in fact, my intent was rather the opposite. I was trying to indicate that I wasn't quite sure what was happening, and at 2:00 a.m. (my time) I simply wanted someone else to look into because it was way past my bedtime. Likewise, I didn't realize that the various {{user}} templates were associated with specific "threat levels"; I almost always use {{user5}} on this page because it makes all relevant info easily available. I actually tried to ensure that my post wasn't accusatory or inflammatory, but I did want someone more experienced to review the situation. It appears that he removed the cat from 40 articles in about an hour, which strikes me as odd, but if others are unconcerned about the issue I'll not worry about it any further. Thanks again for your time, and sorry for any inconvenience. Doc Tropics 16:25, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh, no problem, you were quite right to bring it here if you thought it was a problem, and I don't think Str will get huffy. Regarding the different user templates, a lot of examples can be seen at the bottom of the {{user5}} one. There used to be a problem with one that was called "vandal". It was eventually moved to {{userlinks}}, so we don't use it with the "vandal" name anymore. It gave user, talk, contribs, block user, and block log; and a decent user who had been blocked for 3RR (yes, there is such a thing!) would have his name appearing on the noticeboard with the word "vandal" in front of it in the source code! AnnH ♫ 17:50, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Seeing this section title made me very concerned until I realised it was short for something. Please use abbreviations with care :-) --Sam Blanning^(talk) 16:30, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, my first thought was "Colbert?" – Chacor 16:31, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Ann for the heads up. Indeed I will not get huffy at Doc for bringing this up here (in contrast to Wetman's reaction filled with his usual condescension and insults.)

I am indeed not on a mission. I got drawn into the category by a posting on my talk page by Storm Rider, a Mormon editor. I had a look into the items of the category and found many inappopriate for various reasons. The "mythology" = "myth" angle was not one of them, though I see the danger in a reader misunderstanding this and also suspect that some editors did indeed post it with this in mind). Very broadly, my concerns were about the misidentification of mythology (concerns deities and supernatural beings) with legend and folklore. The category contained various Saints, even uncontroversial ones. It contained a number of items on relics (again very real objects, regardles of one's beliefs about them), it contained items that were mythology but more precisely Mormon mythology. Regardless of whether one sees Mormons as Christian or not, if an item is specific to only group alone it should not be associated with a wider (or different) group as such. Also, Biblical monsters did not seem very Christian too me. (And of course, the Islamic "al-Rakim" beat it all.) Finally, note that removing the category was not all I did - I also did some edits on problematic bits I came across (especially the Seven Sleepers). Good night, Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 02:59, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Str1977, since I brought your name up on this forum in a negative fashion, it's only appropriate that I should make a formal apology to you in the same venue. I have reflected on this little debacle that I wrought, and now consider that I made the following errors:

1. Seeing activity that I didn't understand, I jumped to conclusions not in keeping with an assumption of good-faith.
2. I acted without taking the time to thoroughly review the situation. If I had, I probably would have seen that some of the cats were indeed inappropriate in the first place.
3. I posted here instead of trying to open a discussion on your talkpage. Bad judgement and no excuse for it.

The end result of this was that 6 editors wasted time on a non-existent issue, and I'm sure it caused you some consternation. So I hereby apologize to all involved, and most especially to Str1977 for bringing his name to ANI so frivlolously and improperly. I have learned a lesson here, and while I'm sure I'll make mistakes in the future, I at least won't be making the same mistake twice. Doc Tropics 21:59, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

User continiously removes large sections from an article.

Ultramarine continiously (for more than a month) removes well-souced sections about Marxist view on democracy from "theory" section of Democracy article [87]. I do not know how to considerthese actions other than vandalism.--Nixer 17:56, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

That has been extensively discussed on the talk page of that article. See my response there. In brief, Nixer wants a version that only contains Marxist criticisms of liberal demcracyy (See his latest edit, he only restores the Marxist views but not the opposite view [88]). I do not object to this criticism of liberal democracy, but it should not be in the article about democracy without mentioning opposing views and without mentioning advantages of liberal democracy. Detailed advantages and disadvantages of specific forms of democracy should probably be in the appropriate article, otherwise this overview article which presents numerous form of democracy will become too big. However, if Nixer insists, I will, as previously, copy the advantages of liberal democracy to the the Democracy article and copy the disadvantages of Soviet democracy to the Democracy article. But I think that a better solution is to discuss this in articles about specific forms of democracy.Ultramarine 18:49, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Have you folks tried Wikipedia:Resolving disputes? HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 18:51, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Hasn't this been through WP:RD already? I seem to remember that there have been arbitrations involving these people before. If someone could link to them, it might help provide some background. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:12, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I have never been in arbitration regarding the democracy article or with Nixer. Have a look at Nixer's block log.Ultramarine 19:20, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Respectfully, as evidenced by these large scale deletions, I see that Ultramarine in his dogged defense giving favor to Liberal Democracy in the Democracy article, (at the expense of others forms of democracy), fails to follow Wikipedia policy about WP:NPOV#Undue_weight. BruceHallman 18:48, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

A brief review suggests to me Ultramarine is right, but anyway this should be better discussed through RfC or such procedure, there is no need for ANI discussion.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  23:39, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Piotrus, I am troubled deeply by this statement, Ultramarine deleted large sections of well referenced material. He did not move it, he deleted it. I have no respect for this.

That said, I think I have defused the argument Talk:Democracy#Comprimise_suggested while liberally upbraiding both users about their bad behavior. Travb (talk) 16:07, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Don't worry, be happy

Can someone please check this song's page? I went in to add a movie reference in that section, thought I was fixing something, but further look showed me that someone at 147.10.240.73 did some massive changes that are all incorrect this morning. I moved it back to the december 7 version and then added the reference, but if someone else could check it for any other errors that would probably be good.

User:61.91.191.11

Please take a look at this IP's edit history. He is constantly putting in unsourced POV wherever he sees fit and even removes large portions of text. The IP talk page has several warnings. Can we get this guy blocked from further edits? --Unreal128

I also noticed while going through the edits he is spamming it with commercial links or childish remarks. Look at his edit on the Ayutthaya Kingdom. --Unreal128

Phajje ke Paye

OK. The article was initially nominated and I think deleted for being a non-notable resturaunt. However, I'm thinking it is notable, but the problem is with the way the name is transliterated(and the fact that there are multiple permutations of it) is that it is difficult to find material referring to it.. The user trying to protect the article from deletion cited these: http://www.paklinks.com/gs/archive/index.php/t-175827.html http://lahore.metblogs.com/archives/2006/11/lahores_seven_g.phtml http://www.pakistanimusic.com/lyrics/AliHaider-AaraPajama.txt http://www.chowk.com/show_user_replies.cgi?membername=Romair&start=630&end=639&page=64&chapter=7 http://www.readysteadybook.com/BookReview.aspx?isbn=0060740426 and a small mention in a local(for Lahore, anyway) magazine, http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:sdMp3lgYsxoJ:www.newsline.com.pk/Newsdec2003/lifedec2003.htm+phajja+lahore&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=2

I'm not sure if it's enough to prove notability, but it's enough to make it debatable.. I'm at least under the impression that the article should not have been db-spammed, as it doesn't really read like an advertisement.--Vercalos 09:49, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

OK, so how is this handled anyway? Do I start a new discussion on the old discussion page or what? anyone care to give me some direction?--Vercalos 04:22, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

You can post it at Deletion review, be sure to provide links to your sources there. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 04:24, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. Done.--Vercalos 05:42, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

What if no one responds?--Vercalos 06:57, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

If there is no consensus then the closure of the AfD is endorsed. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 18:02,

16 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure if it means anything, but an administrator removed the AfD notice from the page.--Vercalos 18:56, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi Vercalos, that was me. The AfD notice at the top of the article linked to the old AfD page Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Phajje ke Paye from April. No new AfD was created (or needed to be), so I removed the AfD notice. It was correctly speedily deleted by HighInBC and can be undeleted if consensus is as such at DRV -- Samir धर्म 00:52, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Not sure what to do with this user page

I just discovered User:Wikiwebisode which appears to be a project in work. WP:NOT a free hosting service, but it is a user page which users are allowed more leeway. In addition, the user's contributions are only related to this userpage and the images used on it. I believe it should be deleted, and the user account removed, but I don't think WP:CSD is the right way to go, but I may be mistaken. Any advice is appreciated. If you remove it, please let me know what the proper way to do it would have been. Thank you. --MECU≈talk 14:30, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I've just left them a note. Let's see what would be their action. -- Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®} 14:44, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

The correct course of action here is Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion. Leave the user a message on their talk page. We'll watch them and if no reasonable editing comes of it in a day or so (and if the userpage doesn't change), take it to MfD. A Train ^{take the} 14:44, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

It's been a day and no sign of User:Wikiwebisode. I'm going to put the page up on MfD; the user will still have a good number of days to respond and I'll be happy to withdraw the nomination in the event that some legitimate purpose materializes. A Train ^{take the} 14:40, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Spamming of citation needed template

Recently a user (admin himself...) has removed my citation requests, toghether with copyediting changes and referenced added by another editor from an article. I have warned him twice that this behaviour is less then constructive; my most recent warning was removed by a third party twice. I'd appreciate if somebody could act into this to see whether my warning was appopriate or indeed a 'personal attack' as the user who removed it claims, and restore it and/or warn the party which erred (if my edit has indeed been a 'personal attack', do let me know by all means, so I can apologize for it).-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  15:49, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

This is not boderline vandalism. Most of the article edits seem to be about which statements need citation and which don't, which should be discussed on talk instead of edit warring over tags. Removing the wikilinks could be okay per WP:CONTEXT. It was unnecessary to discuss this on Briangotts' talk page and to accuse him of borderline vandalism. Ghirla editing your comment was also completely unnecessary, and Ghirla and you edit warring on a third user's talk page is WP:LAME. Kusma (討論) 15:59, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, from what I'm seeing, Piotr may have a point. Removing references and fact tags is borderline vandalism. And removing a well intentioned comment and replacing it with "personal attack removed" is a blatant violation of WP:AGF. Brian should know better. -Patstuart^talk|edits 16:52, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Requests for citations on a page with more than seventy inline citations qualifies as tag trolling. Those who encourage trolling should review their standards. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 17:47, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

The number of citations on a page is immaterial to the merits of a citation request. If the material questioned is not supported adequately by the existing citations, then it is perfectly proper (and I think necessary) to request a citation. -- Donald Albury 18:51, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure that removing the fact tag really constitutes vandalism, but a the same time the removal of the fact tag with the comment "these are not statements that require citations. They are discussed extensively in the text" isn't what I would consider to be good reasoning or helpful editing. It relies on the article to source these statements, which isn't a valid way to do this. What is more disturbing to me is the fact that User:Briangotts removed what appears to be valid refs for the reason that he doesn't feel these statements require a reference. To me, referencing is always preferable to a statement being unreferenced, and this edit isn't constructive. Still, this should be discussed on the article talk page... I don't think this has gotten to the point where an admin needs to invervene.--Isotope23 17:13, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

As to that edit, I have no issue with Brian removing the probably-redundant refs I added. If I'm not objecting, I don't see that there can be a problem. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:33, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

For those who wish wider context, I described the situation hours ago and predicted that, per his usual behaviour, we shall see Piotrus forum shopping on WP:ANI. Two hours passed: here it goes. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 17:50, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Please note that I the issue at hand is not a really minor and I believe now resolved disagreement I had with Brian, but the fact that my comment were edited by another user. Is such behaviour acceptable?-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  03:03, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

In related news, what do you think of such changing of ANI's headings? I think they are as inappopriate as editing other's comments.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  19:54, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Piotr, as long as your desysopping is under discussion on the relevant talk page, I advise you to refrain from performing admin actions, especially in such an aggressive manner, and issuing "warnings" to fellow admins. Thanks, Ghirla ^-трёп- 17:21, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that is relevent. Also RfC's cannot result in desysoping as far as I know, only ArbCom can do that(unless I am wrong). HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 17:36, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Apparently you are wrong, since Piotr's name can be found in Category:Administrators open to recall. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 17:53, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

That does not result in desysoping, only re-confirmation of adminship. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 18:03, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Indefblock on User:Tasc

User has been indef-blocked, it seems, by User:J Di, for death threats (see contribs). Just bringing it to attention here. While I support the indef block for the threats, I cannot support how J Di dealt with the situation initially with a one-week block. That seems extraordinarily long for general incivility. Even given the user's past block log, last civility-related block was in May. Cannot see how a new bout of incivility warrants one week. Still, fully support indef block. – Chacor 16:19, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Why not leave J Di a message on their talk page and discuss it with them? A Train ^{take the} 16:28, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

It's general practice for most admins to note indefblocks here for other admins to review. I happened to come across this one. No idea why J Di did not do so. – Chacor 16:30, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I am aware of the practice and understand your concern completely, but I still don't see why a public callout here is preferable to bringing the matter directly to Tasc, J Di. A Train ^{take the} 16:36, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Um, he didn't block for death threats, only "threats". Tasc was extremely uncivil and deserves a two week break, maybe even a month, but I don't support an indef for telling someone to "fuck off". The indef should be shortened. pschemp | talk 16:38, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't know, "I'll fucking kill you" is a death threat to me... – Chacor 16:40, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh I see. It was in the edit summary, not the diff where I was looking. Hmm. Well I think the initial bock was a bit harsh and might have precipitated this behaviour. If tasc apologizes, his indef should be removed though. pschemp | talk 16:43, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

agreed with pschemp. The original one week block was a bit excessive, even if a block was warranted. However, I could definitely see a 3-4 week block, perhaps even with a talk page lock to prevent that kind of nonsense. Patstuart^talk|edits 16:45, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I tend to agree w/ pschemp and Pat (i.e. a month). HOwever, he should apologize and understand that comments like this got no place here. -- Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®} 16:50, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Why on earth would we invite this person to keep editing here? Jkelly 17:37, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Well unless he apologizes, I don't think we should. But if he does, a second chance is warranted. pschemp | talk 17:47, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I've seen this guy revert war on several templates, and I've seen him be uncivil to another user about one. He had the block coming; he's been warned enough about his incivility on other pages by other users. He chose to continue. Because of that, I felt a one week block was justified. I'm not going to blame anything on the first block because how a person behaves is up to them. I'm not going to try and stop anybody from unblocking him if there's some sort of agreement to do so, but I'm also not going to support it. J Di ^talk 17:39, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is talking about unblocking him, rather shortening the block if he apologizes. If not, then it should be left. pschemp | talk 17:48, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

How long, exactly? J Di ^talk 18:35, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I think one month is enough to make him rethink his conduct and apologise. If behavioural problems persist, the block should be extended to indefinite. Let's see what others think. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 18:52, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not really that happy with shortening the block at all, but if that's what everybody wants, then I want an apology first. Somebody's going to have to unprotect his user talk page if that's what's happening. J Di ^talk 18:55, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The user posted "I'll fucking kill you"[89], an indef block is warrented, easily, without hesitation. In my opinion. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 17:40, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Your opinion may be flawed. I interacted with Tasc when he edited Russian wikipedia and saw no incivility from him there. I did not follow his edits in English wikipedia closely, but saw him repeatedly removing vandalism from Russia and other pages. I suppose, if he apologises for his angry outburst, he should be given a chance to reform. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 17:44, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

This certainly warrants an indef block.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  23:25, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Piotrus on that one; telling an admin to fuck off, and that if he communicates again with an another "fuck you" with death threats, I do not think he should be here any longer on WP. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 23:28, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Gotta agree with Piotrus and Zscout on this one. Death threats bad. The block should be indefinite. User:Zoe|(talk) 00:40, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

While agreeing that death threats are bad, I don't see why the fact that it was an admin is relevant. Trollderella 06:06, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse block. Good call J Di. I'd unprotect the talk page though, and agree with J Di shortening the block if an apology is granted. -- Samir धर्म 07:07, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Tasc already had three civility warnings on his talk page (I did not count inside the archives) when he began the exchange at Template talk:LGBT that earned him his fourth. This is also not counting the civility warning by J Di at 19:03, 12 December 2006 (UTC) on the template talk page. So the civility warning that Tasc flamed in response to was the second one regarding this particular situation. The whole incident began out of Tasc's decision to revert war instead of seek consensus, behavior for which Tasc had been blocked at least five times previously (plus one earlier civility block). In light of the earlier civility block and two directly related civility warnings, after demonstrated disregard for consensus, I do not think that the week-long block was excessive. Upon viewing the block log and noting that so many previous shorter blocks had failed to get the point across, a week sounds like a very reasonable next step. I also don't think that apology for a death threat should reduce the block. If indefinite blocks are given for anything, what is more serious than a death threat? — coelacan talk — 19:42, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I forgot that I need to point out that I am the one who Tasc origninally began incivility toward on the template talk page, in case this constitutes a conflict of interest. — coelacan talk — 19:45, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

So many previous shorter blocks? I have no personal interest in this case, I don't know Tasc and had never heard the name before reading this thread. But I think it worth pointing out that before the incident described here, Tasc's bloc log consisted in tutti, since March 2006, of three 3RR blocks plus one 24-hour block for edit warring, plus one--count 'em--one 48-hour block for "incivility, removing tags". This, which was also his latest previous block, was logged in May 2006. Tasc has been blocked for incivility once since joining Wikipedia. His block log has been clean from May to December. Bishonen | talk 00:46, 17 December 2006 (UTC).

Objection

Wait a second, I don't like to see this. Tasc is being very rude and angry, yes, I don't like that, OK, but please focus on the timestamps here:
18:10, JDil: Remain civil. You won't be warned again.
18:14, Tasc: Find yourself a better job, than putting those terrible colours on my talk page.
18:15, JDil: You've been blocked for a week.
18:17, Tasc: Go fuck yourself, idiot.
18:19, JDil: Your block has been extended to two weeks.
18:22 Tasc: What part of "Fuck off" don't you understand? (This is the one with the edit sum "one more signature on my talk page and I'll fucking kill you")
18:23, JDil: You have been indefinitely blocked for making threats.

• Etcetera. From civility warning to indefinite block in 13 minutes. I have to feel sorry for the guy without the power in this exchange. That's not to accuse JDil of deliberate baiting--I'm sure he was simply angry himself, too--but those admin responses are just much too quick. I would ask any admin issuing warnings to not do it with a machine gun, but give the user a real chance to cool down between bursts--to make pauses. This escalates much too fast.
• Secondly, no, I don't agree that "I'll fucking kill you" is a death threat. OK, "I'll kill you" is a death threat, but with "fucking" in there, it's not, it's just an expression of anger. It's a technicaldeath threat, but hands up, anybody who's actually scared by it. Heck, I scare real easy, and even I'm not frightened.
• Thirdly, I don't like to see an indefinitely blocked user with a fully protected talkpage. That means a full gag. Tasc has not specified a valid e-mail address, and now that he's blocked, it's too late, he has no way of doing it; in other words he has no means of e-mailing JDil or anybody else to argue, or to apologize. The page has remained protected for a day and a half; if the user is ever going to cool down, he probably has; I appeal to JDil to unprotect and invite himto apologize for his angry outbursts. Bishonen | talk 10:16, 16 December 2006 (UTC).

Bish, since you asked me to comment, here goes: I disagree with you about there being an appreciable difference between saying "I'll kill you" and "I'll fuckin kill you." It's possible this explanation may be applicable here, but it nonetheless sounds equally threatening to me. El_C 10:57, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I want point out that the 18:10 civility warning was not the first one in this incident, it was the first one on tasc's talk page. See my comments above "Objections" for the details. And consider that "I'll kill you, motherfucker" is also a common expression of anger, but the intent of the statement still rings clear. Whether the expletive is inserted at the end or in the middle of the sentence is merely a linguistic curiosity. — coelacan talk — 19:53, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree that this escalated very quickly, and the block for a week because Tasc said "Find yourself a better job, than putting those terrible colours on my talk page," was perhaps provocative. I would support a short block but not an indefinite one, unless Tasc has been a general nuisance and was heading toward an indefblock for other reasons. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 10:41, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Arguably, Tasc has been "a general nuisance and was heading toward an indefblock for other reasons." RfAr/Israel-Lebanon reads:

3.1) Any user, particularly Tasc, who engages in edit warring with respect to 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict may be banned from the article for an appropriate period. All bans are to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Israel-Lebanon#Log of blocks and bans. Pass 5-0 at 03:01, 28 September 2006 (UTC) ^{(bold is my emphasis)}

El_C 10:47, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

The Israel-Lebanon conflict is a different matter, I daresay. While death threats are bad and certainly merit an indef block, I believe that blocking one's opponent for a week for "Find yourself a better job, than putting those terrible colours on my talk page" was a sort of baiting and did not conform to our blocking policy. When you are young and feel powerless in a dispute, you tend to use very strong language. I advise to leave the indef block in force but to unprotect the talk page. Then we'll be able to see whether Tasc regrets his unacceptable behaviour. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 17:31, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I didn't block tasc for that comment alone, and I wouldn't block anybody over something so trivial unless they'd already been uncivil towards other people. The comment he left was uncivil, and he had already been warned for his incivility on other pages. Do we not block for incivility anymore? J Di ^talk 17:54, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes we do, but we also give people a chance to apologize and we don't jump to indef so quickly either. I'm unprotecting the page for the moment. We'll see what he does. pschemp | talk 18:51, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Talk page unprotected

Tasc's response, from User talk:Tasc:

I can communicate in civil manner, when I'm addressed politely. But I refuse to communicate normally in response to:

• unjustified warnings
• vandalising of my talk page
• repetitive use of terrible, highly unpleasant colours on my talk page after being told not to do so.

I assume that quietly and indefinitely banning an active editor with almost 8 thousands edits for threats could do only inexperienced admin and failure to report my case only supports opinion that user wasn't sure about his actions. I reckon that for the majority of editors it can be clear (well, may be after reviewing all diffs of our discussion) that it wasn't a threat, but rather a figure of speech. --Tasc 08:58, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I copied that verbatim. — coelacan talk — 15:51, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

So, he believes that he shouldn't have been warned for incivility, someone was vandalizing his talk page (when?), and he finds J Di's signature to be aesthetically unsound, therefore he was justified to "refuse to communicate normally in response". — coelacan talk — 15:56, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

It is his talk page. If he wants to blank it or format it, he is allowed. pschemp | talk 18:39, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't believe I've suggested anything to the contrary. — coelacan talk — 19:17, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I've asked User:132.73.80.117 to join the discussion here. — coelacan talk — 21:44, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Who is that IP and why do we care? If its Tasc I hope you aren't suggesting he evade his block with an IP sock. pschemp | talk 21:48, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I believe it is Tasc and that he has already evaded his block. — coelacan talk — 22:05, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Well then I suggest you go visit RFCU rather than make disingenuous suggestions you know are against policy. pschemp | talk 22:44, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd rather suggested to read WP:SOCK carefully. below nutshell. I can confirm that User:tasc is using this ip. --132.73.80.117 22:58, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Or should you be the one doing so? WP:SOCK#Circumventing_policy. While I'm pleased that your talk page was unprotected, I do not condone your use of the IP to circumvent the block and can no longer support a full unblock. – Chacor 12:37, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Well something has ensued and Tasc has claimed he wasn't making a death threat. I recommend the community evaluate his responses. pschemp | talk 21:46, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Requesting 1) review of my block of Nathannoblet and 2) propose community ban

Nathannoblet has been harrassing User:Ral315, claiming that he is not able to work on Wikipedia:Signpost. However, he has a history of inappropriate behavior and improper use of dispute resolution and other Wikipedia processes.

• 28 Jun 2006 - first post
• 26 Aug 2006 - self nomination for adminship - "Long term wikipedian wanting adminship" - 15th edit
• 2 Sep 2006 - removed all votes and edit count information from closed admin nomination
• 2 Sep 2006 - deletes archive notice and reposts nomination
• 2 Sep 2006 - Nominated a stub for peer review (he was the only significat editor)
• 7 Sep 2006 - created a portal on Avril Lavigne
• 16 Sep 2006 - created a Wikiproject for Avril Lavigne - then asked for help on what to do.
• 26 Sep 2006 - created an article then listed it for AFD 1-2 min later
• 27 Sep 2006 - proposes deletion of Portal:Avril Lavigne "As per recomendation for WP:AVRWPRO" - no such recommendation at the soon to be deleted project or its talk page
• 27 Sep 2006 - Self nominates a third time for adminiship (About 125 edits by now)
• 27 Sep 2006 - Archives talk 2nd time in a week minutes later (btw - very good non-biting advice from those that commented see Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Nathannoblet_2)
• 13 Oct 2006 - files mediation against editor who gave suggestions on Miami, Queensland and removed a premature GA review request (issues from peer review hadn't been addressed)
• 14 Oct 2006 - Nominates a User:WikiCats for admin
• 14 Oct 2006 - lists himself as mediator but never edits the Case page, the involved editors' pages, the talk page of the article needing mediation, or the article.
• 15 Oct 2006 - lists himself as Advocate tags article for POV check
• 22 Oct 2006 - improperly opens and recommends Arbitration, then tries to reasign case to himself, then tries again to reassing case to himself
• 22 Oct 2006 - notifies User:Longhair filing mediation, Longhair says there is no dispute, restores notice, again, agrees to withdraw arbitration only if longhair coaches him??

additional examples of his use of the process inappropriately exist during the following timeline which is limited to the Signpost issues only (and the above list is not claimed to be comprehensive) --Trödel 18:26, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Which brings us to the arbitration filed recently

• 31 Oct 2006 - claims he has a "WikiProject Report" - not written
• 9 Nov 2006 - lists himself as writer of WikiProject Report, proposes it as a regular beat
  • Ral asks for details
  • never responds
• 25 Nov 2006 - "apologizes" for missing last two weeks - gives 3 sentence "report"
  • Ral indicates he is not publishing it
  • 28 Nov 2006 - asks for clarification
  • 28 Nov 2006 - User:Chacor advises Ral to ignore
• 1 Dec 2006 - links to another "report"
  • report is slim (admin access needed) - and links to a claimed "unpublished report" here but it is [here
  • 7 Dec page is speedied per his request
• 3 Dec 2006 - Notifies Ral315 he is filing mediation, and claims it is Mediation "2"
  • 3 Dec rejected by Essjay, then deleted about a week later
• 5 Dec 2006 - signs up to cover the interwiki report Ral does not accept offer
• 8 Dec 2006 - "creates" Wikipedia Times
• 9 Dec 2006 - initiates arbitration against Ral315
• 9 Dec 2006 - claims to have notified Ral315 but provides no diffs
• 9 Dec 2006 - minutes later files files for advocate assistance
• 9 Dec 2006 - minutes later wipes out evidence of advice/help given on his Editor review
• 15 Dec 2006 - claims he is "happy to merge" his Wikpiedia Times with Signpost

I have blocked this user for 1 month. I propose that he be indef banned by the community. Additionally the following pages should be deleted:

• Template:UserWPAvril - user template not in userspace - only his page links to it
• this edit
• Wikipedia:Wikipedia Times (and any prodigy) - currently up for MfD - but this proposal is to speedy it in lieu of the general concensus there to userify.

If there are no major objections - I will implement the above --Trödel 17:46, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Agree with it all, I'm sick of this user. He doesn't seem to understand the main reason this encyclopedia exists, and as above keeps misusing the resolution process. He is desperate for some sort of power and I found this comment seems a little ridiculous – ArbCom? He must be kidding. I endorse a community ban, or at the very least I approve of blocking. We don't need harrassment here. --Majorly (Talk) 17:59, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Unless I missed it, Trödel overlooked two other arbitration cases that Nathannoblet filed a few weeks ago, which made no sense and I believe set the modern Olympic record for speedy rejection of an arbitration request. His nomination of Krispy Kreme for featured article status today while the article still has neutrality-disputed and cleanup tags on it also isn't going to impress anyone. On the other hand, the user never been blocked before and does have some (not a huge number of, to be sure) good faith edits, so a jump from zero to indefinite is pretty steep. A one-month block is already a long time and hopefully will send the intended message. Suggest a strong warning and monitoring when he comes off the block and the situation can be reconsidered then if he picks up where he left off. Newyorkbrad 18:14, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry - I got tired of documenting so stopped documenting stuff unrelated to the Signpost after 31 Oct. But there is more... --Trödel 18:26, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Newyorkbrad; an indef right now seems excessive. Give him a nice cool off block with a Talk page message pointing out that his apparent wish for power/control at Wikipedia is having the exact opposite effect and he is more likely to be banned for this type of behavior than to get sysop'd, etc. If he continues this behavior after his block expires, then an indef would be appropriate.--Isotope23 18:18, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I got edit conflicted (twice) and there's no point in submitting what I typed now, as Newyorkbrad has already said what I wanted to say. J Di ^talk 18:20, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree that Nathannoblet may be indef blocked without many regrets, but we'd better see how he behaves after the current block is over. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 18:22, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

<after edit conflicts>I endorse your block, however, I think a community ban may be too much at this point. I don't think Nathan has any malicious intent, he's just very young. Also, I think we should at least wait and see if this block has any impact on him. It is the first time he has ever been blocked and it is possible (though admittedly, unlikely) that it might make an impression on him and help him to understand that his behaviour is not appropriate. Sarah Ewart 18:28, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Nathan seems slightly naive, I am of the opinion that a community ban is slightly excessive, I do however endorse a cool down block. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 18:31, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

(Side note) - I believe 48 hours to be an acceptable cool down period and so I urge the blocking admin to reconsider the length, 1 month is pretty long and I can't imagine it will do much good. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 18:33, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I also thought a month was on the long side, but rather than reduce it now, I'd wait for a reasonable unblock request. If community sanctions are in effect, maybe for the rest of the month he could be requested to edit in mainspace rather than projectspace, or something along those lines. Newyorkbrad 18:35, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Sarah Ewart's assessment above: we're dealing with a little kid here. Maybe the month-long block will lead him to lose interest and find something better to do with his time. Another alternative worth looking at is assigning Nathan some sort of mentor, although admittedly, that's a solution that has had mixed results in the past. A Train ^{take the} 18:39, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I also agree that a 1 month block is quite sufficient. -- Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®} 18:41, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I have left Nathan a note on his talk page. I agree that a month is long even if I think it was warranted, but had I known he was very young I probably would have done something shorter. I have offered to help mentor him and started by giving him some advice on how to request an unblock. If this goes well, I would wager that he will be back editing with a week, maybe sooner. Thank you for your support and comments. --Trödel 19:17, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm probably the one who's had the most dealings with Nathanoblet, initially helping him out upon his entry to Wikipedia several months ago now. In the end he turned on me also, but that's a long boring story we don't need to go into here. I think what we've got here is a case of a very young editor who isn't afraid to try new things, and sometimes the boundaries aren't too clear. I endorse the 1 month block to give Nathanoblet some time to think about how he behaves when editing, but I don't endorse a permanent block just yet. Allow him a chance to show us some positive change. He is a little hungry for power, but perhaps with the right guidance he can become a useful editor. He sure is keen. -- Longhair\^talk 21:16, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse the 1 month block. If he is a kid, maybe he will lose interest in that time. If not, then maybe the reasons for the imposed break will get through to him. If the behaviour returns with him after the block I would then support a year long blo0ck over an indefinate one, because if he is indeed a kid then there is not need to punish him forever for childish actions which he will hopefully gorow out of. Viridae^Talk 21:42, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Hopefully the suggestion of mentorship will help things work out well here. It should also be noted that if this is indeed a younger editor, there is also a WP:CHILD issue here as from a Google search it appears the username may be the editor's real-world name. I've mentioned this to User:Trödel who has offered to mentor, with the suggestion that he guide the user either to WP:CHU or suggest that he start a new account. Newyorkbrad 23:30, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Strongly support block. Not sure about allowing the user to "hide" his past under a new username, so to speak, so would prefer CHU. – Chacor 00:16, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Maybe a community-consented probation?

Just throwing some ideas around...how does a probation about disrputive behaviour pertaining to the writing of the Signpost. I mean, something like:-

Nathannoblet is placed on disruption probation for one year regarding the operation of the Wikipedia Signpost and its' compilation; if he harasses Ral315 (the editor), other writers, or any general page related to this production, he may be blocked for up to one week at an uninvolved administrators' discretion, and up to one month after three such blocks, again at an uninvolved administrators' discretion. Any such action to be logged at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents for discussion.

Although WP:PROB doesn't specify that a superconcensus of users can actually create probation terms, I believe that in the spirit of WP:IAR, and following the lead of WP:BAN (regarding community bans), it could be allowable. Thoughts? Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 00:04, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not an administrator, but I really disliked seeing this happen on Wikipedia once before, an indefinite community ban on a user who had never been blocked before. I've said it before, so I know many of you have just moved on, but sometimes disruptive users get used to not being blocked when they display atrocious behaviour--and they become bolder and bolder, when just having blocked them earlier for their bad behaviour, blocked them repeatedly, and blocked them for a longer time, could have had a positive impact. I think potentially good editors can be made into bad and disruptive ones simply by being allowed to get away with too much. And, with probabtion, no one would have to doubt they had given the user every chance. Please consider probabtion first, you'll feel better when and if you eventually ban the user. And thanks for the info on the Krispy Kreme FAC--very hard to figure out what it was doing there. KP Botany 00:19, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Thats not an indefinate one though, it is a 1 year community imposed one. Viridae^Talk 04:58, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I think this was a good suggestion, so combining it with this editors offer to only edit Main and talk namespace, I have unblocked him, and placed him on a voluntary probation This is pending his review with me of his goals, and the proper way to resolve disputes. See his talk page for a framework for the mentoring of this young user. I anticipate that most of the communication will be by email. Thanks to Sarah Ewart and Longhair who have offered to help --Trödel 04:29, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Booshakla

Booshakla (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was blocked for 24hrs for incivility & personal attack on top of a checkered history. User then blanked and replaced his talk page with the message "I quit". [90] Would like an uninvolved admin to decide on appropriate course of action here. Deizio talk 20:03, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

(Not an admin, but) if he claims "I quit" then an indef block might be appropriate. Incivility, personal attacks, and sarcastic messages are one thing we can definitely do without. Yuser31415 20:35, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't know if an indef is necessary quite yet. It appears that User:Booshakla lost his WP:COOL and needs a break so the 24 hr is a good choice. Before yesterday this user never had a block (and yesterday's block was lifted). I'd say wait and see if he really quit, or if it is just a moment of frustration.--Isotope23 21:04, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Both spot on. Might be the way forward, but let's give him one more shot. Deizio talk 21:44, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Good choice. Thanks for telling me :) Yuser31415 19:30, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Christine Maggiore

Can someone please semi protect this page. Several anons have been continuing to POV push their views on AIDS in this article moving it from a balanced non-POV piece to a POV piece. JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 22:53, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

• Done. In future please use WP:RPP for such requests Alex Bakharev 23:54, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I have commented on Alex's talk page about this and posted an unprotect request at WP:RFPP. The page has had two anon users adding information for one day only. Other than that there have been no other anon pov-pushing edits for a while (almost a month since the last anon edit!). I would strongly urge it be unprotected and that Alex take a look at the article history in future. I thought semi-protection was supposed to be a last ditch effort to stop vandalism?-Localzuk^(talk) 16:28, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Failure to WP:AGF

[91][ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/BooyakaDell&diff=prev&oldid=94590243][ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Lethaniol/BooyakaDell&diff=prev&oldid=94527837][92]{{User:SirFozzie|SirFozzie]] accuses me of being a sockpuppet of banned user {{User:JB196|JB196]]. That's all fine and dandy - he has the right to make such accusations (they aren't true), but he is also referring to me as JB196 which - being that the accusation has not been proven - strikes me as a violation of WP:AGF.BooyakaDell 23:58, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Please note, there's already TWO WP:AN/I incidents already tied to BooyakaDell/JB196, one moved to the archive yesterday without admin action, the 2nd one with WP:SOCK proof further up. WP:AGF Asks the editors to assume good faith, however it does not ask you to do so when bad faith has been proven. SirFozzie 00:16, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

The only person assuming bad faith is yourself. Any look through my contributions list (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/BooyakaDell) by any neutral third party will show thatI have maintained WP:AGF throughout this process.BooyakaDell 01:05, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Be civil and don't make personal attacks, please. Thank you. Yuser31415 03:16, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Note - Sir Fozzie is not the only user to notice Booyaka's bad faith edits, and note as such. So have I, and so have a number of other editors - reference the archived WP:ANI (#155) and the RFC on Booyaka. Curse of Fenric 21:03, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, you and an anonymous IP are the only users who I have had a problem with. Your lack of good faith has gone from simply being evident in edit summaries of articles to being evident in mass edits across various admins' talk pages.BooyakaDell 21:08, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I was talking about users who have a problem with you, JB, not the other way around. Curse of Fenric 00:04, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

While this thread has been outstanding I conducted an investigation of the sockpuppet allegation and composed a long post to the RFC's talk page. It would help to resolve this dilemma if the editors answered my questions and supplied the requested evidence. Durova^Charge! 14:52, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Done. SirFozzie 16:02, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

User displaying fair use pictures on userpage

I removed the display of the images on his userpage and left a note that it was against the fair use policy. I was even nice and converted them to links, but he has since reverted my changes and the images are again being displayed. I do not wish to revert him again, even though I think I would be acceptable since I'm not even near 3RR and I'm applying policy. I would like an admin to revert the display of these images and leave another note that re-posting the images is unacceptable for Wikipedia. Perhaps hearing it from more than just me (I am a nobody, afterall) will help. User:John Zdralek is the user in question. Thank you. --MECU≈talk 01:17, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I have removed the images and warned the user not to re-add them. I am watching. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 01:25, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

First look at the page smacks of WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not a blog, webspace provider, or social networking site even if they are blogging about their experiences on Wikipedia. -- moe.RON ^{Let's talk | done} 01:27, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Much of it is related to wikipedia. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 01:29, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

John Zdralek (talk · contribs) The User has now uploaded the image again under his own claims of copyright and has re-added it to his User page. I don't know the image's provenance, so somebody else should deal with it. User:Zoe|(talk) 05:50, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

He mentioned in a previous post[93] that it was a scan of a brochure. If so they cannot be released under his license. I find this users method of speaking to be rather confusing, and I am not sure he is understanding me. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 16:08, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Comaze (talk · contribs)

Hello. I am posting this in order to solve the problem of overload of edits by uncooperative editors on the NLP article. I believe a helpful warning to stop editors making ridiculous amounts of edits in a day will help. And if it is deemed that meatpuppets or sockpuppets are an issue, then take the appropriate action. The NLP article [94] seems to have been under attack from either sockpuppets or meatpuppets of user Comaze. User Comaze runs a company (Comaze.com) in Australia promoting strategic ties with NLP companies as is in evidence on his userpage [95][ http://www.comaze.com/links.html][ http://www.comaze.com/biography.html]. The activities involve pushing for the same POV (deletion of relevant views on the talkpage using the same language [96]). They have also been removing relevant scientific views from the article on a regular basis. This also involves removing criticisms from the opening thus creating an unrepresentative opening [97] [98][ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Neuro-linguistic_programming&diff=93542877&oldid=93534538]. The strategy seems to be one of confusion and they have made a vast amount of undiscussed edits over the past few days. They also seem to be resisting efforts to calm down in a quite uncivil way [99]. Comaze seems to be using the anonymous editors: 210.50.221.248 and 58.178.102.143 as meatpuppets or sockpuppets which both seem to be Australian IPs according to an IP check, or are using the same editing pattern as Comaze [100]. They seem to be only editing on the NLP article and have arrived only recently to support Comazes promotional pov. The situation makes it impossible to edit constructively on the article and indeed the evidence shows Comaze and related suspected sockpuppets/meatpuppets to be highly uncooperative. The incivility and uncooperative editing seems to have pushed an editor away already and I am pretty much sick of it also. A well placed warning may well prove to be a good solution but its all up to you. Thanks. AlanBarnet 04:55, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

In reply, compare the article now with a version from few weeks ago I think you'll find the current one is of much higher standard. As AB states I have collaborated with the other editors including 210.50.221.248 (talk · contribs), 58.178.102.143 (talk · contribs) over the last few weeks. I think the page is improving. I believe these editors arrived affter the AN/I, checkuser and request for page protection that I requested on AlanBarnet (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). In response to the allegation that I have sockpuppets. This is unfounded. While the IP locator shows those IPs are located in Australia. I have no idea who they are specifically. I was surprised how well we work together though. When we had disagreement we would find a comprimise and move on. We have worked together to check the current document. Fix all the references which were broken, provide links so we could check facts. AlanBarnet claims that I have a NLP promotion business. While I have been involved in a the NLP Research Project (Australia, 2006) and have trained in NLP. My business is primarily in freelance web design and programming. I am also a student studying cogntive science. I really do not enjoy the adversarial that AlanBarnet has taken. It makes wikipedia less enjoyable and scares off legitimate professionals and academics. --Comaze 07:35, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

More information; Comaze is requesting collaboration with allegedly banned sockpuppet Vanilla Flavius: [101] who I suspect also comes from Australia. This in addition to the overdose of edits (that involve compromising the integrity of the article) over the past few days is going to make reasonable discussion or editing impossible. AlanBarnet 08:12, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I did nothing of the sort. I that editor to email me to to make suggestions on how to make the article more critical (as in objective/wikipedian). While this editor was banned for incivility (including for defamatory remarks directed on me and for personal attacking the mentors). He did make some well-research critical contributions to the article in the past. I really don't think the collaboration of the article over the last few weeks has "involve[d] compromising the integrity of the article". As I said it has improved and has sparked additional research. I'm trying to extend good faith here. --Comaze 09:02, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I am user 58 and 210, an independent editor to Comaze. There is no checkuser evidence nor edit-style evidence to assert otherwise. I've been editing at wikipedia since early 2005. I had a user account but got sick of wikistalking. User:AlanBarnet (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) came straight to the NLP article when he joined wikipedia and began pasting edits from banned users back into the article; edits that were originally both beligerant and known to be fraudulent [102] [103] [104]. He claims he just coincidentally grabs these from the history tab and often cites his opinion as fact (and hence "neutral"), and when he gets angry his edits are phrased in the superlative degree, as can be witnessed above. His edits are remarkably similar to the banned editor User:HeadleyDown (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), and related sockpuppets in that he removes tags without discussion [105] [106] and engineers politics on talk pages in the same way as HeadleyDown [107] [108]]. Recently, other banned editors (64.46.47.242 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)) have turned up at the article [109]. It is quite plausible to surmise that AlanBarnet is somehow connected with them. HeadleyDown and his 20 user sockuppet farm has been known to orchestrate complex sockpuppet scenarios. I feel it is worth investigating users involved in this incident so we can get to the bottom of the growing problem. 58.178.193.158 09:38, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

58 and all. I arrived using the IP 88.106.13.232 [110]. I promptly got myself an account so that I could cooperate with other editors on verifying the sources on the NLP article. I found no cooperation at all. Just resistance to direct quotes and Comaze and other IP numbers adding lots of argument to promote NLP or to negate science views. AlanBarnet 04:19, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Dear AB. Please read WP:TIGER and WP:CABAL#There_is_only_a_cabal_if_you_want_there_to_be_one. 58.178.199.62 04:30, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Hello this is Fainites, the only editor currently on the blighted NLP page not yet accused of sockpuppetry although probably now about to be accused of smugness. 1)There is problem with substantial undiscussed edits being put in over a short space of time because it upsets other editors. However, this partly arises because half the editors are on the other side of the world to the other half so everybody is on different timescales. However, Comaze has always been amenable to discussion, consensus and changes to edits as far as I can see and alot of the edits on that occasion filled in stubs giving everybody something to work on. 2) There is a problem with bad temper and assumptions of bad faith leading to ill thought out reversions to much older versions resulting in alot of hard work on sources and verification being removed. One recent example of both these problems together was the removal by Comaze of the second half of the Research Reviews section at 12.09 on 13.12.06 to the NLP Science article and the subsequent reversion to a much older form by AlanBarnet losing agreed edits and leaving the whole section a mess of half sentances, non sequiteurs and duplications. However, on a positive note, AlanBarnet agreed to put back the more recent edited version and when I sorted out the duplications and whatnots, the removal of the research has not been repeated. So there is hope. 3)Everybody appears to agree that sources need to to be verified. This involves alot of work as there are still past inaccuracies in references and POV statements hanging around in the article. However, the bad temper and accusations and large undiscussed edits not only slow work down but have just frightened off a valuable new editor who was a science researcher and very adept at hunting down and verifying scientific sources and quotes. 4)I think in the context of this article it is unwise for AlanBarnet to put in old negative views from old disputed versions from banned editors, with references, stating it has all been checked and verified but not providing evidence of what the source states at the time. It was inevitable that this would lead to accusations of sockpuppetry, whether they are justified or not. It would be better to assess the source afresh and agree an addition based on that with other editors. 5) alot of good collaborative work has gone on recently. Lets try and keep it that way. Fainites 14:29, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

• Having compared the version from December 1 with the current version, it seems to me very much as if Comaze and a few others are promoting rather than documenting the concept. The article becomes more promotional with each batch of edits, and the fundamental fact that NLP is essentially a cult with no scientific validity is more and more obscured. Guy (Help!) 15:31, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

The fact that something has no scientific validity does not make it a cult. That's a seperate question. If you have any verifiable evidence that NLP is a cult, please come and put it in, in the section that already contains reputable views to the same effect. As for promo, the section marked 'views of supporters in various disciplines' is empty and has been for a while, whilst the sections marked 'research', 'views of critics' and 'mental health' are full of nothing but criticism and views to the effect that there is no scientific basis to NLP. The article needs watching to ensure it is not taken over by either camp. Fainites 21:43, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Two things. Firstly, NLP is fundamentally a seminar and consulting based personal development field (and it is definitely unclear whether it is also a cult, a psychocult, a good idea, a bad idea, a pseudoscience, a protoscience, a dangerous practice, therapeutic magic, or anything else). Secondly, there is no cabal of editors in either camp. Please treat editors as individuals. Have fun. 58.178.199.62 23:23, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Hello Guy. Thanks for your input. I've been editing on various articles I know something about or have access to sources such as journalism articles and various historical and geographical areas. I've been removing any argumentative phrasing (usually very little) from those articles and found no resistance at all. I spent a lot of time having to remove a massive amount of argumentative and overblown phrasing from the NLP article during the end of Nov and early Dec. I met nothing but resistance from Comaze and other numbers who scream bloody murder over the simple NPOV correction. They're still making a massive amount of edits per day. I don't see how anyone can conduct proper cooperative or rigorous verifications in such a way. I'm pretty much done with it. I have WPjournalism articles to edit with editors who are willing to collaborate and I know I'll get cooperation. I really hope things can be resolved on the NLP article. AlanBarnet 04:28, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I din't mean to imply that there were existing camps now on the site but there clearly have been in the past and may well be again. It sems to be a subject about which feelings run high.Fainites 13:21, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Privacy violation by User:Paul Pigman

User is speculating about another user's legal name, here. —Hanuman Das 06:40, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Also, this comment which has become the basis for discussion of User:Rosencomet's identity posted in August by User:NLOleson, a sockpuppet of Mattisse, should also be removed. —Hanuman Das 06:45, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Why is this privacy violation being ignored? I thought identity revealing information was required to be removed quickly? —Hanuman Das 15:16, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

From below (Privacy violation by BostonMA):

Actually, there are at least two directors of the organization. The user in question has refused to answer questions about his legal name. Thus I sincerely believe this to be a privacy violation. I've updated WP:ANI with the correct link. See also the complaint for User:Paul Pigman further up the page. I thoguht privacy was highly protected on WP. Seems to me that one ought to err on the side of caution and delete questionable material. Unless they can point to where the user posted his legal name, speculating about what it might be is innappropriate. —Hanuman Das 16:36, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Further clarification from below:

Policy specificly say revealing the "alleged" name of another party. It does not have to be correct to be a policy violation. It also says that the intent of the policy is to keep the information from being found with web searches using the user's legal name. Since the user has nowhere stated his name publicly on Wikipedia, stating it together with other information constitutes a privacy violation as it will turn up in web searches by name when the user himself has been careful not to make the direct association.(This is most applicable to the original violation by Paul Pigman above). —Hanuman Das 16:45, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Seems to me that if he desired anonymity, he would have not authored his autobiographical vanity page Jeff Rosenbaum. It's nice that you are watching out for the interests of this user so diligently, though. - WeniWidiWiki 19:12, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Note - see also the discussion under #Privacy violation by User:BostonMA. "Rosencomet" is the name used by the 2 directors of the organization; User:Rosencomet has stated repeatedly that he is the director of the organization. Following the links inputted by User:Rosencomet himself turns up this [111], wherin Rosenbaum is described as the director, with the exact same words User:Rosencomet has used to describe himself. None of this had to be "dug up", it was provided by User:Rosencomet himself. This ANI report is harassment of an honest user who is trying to combat linkspam on the Pedia, made by an ally of the spammer. --Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 19:42, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

AJAX issues

The donation header source code (siteNoticeValue = ...) seems to be breaking XML parsing of MediaWiki pages. All Javascript scripts using XMLHttpRequest fail. Is this affecting anyone else? —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-12-16 11:44Z

Western Goals (UK)

Has disappeared. No AfD, nothing. Instead one is rerouted to the successor body, the Institute. Needs investigation. Chelsea Tory 12:18, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

User:JzG made a redirect ("Excessive duplication. One group, one article.") and protected it (per WP:VSCA) on 20:42, 14 December 2006. You should try talking to him first. Here is history page Shinhan 13:10, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

The redirect is to Western Goals Institute, the all-but-identical successor body, and much of the content was similar. We also deleted the article for the even less significant Traditional Britain Group, who now hold the archives. There is only one group here, it's the same people, and they and their friends seem to be the ones who are editing the articles, one article should be sufficient. Guy (Help!) 15:33, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

It would appear to me and doubtless others who care to investigate that User:JzG has some sort of axe to grind against these right-wing Conservative groups. He has already had one failed attempt to have the Western Goals Institute deleted, and I note he has also been active in fairly biased edits and deletions of other pages of right-wingers. People with such an obvious political bias should not be doing this. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia. Western Goals (UK) was a notable active group. JzG may not have been aware of them but so what? It seems to me that he has arbitrarily deleted a longstanding entire article (with all their activities prior to mid-1989) simply because he is having some sort of hate session with these groups. This really calls for the attention of other senior administrators. Chelsea Tory 16:36, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I've reviewed Guy's last 500 edits and they reflect exactly what my impression of him has always been: a scrupulous Wikipedian with 9 barnstars and a tireless commitment to the nuts and bolts of this project. Chelsea Tory's user page is a very different matter: Seems some sort of Real Conservative policeman is required for Wikipedia. The edit history for this account matches the claim[112] and has contributed talk page comments that can be confrontational[113] and strongly POV[114] to assuming bad faith[115][116] and seems to consider the BBC an unsuitable encyclopedic source[117] and possible Wikistalking.[118] Disclaimer: my own family lost interest in British politics around the time of the Boston Tea Party, so my only real agenda in posting this is WP:NPOV. Durova^Charge! 17:08, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for that. But you have not addressed the issue. (I find it incomprehensible that you have read 500 edits when it took me an eternity to read a fraction of that number). I would just like to say that there are many of us who would like to contribute more to "this project" but when we see that the hours of work put in by others is deleted at a stroke by oher Users with some sort of axe to grind we are put off. This whole business seems to me simple. Is arbitrary removal of the work of others correct, or is it not? Chelsea Tory 20:51, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

The issue you raised was already explained by another editor. I'm raising another and perhaps more important issue: administrators at this project periodically encounter users who devote a substantial portion of their time to POV advocacy. The specific POV varies by editor but the methods and techniques are remarkably similar - as are the trajectories these people follow. This project really isn't set up on an advocacy basis. In fact, as I express at User:Durova/Recusal, it's best to avoid personal hot button issues whatever they may be. A lot of editors catch onto the spirit of this site and become respected Wikipedians. The ones who persist in advocacy have trouble with conflicts and policies until some sort of administrative action is necessary.

Step back a moment and ask yourself, if an editor whose POV you agreed with cited MySpace or a blog, would you have the integrity to delete the citation? Or if you're busy at a page where no other Wikipedian is active and you know there's another notable POV that disagrees with you on that subject, would you chase down a good citation to represent it? We're here to document public debates, not to shape them. Durova^Charge! 22:50, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, you raised different issues in an attempt to discredit me rather than address my complaint. Is there a proper procedure for the deletion of articles, or is there not. I would just add that I totally disagree that you're here to "document public debates". This is not the media. This appears to be Wikipedia's major flaw. It is supposed to be an encylcopaedia. I cannot think of any encyclopaedia anywhere which slants political and sensitive issues and groups in the very obvious left-wing way Wikipedia does. Locating the most extreme description of an organisation out of hundreds of less extreme comments and using the former as the only accurate "sourced" description is surely the most blatant piece of bias you'll find anywhere on the planet. You seem to agree with that. I do not. It seems you feel the only POV on Wikipedia is pushed by those you perceive on the Right who are raising valid points. That is your answer to them.

Please stick to the issue I first raised here. The arbitrary deletion of an article on a major Conservative pressure-group in the UK. Chelsea Tory 10:28, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

It seems that anyone who explains this issue as routine housekeeping becomes part of the putative conspiracy. Durova^Charge! 14:38, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Banned User:Sussexman

Whatever this User's "crime", from what I have read it has been blown totally out of all proportion. he appears to have been banned for some considerable time. Yet overall he has done sterling work on Wikipedia. It appears the controversy into which he pitched himself has gone. Is it not time to restore him to some sort of probation status? Chelsea Tory 12:18, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Banned for legal threats, reviewed here at the time. Sterling work is open to question, many of his edits (and especially comments) were highly biased and gave excessive weight to minority views, and he edited several articles on which he had a conflict of interest. Guy (Help!) 15:13, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I have had a look at about 20 different pages regarding this. It would seem that if anyone had a very clear conflict of political interest here it was you. You have some sort of irritant with these people and are clearly opposed to them. I therefore think you should not be leading the comments on this. As you say, "at the time", but it apears from what I have read he was not personally in a position to threaten anyone, so presumably he was warning others. Surely that sort of thing should be taken in the spirit it is offered? In any case it was all a long time ago. He who is without sin throw the first stone. Chelsea Tory 16:28, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

• No. The problem here was that Sussexman and a bunch of other anonymous IPs started making legal threats against myself and other users without any attempt to play by the Wikipedia policy. I recieved a solicitors letter and was labelled as 'scum' by a small core of this users assosciates, something which I did not enjoy. Like it or not the Sussexman situation appears to cause a great deal of malicious trolling, something which I (and I'm sure a good deal of others who were involved in this situation) can well do without--Edchilvers 12:17, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Anyone care to check Chelsea Tory's IP to see if it matches Sussexman's? User:Zoe|(talk) 05:34, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Interesting edit history. I see why you asked. -- Donald Albury 15:44, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

It won't. Is that a legitimate response to a legitimate request? It is childish. Chelsea Tory 10:30, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Checkuser says definately probable. Essjay (Talk) 10:46, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Is that sufficient to get Chelsea Tory blocked? User:Zoe|(talk) 00:04, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Kalpesh Sharma

Kalpesh Sharma (talk · contribs) has been disrupting wikipedia for many days now. He claims to be an Information Security Expert (read hacker) from India and wants his article on wikipedia. He has also been contantly vandalising the article Ankit Fadia until I had to semi-protect it. A complete timeline of his disruption can be found here. His article has been deleted through AfD. Since then he has created multiple sock accounts and created the same article across many namespaces. He was earlier blocked by Samir for disruption. He has been trying to get support off-wiki for his personal vendetta against Ankit Fadia. See these articles written by him where he claims that wikipedia administrators are Ankit Fadia's relatives, or that maybe Ankit Fadia is a wikipedia administrator. He continues to disrupt wikipedia by trying to get someone else to write an article on his. See his latest post of Jimbo's talk page. As I am partially involved, I would like other administrators to review the situation and block him for a longer duration if needed. - Aksi_great (talk) 12:29, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Kalpesh Sharma claims that what we call sockpuppets are actually the members of his group. But, I've enough reason to believe that these are sockpuppets. I mentioned this at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kalpesh Sharma: Talk:Kalpesh Sharma has been edited by a single ip user (59.95.198.207) who has signed the posts as different people from different cities. The page contains blabber about significance of the subject. If these members are from different cities, how come they share the same IP? Talk:Kalpesh Sharma has been deleted, but administrators can easily check history and verify this.

Kalpesh has been indulging in sockpuppetry not only at Wikipedia, but also at LUG-Indore -- for instance, see this[119] (he has posted a message as Seema and has been caught by the moderator).

I posted a message to LUG-Indore mailing list. User:Prabhat linux, the moderator of LUG-Indore has asked Kalpesh to stop using ILUG-Indore for self-promotion and Ankit-bashing. Here's a portion of the message: "So, you are requested to stop doing all this at LUG-Indore's mailing list. We are very positive people and would like to remain same. We do not need another self-promoting, self-hyped person like Ankit Fadia. We have enough of him. Personally, you can do it, but not in the name and reputation of LUG-Indore's mailing list. You are requested not to post anything related to Ankit Fadia, any more to the mailing list.... We are kind enough to hear a lot from you, but now it seems, you want to promote yourself by putting allegations on him and using our list as a media to create a hype about yourself." utcursch | talk 12:57, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Answer for administrators of wikipedia

KALPESH SHARMA - Now I will answer to all your queries mentioned above. Good that this is the first time aksi who calls himself great and utcarsch who calls me a jealous has talked in a proper manner on this user page. This could have been done before also, instead of speaking worst kind of language you two administrators. I talked on user page of Jimbo, sam blanning and also to nina eliza. Check it and let me know or ask them what kind of wrong things did I follow. I talked with due respect with them because for every word and every sentenece they gave me a deep and detailed explanation. I request the honorable management of wikipedia to check this where always a shortcut code was specified by these two users. Even there are other administrators working with wikipedia, who work in a proper way. This policy is not being followed by aksi and utcarsch resulting to this issue. When a new user comes to wikipedia he may do many wrong things, because he is not going to read thousands of links availabale on world's biggest encyclopedia. It's the job of administrator to show him the right path as mr. sam and nina did. See their word and detailed sentence. I am an information security expert and not a wikipedia administrator or editor who knows what and how to use and work out withmillions of links in the site webpages. You both administrators did not treat that way and then blaming me. Every where WP:shortcuts were mentioned. What do I know what does these shortcuts mean, you both have not given any proper explanations even a single time. At the end when you were both tired of again and again deleting kalpesh sharma pages, then mr. patruat gave this instructions that stop doing it. This was when I understood why my article was deleted. But patruat had informed first of all on [120] with respect and detail explanation.

In my case utcarsch and aksi had never given detailed or proper explanation and their lanaguage was further bad when due to un understandability my several pages were created. You never did your work properly though so many times the deleting actions were taken by you. Not even a single time you have given any proper explanation. Now, when a person who is technically little aware has so many problems then what would you both be doing with non-technical peoples. You are a spoiling wikipedia's reputation between users of wikipedia. In this way how the wikipedia will be filled with valuable, reliable and notable contents. You both are trying to show that you are innocent. In of the sentences utcarshch says that

I could find only one reliable link[1] that doesn't indicate any notability.[121]

I will show you the evidence that this is a wrong thing, if keyword 'kalpesh sharma' is mentioned in google the following so data is found from search engine. And for your information all are from reliable notable sources. You have till now mentioned only one link of cybercellmumbai.com and if so many times edition and deletion was done why did you not mark even one of below notable sources out of so many:

 1. [122]
 2. [123]
 3. [124]
 4. [125]
 5. [126]
 6. [127]
 7. [128]
 8. [129]
 9. [130]
10. [131]
11. [132]
12. [133]
13. [134]

14.http://digg.com/security/Ankit_Fadia_Ethical_Hacker_A_Zero_byte_character]

15. [135]
16. [136]

Then comes the topic of great aksi ! sorry but the great word is being insulted by aksi by putting behind his name. He says above that

"He has also been contantly vandalising the article Ankit Fadia until I had to semi-protect it. A complete timeline of his disruption can be found here. His article has been deleted through AfD. Since then he has created multiple sock accounts and created the same article across many namespaces."

I have allready mentioned that my member of groups or some one else who might be knowing about me has vandalized and not me. As concerns to IP if a single internet connection is used with sharing basis from a big company network or e-governence network or somewhere like such place then it's possible that same IP address range is being seen for every user who tries to do modification. My reputation has spread amongst several peoples and I have already worked with chief minister (where Egovernence network exists) as technical assistant. I went to university of gujarat where mr. parimal trivedi is the vice chancellor for some personal matter. There I met many peoples of university staff. May any director, professor or someone even operator level employee would have been directed to post my details on wikipedia. This is not sufficient evidence for saying that single user is vandalizing. I saw the history pages at that time, they were are with different IP address. Every time when some one tried to post about me from my group it was deleted by these two peoples. Then one of my group member mr. agrawal said me that this is happening on pages and contents of your name. After that I tried to edit personally with my own hands my own simple and easy article on

[137]

But, when I saw same deletions as my members did ! I went to Mr. Prabhat and gave my opinion that either ankit fadia is a administrator who might be protecting his own pages or administrators who are deleting(utcarsch and aksi) might be playing games so that ankit fadia pages could not be removed. Something is definietly wrong. Because if you look at the data posted on wikipedia about me carefully every time whenever a deletion was made the editing member either from my group or whosoever has placed the contents, has tried to correct the content or article through a modification. Then also it was every time deleted and no proper reasons were given. Now give me explanation whether is it not the job of administrator talk and explain every matter in detail.

Other then this when I was informed by sam on jimmy wales user talk page [138] that go to deletion review, I had edited a message which was also deleted by either of them without any secific reasons. I have mentioned this also in a talk with sam on [139]

I have been trying to get off wiki support is right. But I don't think that utcarsch or aksi has anything to do with that. And one more thing that India is country with freedom to speak in order to give their opinion, protest or give suggestions for one which is wrong. So this is useless reason. don't talk out of wiki topic. Else again I will have to say that do you both have any relations ankit fadia because again and again you are stopping me against my personal protest against ankit fadia. My personal protest or whatsoever I do out of wikipedia has nothing to do with current topic.

The following articles does not even contain single word about wikipedia encyclopedia company nor I have disrupted wikipedia. These articles mentioned complaints against the particular administrators who have been given special powers. Check it here is evidence

"About Wikipedia Administrators

This article is a copy of matter posted by one of my group member on wikipedia because whether or not good, if any one edits ankit fadia's article on wikipedia these adminsitrators do not allow them to do so. Wikipedia administrators are not the employees of wikipedia group in any way they are instead simple persons like all of us working on internet. They have been provided rights of administration for modification of contents on wikipedia to make it more better. Not one or two or three but many peoples edited ankit fadia's contents, but the administrators are relatives of ankit fadia who do not want any one to modify anything about ankit fadia. I am daily recieving many emails of my members and peoples who are in touch with me. Other then this some of wikipedia administrators are going falling to such a useless level that even if any one who does not have relation with me, and if he/she edits ankit fadia's page the wikipedia administrators say it's kalpesh sharma itself. And that I am doing so because my publicity is less then ankit fadia. "

Article 1 - http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.jsp?articleId=281474976863338 Article 2 - http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.jsp?articleId=281474976861802

I don't think that any one can say that I have mentioned any things wrong about wikipedia. But definitely ,I have mentioned about some administrators because I believe that they are really wrong. I don't think that saying anything about peoples, "who are doing something wrong in any way" is incorrect. In short if such peoples are given administration rights who does not allow anyone to edit wikipedia for truth and facts then soon wikipedia will lost reputation and as concerns to utcarsch and aksi they can find work anywhere else also. Without going in depth of the reality and fact about any particular matter, no one can be said to be wrong - niether me, niether ankit fadia, niether utcarshch, nor any of my group members. This is what utcarshch is doing after getting administration powers?

Again utcarsch has mentioned the same thing which aksi had specified that

" I posted a message to LUG-Indore mailing list. User:Prabhat linux, the moderator of LUG-Indore has asked Kalpesh to stop using ILUG-Indore for self-promotion and Ankit-bashing. "

Wikipedia or it's data or policies have nothing to do with what is mentioned on any forum, or what way we work or so on. And if utcarsch is trying to mention that I was stopped by prabhat for ankit related bashing then see this where prabhat has specified on LUG Indore Group on one of my topic against ankit fadia:

1 From: Kalpesh Sharma - view profile Date: Sun, Dec 10 2006 11:07 am Email: "Kalpesh Sharma" <shriganes...@gmail.com> Not yet ratedRating: show options Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Remove | Report Abuse | Find messages by this author

Hello Everyone & Specially Sandy,

Read this email I am sending with header which is an evidence from a guy who recently sent me a mail about AFCEH certification.

---

starts here---------------

X-Apparently-To: shrishani...@yahoo.co.in via 202.43.219.170; Wed, 06 Dec 2006 11:00:13 +0530 X-Originating-IP: [66.249.82.239] Authentication-Results: mta136.mail.in.yahoo.com from=gmail.com; domainkeys=pass (ok) Received: from 66.249.82.239 (EHLO wx-out-0506.google.com) (66.249.82.239)

 by mta136.mail.in.yahoo.com with SMTP; Wed, 06 Dec 2006 11:00:13 

+0530 Received: by wx-out-0506.google.com with SMTP id i26so92296wxd

       for <shrishani...@yahoo.co.in>; Tue, 05 Dec 2006 21:30:12 -0800 

(PST) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws;

       s=beta; d=gmail.com; 

h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:mime-version:content-type:conten­t-transfer-encoding:content-disposition;

b=mn/Er7PAYdZKA7FJZGDBR8ejNGI5zgycfZowpGAUo+14kZu/RgZe+PqjX4omQ/KfaGAif3vZE­bBOsyy21NGRSEELZTCZaHFvw5Iw8TN047InxaLsZLUe6ET1wI67tQrwwbf11w+HqrCYF6Ys9ZXf­moIFO/STHJkxkY1jM8FwOiM= Received: by 10.70.75.14 with SMTP id x14mr629755wxa.1165383011986;

       Tue, 05 Dec 2006 21:30:11 -0800 (PST) 

Received: by 10.70.133.1 with HTTP; Tue, 5 Dec 2006 21:30:11 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <e6d5828d0612052130q2803e7b3jab8e96f334efb...@mail.gmail.com> Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2006 11:00:11 +0530 From: "Gaurang Parmar" <gauran...@gmail.com> To: shrishani...@yahoo.co.in Subject: Want to Know About CEH. MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline

Hello,

Once i have sended the mail and u have replied me and asked more about me. thanx for ur kind eply. Now a days where r u living??.

I m S/W engg. doing a job in small software company @ ahmedabad and living at Isanpur,Ahmedabad i think u know this place.

today i m asking about CEH. it is really a good course to do and have a good oppertunity to have security expert jobs.

Before some day i have registerd for the Ankit Fadia's CEH at reliance web world and i don't think it is really good content and they only shows the pre captured ankit's video. only two times we have a video conference with ankit.

May i know what should be good kills should one have to become a hacker. i found u have not hacking other things then bank esystems means checking the system.

pls tell me more about CEH and how to become CEH from where should i do CEH in ahmedabad on is it possible to have a online education.

Gaurang Parmar 99256 17034

---

ends here-----------------------

Reply Reply with quote »

   2 From:  Sandy - view profile 

Date: Sun, Dec 10 2006 1:10 pm Email: "Sandy" <prabhat.li...@gmail.com> Not yet ratedRating: show options Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse | Find messages by this author

Hi Kalpesh,

This mail is a good evidence to AFCEH fraud. Lets spread the word. Fadia is nothing but money making machine for himself and Relience web world. No ethics, no shame.

Read these reviews of his books on amezon.com : 1. Official guide to waste your money!, 2. oh no ankit fadia again...., 3. Official guide to Unethical copy and paste (plagarism) 4. If I could I'd rank 0 stars 5. HIGHLY INCOMPETENT

Read them all here and have a good laugh: http://www.amazon.com/Unofficial-Guide-Ethical-Hacking-Miscellaneous/... http://www.amazon.com/Network-Security-Hackers-Perspective-Second/dp/...

Sandy

Reply Reply with quote » Rate this post: Text for clearing space

   3 From:  Kalpesh Sharma - view profile 

Date: Sun, Dec 10 2006 3:39 pm Email: "Kalpesh Sharma" <shriganes...@gmail.com> Not yet ratedRating: show options Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Remove | Report Abuse | Find messages by this author

Hello Prabhatji,

I am too doing this. And I am proud as well as all the member of our group should feel proud because we are all spreading this message with a good intention, for nation and citizen interest. Every citizen should know everything about him else they are all going to loose lot of money and by that period ankit fadia will fill his bank accounts.

Thanks for your support. and specially for this group that you have started... Else everything would have continued as it was moving... It's good that you are the first person across country to protest and gain so many peoples to join you... I am too feeling proud to be a member of your group...

Go Ahead --- I am always with good peoples only.

Kalpesh Sharma

In, short I found only one problem with both these adminsitrators Aksi and Utcarshch, that they have:

1) Again and again tried to save ankit fadia page though several peoples deleted or commented against ankit fadia excluding me, as if ankit fadia and their some personal relation of benefits exists.

2) Every time no particular deep and proper explanations were given about my page deletions

3) Every time tried to showcase that I am self promoting myself by vandalizing ankit fadia. The clarification of difference between self promotion and achievements is not clear to both aksi and utcarsch, so I had to specify this to sam blanning using jimmy wales user talk page.[140]

4) Without sufficient evidence they self understood and claimed the article of Kalpesh Sharma as edited or posted by single user. Even if it was posted by single user that doesn't mean that they will come and directly catch my throat. They don't have this rights to say me(A reputed person) jealous or sock puppet which may be concern of legal matter and/or otherwise.

5) In the whole matter no where these two peoples have marked or specified any notable good matter for me. All they have mentioned is bad only about me. Why ? I ask. I have many achievements, why their eyes did not see this? Why their eyes did not see what prabhat of lug-indore group said good about me ? they tried to give all my weak points and overall behind that the matter is these two peoples have some beneficial relations with Ankit Fadia and that’s why this issue has gone so long.

I kindly request Jimmy Wales, Wikipedia Management and Any other Authorised person to look into this case from their views and not give my matter to any two these administrators utcarsch and aksi. Not at all.

Thnx – Kalpesh Sharma

You all see what I am talking about, right? I have tried to explain to this user that he is not notable. And that posts that he himself makes on online groups, blogs and forums cannot be considered reliable. But he continues to post links to his resume everywhere claiming that his "fans" are writing about him everywhere on wikipedia and not he. - Aksi_great (talk) 18:33, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

AKSI ATTN: AND EVERY ONE ALSO -

The places where I started blog created by me are :

http://kalpeshsharma.blogspot.com

http://kalpeshsharma.wordpress.com

The places where I write articles and where these articles are created by me :

http://shriganesh.gather.com

http://hacking.gather.com

My group website : http://kalpesh sharma.gather.com

Out of following five none was specified above. What a useless talk is this administrator creating evertime. He gives his own story without sense. In which above link did I mentioned this blogsites or articles site. I have specified that this was a search engines result. and none of them has been posted by me. Does wikipedia publishing is done acccording the great aksi law or according to legal procedures mentioned by wikipedia management. Thjis aksi is creating his own stories every time and posting incorrect about me. He also tries to explain every one that what ever comments, peoples list I have on gather.com is all created by me. Then why doesn't he give evidence. Who is aksi to directly give this statement on wikipedia. His is just a nominated administrator and not the owner or founder of wikipedia.

This person is again and again posting his message every where to harass me that I ma creating my own messages in comments ever where. I have 200 peoples in all these 5 sites connected to me, and only 30-30 peoples overall have commented. On some articles there are no comments at all. Then why this aksi is not saying that kalpesh sharma has not given comment on particular article. Then I should give more then 70 or 80 such comments myself. What a useless person - talking again and again same matter which I replied him atleast 5 times. If he has any evidence that these comments are posted by me then prove it. Else don't debate and go away ? Simple .

• I must say this fellow has been rather disruptive about an article that was deleted at: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kalpesh Sharma. Myself and others have told him about WP:DRV. However he chose an adjunct to deletion review: he reposted this article about himself on Ankit Fadia, on my user page, on unrelated Kalpesh Patel, on Samir (name), on Shriganesh, and a number of other pages now deleted. Some diffs: [141], [142], [143], [144], [145], [146], [147], [148], [149], [150]. He's misrepresented facts and has been rude in communication with myself and others. I blocked a number of his IP's for disruption during the above vandalism spree. -- Samir धर्म 21:01, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Kruško Mortale

User:Kruško Mortale keeps removing all tags from the History of the Bosniak people article, despite warned at his talk page numerous time, as well as the article's talk page (which he keeps ignoring). The user keeps removing tags with absolutely no reason given (his explanation is because I reverted his vandalism of the tags - precisely). One of the tags is the "unsourced", and the article hasn't got a single source, so removal of such tags (especially when being unexplained) is completely nonsensical and should be considered vandalism as per WP:VAND (although they pointed me towards here). --PaxEquilibrium 12:38, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

From WP:AIV: "I want to report Mr. Pax for sneaky vandalism. He is the only person who keeps putting POV tags in Bosniak related articles. That is his a priori attitude. He was earlier known as HolyRomanEmperor, but he changed his nick name due to hide his block log. He is very controversial figure, and the only thing that he does, is to discuss about Serbian origins of famous Slavs, so he had many disputes with other users. Check his past. Kruško Mortale 12:01, 16 December 2006 (UTC)". Just a thing I found while looking around... Shinhan 13:01, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

1. The only reason why Krusko Mortale reported me there is because I reported him previously on the same place; he's been conducting a WP:POINT campaign by following me around the Wikipedia and reverting my edits, like those on Stephen II of Bosnia, where he reverted to the version of, pardon my speech, a crazy anon (the ruler being called "Stjepan I" or "Stjepan I"?!?!) - clearly just campaigning against me (again, refer to WP:POINT). The very same is the reason why he followed me (wiki-stalking?) and posted a nearly identical report against me to the below.

Dear Mr. Pax, you are wrong. You asked me to show you your origin disputes which you said you did't have, and I showed it to you. You write from Belgrade, don't you, you push Serbian POV in any article including Bosnian-Herzegovinian articles, your block log is like a horror. You had many disputes, your past is disputable. Kruško Mortale 13:35, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

2. I am not the only person (KingIvan also supports my reversion of Krusko Mortale's removal); and I'm not the one who put the tags in the first place, but an administrator (User:Consumed Crustacean, to be precise); it wasn't supported by him alone. Krusko is the only one who keeps removing these tags (vandalizing?) - and the removal is, truly, ridiculous; removing "unsourced" tag from an article that lacks any source whatsoever "...because Pax is a controversial user". I mean, this really does not make any sense (and I don't see how could I be controversial).

Dear Mr. Pax. According to Mr. King Ivan's attitudes which he doesn't hide, he is Croat nationalist, very frustrated by Bosniaks. His main role here (as he said in his user page) is to fight against "Muslimani" (meaning Bosniaks and their history which he denies), because he doesn't even respect them as a nation, but behaves like a rasist.

3. I changed my nick a while ago, because I didn't like this one - so there's no hiding. Additionally, that's the block log of another user who took my username after the usernamechange and indeed I have explained this to Krusko on various talk pages for 5 times, but he keeps repeating this (again, lodging against me).

Dear Mr. Pax, too many excuses, too much disputable. Kruško Mortale 13:35, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

4. Yes, do please check my past. :) Don't forget to check what Krusko is doing as well. Cheers, and I'm sorry that this turned out to be such a long controversy... I thought this wouldn't come out as such a problem. --PaxEquilibrium 17:53, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Of course. I ask the same. Check Mr. HolyRomanEmperor's block log (Pax's log) and his cotroversies. Yours. Kruško Mortale 13:35, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

PaxEquilibrium

I want to report Mr. Pax for sneaky vandalism. He is the only person who keeps putting POV tags in Bosnian-Herzegovinian related articles. That is his a priori attitude. He was earlier known as HolyRomanEmperor (check his past), but he changed his nick name due to hide his block log. He is very controversial figure, and the only thing that he does, is to discuss about Serbian origins of famous Slavs, so he had many disputes with other users. I explained him not to put POV tags in the History of the Bosniak people article, because he is the only one who does that, but that is not all, he wants to change the name of the article, denying the fact that Bosniaks have thair own history. I think he is dangerous, disputable, controversial Serb nationalist who knows how to use Wiki policy and rules, and hides behind that to do sneaky vandalism. Yours, Kruško Mortale 13:06, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, Pax is not the only person who supports those tags on History of the Bosniak people. Pax, in fact, does not have a history of making POV edits; quite the contrary - he is actually oen of the few neutral editors of Balkan related articles. Also, he has responded on Kruško Mortale's talk page about his block log, and none of the blocks had anything to do with vandalism, disruption or anything related. - King Ivan 13:46, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Dear Mr. Ivan. You are also very disputable person, which anyone can check reading your user page. I think that you are nationalist becuse you don't even recognize Bosniaks as a nation, you call them "Muslimani", so your comment along with Mr. Pax is obvious example of nationalistic cooperation. Yours. Kruško Mortale 13:10, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Ah, thanks Ivan, but there's really no need to defend me - I think if admins overview the situation, everything will be clear alone. --PaxEquilibrium 18:33, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Removal of an {{unsourced}} or a {{fact}} tag without supplying sources is vandalism, and I suggest you desist. User:Zoe|(talk) 05:38, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Sarah Ewart (talk · contribs)

User protected my User page and discussion page over a week ago after she added incorrect and slanderous content (unfounded sockpuppet accusation template). Could someone remove the protection so I can remove the template as is my right since she provoded no evidence for the accusation. Canuckster 14:01, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

There is a sock-puppet check pending here: Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Ottawaman, not sure why it has not been proccessed yet. It is not really an accusation, it says "It is suspected...", which is true, you are suspected. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 14:09, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

The more I look at it the more I agree with Sarah. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 14:25, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Canuckster, if you feel that you've been mistreated, you can open a User Conduct request for comment, although I must say that I would agree with Sarah E as well. And for what it's worth, the word you're looking for is libel, not slander. A Train ^{take the} 14:34, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually I know a few things about libel, having studied writing in graduate school, and I don't think this qualifies. As HighInBC points out, Sarah's template states that the account is a suspected sockpuppet. While the SSP report remains outstanding that assertion is true. Durova^Charge! 14:49, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I stand corrected. :) A Train ^{take the} 14:56, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Also per WP:BEANS it is probably best not to teach new legal terms to this fella.(chuckle) HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 14:53, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

So um, shouldn't User:Canuckster be blocked too if he's a sock of an indefinetly blocked user? --W.marsh 15:16, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Suspected sock puppet. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 15:36, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Why is so much of this discussion ad-hominem?I do not understand what the discussion above has to do with protecting my user space? Also, It was Sarah who made the block 1 week; does coming here for help result in blocks being made indefinite? btw I am not a sockpuppet and since no evidence was provided do I not have the right to remove the "suspected" template? Canuckster 15:57, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Also, what ever happened to assume good faith? Why are these kind of comments being made above; "it is probably best not to teach new legal terms to this fella"? Why is there such an adversarial reaction here? Canuckster 16:01, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

If Canuckster had bothered to ask me, I would have unprotected his pages when his block expired. With all his huffing and puffing and pestering other people, some of whom aren't even admins, to unprotect his pages, he hasn't bothered to ask me once. As far as the sock tag goes, I don't mind if he removes it as long he stops using both Bell Sympatico Dynamic IPs and his accounts to troll Michael Ignatieff, Talk:Michael Ignatieff and my talk page. And I'm warning him now that this is his last chance. There is no doubt that Canuckster is Ottawaman's sockpuppet but I feel reluctant to post evidence because they are currently very easily identifiable and I really don't want to educate him. I don't think anyone who reviews the contribution history of any of these accounts would be left in any doubt at all. For further information, see: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive153#Sarah_Ewart and Possibly_spurious_RfC_opened_regarding_Sarah_Ewart_by_Methodology.2FOttawaman (there are other threads back there that his various socks started about me, but I couldn't find them on a quick look) and admins can review Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Sarah_Ewart which was filed using two of this user's sockpuppets. Sarah Ewart 16:40, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

This manner of complaint really raises my antenna. Whenever I've challenged someone of being a sockpuppet and they've denied the claim I've offered to let them clear their name through WP:RFCU (WP:SSP would do if one of the accounts has been inactive too long). The ones who come up negative jump at the chance to clear the air. The actual socks blow all kinds of smoke. Durova^Charge! 16:45, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

The single-minded focus on Michael Ignatieff is disturbing and they're just so disruptive on MI and Talk:Michael Ignatieff. I would love to RFCU, but I know them all to be using Bell Sympatico Canada dynamic IPs which which means they constantly get different IP addresses. Otherwise I would have taken it to RFCU ages ago. Sarah Ewart 17:18, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that this is Ottawaman, whom Sarah indefinitely blocked for trolling. The only thing we should be debating is whether Ottawaman (as Canuckster) deserves yet another second chance. With 4 blocks for disruption and trolling and 4 more for block evasion through sockpuppets and IPs, and considering he only here to attack Michael Ignatieff, I'd say he's at the end of his rope. Sarah should be commeneded for her patience with this editor, and if he is going to get a last chance then this really is it. Thatcher131 17:15, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

The user page protections are still in effect.I do thank Sarah for apparently offering to remove the page protection; I assumed she would have removed the protections herself but I was obviously wrong about that and apologize for that assumption. I certainly have tried to only add reasonable material to the Ignatieff article which is quite important to Canadians and I would urge any interested to have a look to see those well cited edits which were just deleted en-masse by someone with no talk page discussion.[151]. I hope this can be a new and cooperative beginning but am a loss as to how I can contribute to the article in question with such hostility towards these recent edits which I spent so much time on. Canuckster 19:02, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

In such cases we have to weigh the pros and cons. I personally think the downside of the trouble this user and his socks has caused (assuming for the moment that our suspicions are well-founded) enormously outweighs any benefits of allowing this single-issue editor to edit here. I am against giving a last chance. I agree with Thatcher that Sarah deserves tremendous praise for the patience she has shown this guy. --Guinnog 19:57, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. Sarah has shown remarkable poise in dealing with this editor -- Samir धर्म 21:29, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

• The Ignatieff article is not something I alone am in conflict over [152]and my work today on the article was substantial and meaningful especially by writing and citing this entire topic[153]. Canuckster 22:25, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I must say that I agree with Guinnog that the downside completely outweighs any minor positive contributions Ottawaman might make. If he was going to become a productive editor, I think he would have done so by now. He has shown here and on Wikinews that he has no interest in following policies and simply has an anti-American, anti-Ignatieff agenda to push. An interesting block log [154] and edits from the same ISP [155]. Sarah Ewart 01:09, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to note that the vicious attack above was entirely unprovoked. Sarah said she would gladly unprotect my user space. She did not. She said above "And I'm warning him now that this is his last chance"; now she says she does not want to give another chance; she accuses me of having an "anti-american agenda" which is a blatant lie and she makes all kinds of other crazy accusations. The anti-american slur is particularly libelous and, these days, a potentially harmful accusation to make. I did say that Ignatieff's allegiance to the US should have been in his article but at most I am anti-Bush foreign policy. Perhaps Sarah thinks Cindy Sheehan is also anti-american. It is shameful that here on Wikipedia I am having to defend my political opinions in this way. I came to this noticeboard to ask for help with the userspace protection issue. That has been settled by an admin. who unprotected the space. I then tried to remove this incident report that I placed here but was told I could not. If Sarah (or anyone else) wishes to be making ongoing and false accusations I am willing to engage in dispute resolution but I do not think this is the place. In the meantime I hope her supporters here will encourage her not to continue with the libelous namecalling. Canuckster 02:46, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I didn't unprotect your pages because you didn't actually ask me until after I had gone offline and when I came back and received your message, it had already been done. I never said I would "gladly unprotect [your] user space". What I said was I would have if you'd bothered to ask me. Please stop twisting my words. As for whether you get a second chance, I'm leaving that in the hands of the community. As for you being anti-American, the evidence is in your edits. Sarah Ewart 03:25, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Please show us my "anti-american" edits. I'll call that bluff. Canuckster 03:29, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I've no interest whatsoever in what you want and I'm not going to be trawling through the contribs of your various accounts for diffs. You've wasted more than enough time over the last six months and I'm not wasting anymore on you. The edits made by your various sock puppets have indicated a deliberate intent to smear Michael Ignatieff and a decided anti-American slant, something which contributed to you being community banned from Wikinews. Sarah Ewart 03:42, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Sneaky Vandalism

Found this in the new page log just a second ago:

• Geοrge W. Bush - notice the O is not an "o" but a lower case greek omega with character code: %CE%BF.

It was created by User:Fast ant lion. Something to be on the look for if this is to become a new trend in page creation vandalism. ju66l3r 15:31, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Deleted. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 15:39, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Another admin blocked this user for this, and the user disagrees claiming it was a good faith edit. I asked for his reasoning, but got little information. I decided not to handle the unblock request myself. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 16:45, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Nevermind, the problem seems to be solved. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 16:49, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I was in the middle of being puzzled by how this article could possibly exist, when ju66l3r redirected it and subsequently explained the greek letter thing. Should this deletion not be salted or the redirect recreated and protected? Unfortunately, this whole incident has a little bit of a WP:BEANS aspect to it, so I kind of don't want to voice my worst fears about what this sort of thing could do. Dina 17:54, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I think since those characters are against the MOS, a bot could watch the newly created articles for such charactes and put them in a catagory for review. Then we can move the legit one's and delete the less than legit one's. This type of vandalism should not give a real advantage. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 18:00, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

That's a good idea. Any Unicode that shows up in article titles is worth watching, and if someone good with bot-fu wants to tackle the job, it would be most welcome. On the bright side, it's very difficult to link to these articles accidentally. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:05, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I can write that, is there an rss feed or irc channel that lists all newly created pages? I could write the bot in a day, then just need to get it approved. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 18:09, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Forgive me if I'm just advertising my own ignorance here, but aren't Unicode characters sometimes okay (random example: Strč prst skrz krk)? Dina 18:15, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely; that's why the bot would just dump them into a category for review by humans. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:18, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Got it. Thanks. Dina 18:40, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good, but wouldn't it make sense to have the bot flag only article names that contain Unicode characters that are visually similar to common characters? I'll wager a wild guess and say that the review category would otherwise be full of false positives, e.g. article names containing German umlauts, French accents etc. (or are these not Unicode characters?) Sandstein 21:48, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

All of the accented characters used in English, French, German, Spanish, and the Scandinavian languages are in the basic character set. When you go further afield, then you have to get into Unicode, but it's a very small fraction of the total number of new articles. Yes, the category will probably still have a bunch of false positives, but I don't think it will get that many hits in total.

I'd be thrilled if someone could write something to trap just the homoglyphs, but that's harder. :D TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:40, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, my first set of tests show way too many false positives when searching for Unicode characters. So the better thing to do would be to make a list of homoglyphs and use those. i have started with this one here: User:HighInBC/homoglyphs. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 18:53, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Um, in the meantime, I've salted the page. User:Zoe|(talk) 05:43, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Blatant imagevio and illegal behavior, can user be blocked?

Listed on Image copyvio page: Image:B0009T2S0W.JPG (history · last edit) and Image:Chc.JPG (history · last edit). Clearly states on first image (c)2005 all rights reserved. User cropped it off. I believe user should be warned and perhaps blocked for such blatant attempts to avoid copyright laws and illegal behavior. --MECU≈talk 15:34, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Umm, the image description page asserts "fair use" of the image. Almost every fair use image on Wikipedia is copyrighted with all rights reserved. But "fair use" gives you the ability to use someone else's work without permission, under certain circumstances. In the case of an album cover, nearly every article about an album has an image of the album cover at the top of it. It is rendered unneeded because of the existence of Image:Charlie and the chocolate factory.JPG, but it's hardly a bad faith upload.BigDT 16:10, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

FYI, I have gone through the user's uploads and tagged most of them as orphaned fair use. BigDT 16:16, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Goa Inquisition

Can someone please review my actions on Goa Inquisition. I first became aware of the problem when Rumpelstiltskin223 reported Xandar to AIV for repeated blanking (see this edit for an example, it's basically just a revert war between those two versions: [156]). When I reviewed the case, I decided it wasn't obvious vandalism and was actually a content dispute, and blocked both users for 3 hours for 3RR violation. I also reverted the page to Xandar's version, since I felt it was best to have the version which didn't make controversial accusations be the one visible while the issue is discussed. User:Bharatveer then reverted my revert, giving a very similar edit summary to mine (how his version can be considered the safer version, he didn't explain). I reverted him and left a message on his talk page asking him not to revert again and saying I'd protect the page if he did. He did revert again, leaving a message on my talk page about placing disputed tags rather than removing the text. I reverted again (my 3rd revert, for those counting), and protected the page. Opinions, please. --Tango 15:46, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Good catch Tango. I endorse your actions. The last 100 edits all seem to be edit-wars. I also see a lot of 3rr evasion and gaming going on. - Aksi_great (talk) 16:02, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

This might be related to the Joan of Arc vandal. Akhilleus has included Xandar in his checkuser request on suspected JoA vandal socks WP:RFCU#AWilliamson. One day after a different checkuser request specificially related to Goa Inquisition got declined I spotted CC80 on the list, whom I strongly suspect of being a JoA vandal sock. Durova^Charge! 16:39, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I think Tango (talk · contribs) used admin powers in an incorrect way to further the edit war. He could have merely protected the article in interim but since he reverted a user on the article, I dont feel he had ample right to protect it. Xandar's version is the vandalized, censored version of the article. Wikipedia doesnt publish what is "safe" it publishes what is verified. With durova's new evidence. I smell trolling on the part of CC80 (talk · contribs) and Xandar (talk · contribs) (who most probably are the same person).Bakaman 18:56, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Generally, I would agree that admins should protect whatever version is showing when they get there but, in cases of controversial accusations, I think it's best to play safe. There was debate on the talk page as the whether or not the accusations were verifiable, so playing safe meant I assumed they weren't and removed them. I didn't investigate to see if they were valid or not (I since have, and I don't think the source given is very reliable, it's an opinion piece.) - that's a content issue and is "not my job" for want of a better phrase. --Tango 20:28, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

The Checkuser request mentioned above has been done. User:CC80 is a sock of AWilliamson, and has been blocked. User:Xandar is probably a different user than CC80. For more details see WP:RFCU#AWilliamson. 05:50, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Privacy violation by User:BostonMA

User is speculating about another user's legal name, here. —Hanuman Das 16:16, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

How does Heads up and a link to one of your posts constitute a privacy violation? HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 16:18, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Above that he is just linking to what the user said, it is not a privacy violation if the user himself revealed the information. BostonMA was simply correcting your mistaken use of the personal info warning box. Showing links to where a person has revealed their own personal info is not a violation of privacy. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 16:19, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Seems to me that this user's just trying to get other innocent users into trouble. – Chacor 16:29, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, fixed the link. It is my understanding that there are two directors of the organization. THe individual in question has not revealed his name, and in fact has refused to answer the question of which director he is. Thus, this is a privacy violation. —Hanuman Das 16:31, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

If he's restating something someone else has said I can hardly see how that's a privacy violation. – Chacor 16:33, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

No it isn't. He didn't even make the connection, just stated the facts. It's not a privacy violation to repeat what the person said, period. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 16:33, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, there are at least two directors of the organization. The user in question has refused to answer questions about his legal name. Thus I sincerely believe this to be a privacy violation. I've updated WP:ANI with the correct link. See also the complaint for User:Paul Pigman further up the page. I thoguht privacy was highly protected on WP. Seems to me that one ought to err on the side of caution and delete questionable material. Unless they can point to where the user posted his legal name, speculating about what it might be is innappropriate. —Hanuman Das 16:36, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Speculation proves nothing, so it's not a privacy violation. Especially not speculating on what the person themself has said. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 16:39, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Policy specificly say revealing the "alleged" name of another party. It does not have to be correct to be a policy violation. It also says that the intent of the policy is to keep the information from being found with web searches using the user's legal name. Since the user has nowhere stated his name publicly on Wikipedia, stating it together with other information constitutes a privacy violation as it will turn up in web searches by name when the user thamself has been careful not to make the direct association.(This is most applicable to the original violation by Paul Pigman above). —Hanuman Das 16:45, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

If you say what your real name is then people have the right to refer to that, no information seems to have been released that was not released by the person himself. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 16:41, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

The point is that the user hasn't stated their real name. Perhaps this incident is not a violation, but the earlier one by Paul Pigman reported above certainly is. And, no, I'm not trying to get the user in trouble, I'm trying to get the information removed. It's an admin decision whether action should be taken against a user. It's a policy that personal information be removed. —Hanuman Das 16:54, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

But that is exactly what BostonMA was explaining when he removed your warning. The user made claims of these things himself here[157] and here[158], using these claims to discuss a possible conflict of interest is not a violation of privacy. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 16:58, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Not a privacy violation whatsoever when the user in question has already volunteered the information himself -- Samir धर्म 20:46, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

• Concur with the above. Repeating the user's own words is not a violation. Guy (Help!) 23:11, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Pornotube - feedback please

I'm quickly bringing this up here as a) the "victim" (and after reviewing the situation I too) have msged the admin involved with no reponse and b) I believe it to be so cut and dried that dragging it through the drawn out DRV process is not needed. Essentially, the Pornotube article has been created and deleted three times before, twice under A7 and once as an unchallenged {{prod}}. Today Kane5187 created it, and it was quickly speedy deleted by Zoe, with the deletion summary nn website. I happen to see the authors complaints on Zoe's page (Kane5187 was then told "Claims of notability were not cited with reliable sources." and that the article was a recreation of previously deleted material.

For a start, the previously articles were literally one line, specifically:

Pornotube is a video search engine which plays pornographic videos similar to Youtube.

Admins can view that here. Apart from being literally ten times the size of that version, Kane's article stated, and was referenced;

Little more than two months after its creation, PornoTube is already one of the most visited adult sites in the world [1].

Admins can view the article here, nonadmins I have recreated it in my userspace for your reference here. As I stated on Zoe's talk page:

"Sorry Zoe but I kindly request you revert your deletion of this; I dont believe in wheel warring but if you do not Im afraid I will. A 4 second search on the site found this and an Alexa rank of 205. You may not believe this to be notable, but regardless it is DEFINITELY not speediable. Also does not qualify as reposted material as it is a completely different version to that which was last deleted. Again, please restore immediately and take to AFD if you so desire"

A google news search found this article on its popularity, as well as many many other reliable sources. Can I have some feedback please.Glen 16:28, December 16, 2006 (UTC)

In addition, I think Kane's msg to Zoe explains his position quite well:

Excuse me, but what are you doing? You just re-speedied a PERFECTLY good, well-cited, not-even-conceivably-without-a-claim-to-notability non-"spam" (as you claimed in your edit summary) Wikipedia article. It was not recreation of deleted material, as I rewrote the entire thing myself -- and even if it had been, WP:CSD prohibits your speedying it under that pretense as all prior deletions were speedies and prods, which per G4 don't count towards the recreation speedy.

Look forward to your feedback Glen 16:34, December 16, 2006 (UTC)

A7 doesn't require a source for the assertion of notability anyway. Plus, any controversial assertion should go to AfD automatically. This is a chronic problem. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:04, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I dunno, at the risk of sounding like a process wonk, take it to DRV... you'll have my "vote" to undelete. It shouldn't have been speedy deleted. But there isn't such a pressing need for an article on this topic that I'm going to reverse Zoe's deletion. --W.marsh 17:54, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, if we were really a process wonk, then it would be clear to see that this was an out-of-process deletion that should be reversed (pending community consensus) :) I personally just think Zoe was a little quick on the trigger. I'll wait until she has responded before I take any action though. —bbatsell ¿? 19:40, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I just want to clarify something: I only created one version, the most recently deleted one. I first got involved when I ran across the PornoTube article created by someone else, made an edit or two, went away and came back to find it gone. I checked the log and didn't think that "nn website" qualified for deletion, so I voiced my concerns at Zoe's talk. Zoe responded with this, which I didn't feel justified a delete, as I indicated when I responded again, expressing my intent to recreate the article. At that point, I wanted to create an article that was without a shadow of a doubt a notable and verifiable article -- and I backed up a copy of it, pre-deletion, here. So, anyway, I just wanted to clarify that I only created one new article, but was involved in the dispute over two deletions. Dylan 18:11, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

The cited 'source' for the sites notability is just saying it has an alexa rank of 300. Other than that it makes no other claims.. and mostly just sounds like a paid advertisement, it's also in a section of the site which appears to have many such paid advertisements. Alexa data is worse than useless.. anyone can easily fake out the publicly available alexa data and they don't make much of an effort to stop it. If the site is as notable as it's being claimed to be, we'd have more indicators than alexa.--Gmaxwell 20:17, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I think we do. --Kizor 20:24, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

A subject not being notable is not a reason for speedy deletion. You can only speedy delete if the article doesn't assert notability. This one clearly did, so it should be undeleted. Any discussion about the actual notability of this site should be done over at AfD. --Tango 20:39, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

This article should not have been speedied. There are a good selection of notable sources which discuss the site such as those mentioned on the article before it was deleted and ones such as [159], [160] (It is a blog, but a very notable one - see their about page), [161] etc... I would suggest that the page be unsalted and undeleted. If the admin in question still feels it should be deleted, they should take it to WP:AFD. This shouldn't need to go through WP:DRV as process was not followed to delete it.-Localzuk^(talk) 21:22, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I will undelete the article and put it up for AfD. We don't need to have it go through DRV to decide whether the deletion was improper, then an AfD. Let's just get this issue over with on AfD so we can move on. Grandmasterka 22:38, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Here you go. Enjoy. Grandmasterka 22:50, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

It's been deleted by four admins. But I'm the one who gets the heat? Thanks for the discussion before the wheel war. User:Zoe|(talk) 05:22, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, one of the criteria for CSD G4 is that the content must be largely the same (and in fact, the administrator is instructed to "ensure that the material is substantially identical and not merely a new article on the same subject"). The previous speedy deletions were okay because those versions did not assert notability. The version you deleted did, and was a completely different article from the previous deletions. Not criticizing, I've certainly made similar mistakes where I didn't look close enough, just explaining why you're "getting heat". —bbatsell ¿? 05:38, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Don't sweat the heat, Zoe. We appreciate the work you do here. I'm sure Grandmasterka was acting with the best of intentions in undeleting the article for AfD, and that the reversal of your action was only after contemplation of the thread here -- Samir धर्म 07:08, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah - one minute we're told to go empty CAT:CSD, in the next we're catching shit for doing it. No pleasing some people :-) Guy (Help!) 18:05, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Heh... The first time I've ever undone another admin action on Wikipedia, ever, I do it to the user who specifically talks about Wikipedia:Wheel war on their user page. I suppose I should have waited for Zoe to at least read this and discuss it (I don't think you had read this, had you?) But I had to go somewhere else fairly soon after I read this and the consensus on this page seemed clear. Lame, I know. Grandmasterka 23:41, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I just closed the afd. There was a clear consensus that was unlikely to change by having it hanging around. If anyone objects, I would be happy to re-open it. Viridae^Talk 04:20, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Block note

I have indefinitely blocked Insertnamehere1 (talk · contribs). His contribs log should be a good indication why; it appears to be a SPA, and his last edit with nasty attacks in the summary was way out of line. If people think this is too harsh of me, comments are welcome. (Radiant) 17:45, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

That edit summary alone justifies the block. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 17:47, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Looks like an incivil spam account to me, just posting links and mentions of a certain website, good call. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 17:48, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Someone should delete that edit to get the summary out of the history. Newyorkbrad 22:27, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

(Not admin) What about Wikipedia:Requests_for_oversight? Yuser31415 23:38, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Oversight (which only a dozen or so people in the whole project can access) would be overkill here. Just getting it off the main database should suffice, which any admin can do. Newyorkbrad 01:50, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Requested block

A persistent vandal needs to be "permanently" blocked if this can be done without affecting others. Please see: User_talk:71.234.9.178. His/her? contributions have been mostly vandalism which you can audit yourself. Many editors have given him/her more than fair warning.Student7 20:50, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

The IP in question has been blocked for one month. That's near the high end of blocks that we can give to IP addresses, since there is no way to know whether the IP will later belong to someone who is willing to be a positive contributor to Wikipedia. If after one month the user comes back and continues to vandalize, they will be blocked again for a significant length of time. We cannot block them permanently, however. —bbatsell ¿? 21:14, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Leaving WIkipedia

Somebody please delete my user, talk page and archives. I understand that they can still be accessed by admins if need arises, and I do not want to leave them public. —Hanuman Das 00:24, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

This user has been involved in a long ongoing dispute which has been submitted for arbitration here. Please do not act on this request until the outcome of this arbitration has been finished, as many of this user's edits are material to the complaint. - WeniWidiWiki 00:36, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

If it is the users actions that are under complaint and they are leaving, I fail to see why you would need to keep the arbitration case open (having not read it yet). I also setrongly hope that right to vanish is not being overridden by an ongoing dispute. Viridae^Talk 00:41, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Disagree. A wider case may have had discussion on the user's talk page. Deleting it now may compromise evidence to be presented in the case. I wouldn't support deleting his talk page. And, also note that the main problem with deleting talk pages is that the main contributors to them aren't the user himself, but rather other users, whose contribs you're deleting. – Chacor 00:44, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Once again, why should an ongoing dispute override m:Right to vanish? Viridae^Talk 00:48, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I haven't seen the case itself, only that it's been brought before AC as a request. If this user is not directly involved as one side of the dispute alone (note emphasis), it's not far to the case to remove evidence. – Chacor 00:50, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I have done everything except the User talk page. On m:Right to vanish it says Delete your user and user talk subpages. That wording is a little obscure, not entirely sure wether that means the user talk page may be deleted or not. Viridae^Talk 00:39, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I went ahead and deleted the user talk pages - it will at least stop the harassment that the user is experiencing. If the edits are necessary for arbcom, they have the ability to look at the deleted edits anyway. Should the user continue to edit, his pages will, of course, be undeleted. Cowman109^Talk 00:43, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

See above. It's right now not a full case yet. Evidence may need to be presented that was on the user's talk page. Can't support a talk deletion while the case is still being presented. – Chacor 00:48, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Is there still a case if they have left? Viridae^Talk 00:50, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Leaving does not necessarily end a case. The history should be undeleted. If there is vandalism, you can protect the page. NoSeptember 00:52, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

It appears so. Is their involvement in the dispute important now they have left? Viridae^Talk 00:53, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I haven't seen the case myself, but it is possible that the case was not solely against this user. However, if there has been evidence which could be of use, in the history of the talk pages, then you're compromising the case. [after 4 edit conflicts!] – Chacor 00:58, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Having read the case as it is so far, the user appears to be a small part of an ongoing dispute for which the arbitration was called. However, the request for arbitration has not even been accepted yet, and there is no guarantee that it will be. Viridae^Talk 01:01, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

And there may be diffs from the user's talk page that are needed to present a case for such a case in the first place. With the talk page deleted the whole case is compromised. – Chacor 01:03, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

A comment from an uninvolved user. This is a tough one. Chacor has made some good points here, and so has Cowman109. If I was an admin involved in a situation similar to this, I would probably have tried to get consensus here first for deleting a user talk page before doing it. --SunStar Net^talk 00:54, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

When someone leaves in the middle of a dispute you have to be careful that they may not have really left. Socks or a resumption on this account may occur. I doesn't hurt to wait a few days to see what will happen, even if there is no active Arb case. A user talk page is a community shared page much more so than a user page or subpages. Right to Vanish can be abused. NoSeptember 01:04, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I think a certain four-capital-lettered user asked for his pages to be deleted a while back, but is still actively editing... – Chacor 01:06, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

The nature of the user request and the reference above to harassment suggest there may be aspects of this matter that should not be discussed on-wiki. Cowman109 is an Arbitration Committee Clerk and I am sure that he will be sensitive to any issues raised by the pendency of a proposed ArbCom case. Newyorkbrad 01:07, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Right to Vanish is not really an Arbitration issue. Please check here for the current list of clerks (though Cowman has been doing a good job of helping out). NoSeptember 01:22, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Nice consensus. I am requesting that the talk pages and archives be restored and locked. This was an attempt to pre-empt arbitration and it looks like it worked. Hanuman Das' status on wikipedia is not material. If he/she wants to leave that is his/her choice. However, this user has been involved in a protracted dispute that has involved numerous other editors, and the content of the user's talk page is pertinent to the discussion. After the arbitration - if it is even accepted - I think the page should only then be blanked. - WeniWidiWiki 01:11, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd second an undelete/blank/protect for the sake of arbcom evidence. Someone can add a request that arbcom deletes the page when the case is complete. ---J.S ^(T/C) 01:27, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I encourage anyone to undelete the page if they'd like - I won't mind, but personally I see nothing that makes me think his talk page is necessary for the arbitration request (and you're not really supposed to be giving that much evidence on the request page anyway, but merely supposed to be showing there exists a dispute). The user has plenty of edits in other areas, and it would seem that the focus of the dispute lies in the article of the arbitration case anyway so I don't see how his talk page is relevant. Oh, and I'm not an arbcom clerk, in response to Newyorkbrad, but just one of many volunteers who try to help out. Cowman109^Talk 02:48, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I am the editor who removed the "speedy" tags from the user's talk page, so perhaps a comment from me will be useful. First, I don't think that there is a significant amount of evidence that would be unavailable to parties to the arbitration. There are two principle editors on one side of the arbitration. The user who has left Wikipedia, and a user who is associated with numerous links. Although the users collaborated, I think the issues in arbitration are quite different between them. Long and short, I did not remove the "speedy" tags because I feared deletion of evidence. (Of course, I did not file the arbcom case, so I do not pretend to be speaking for anyone else -- others may disagree).

Having explained that I was not worried about loss of evidence, I feel a need to explain my motivations. At the time that I removed the "speedy" tags, I was unaware that the user was intending to leave Wikipedia. I was sensitized to seeing the speedy tag on his talk page from a previous interaction. On a previous occassion, the user had a puppetmaster tag on his user page. My understanding is that before a user or talk page is speedied, the deleting admin should check to see if a) the page has been editted by other users, and b) whether there are warnings on the page that ought to be preserved. For better or worse, it appeared to me that the admin who deleted his page on that occasion did not notice that this user had first deleted his warning tag, and then added the speedy tag. I understand that in such situations, users may "lose their cool". Further, the user made a declaration that he would not use sockpuppets. At that point I thought it appropriate to let the matter drop. However, I was sensitized, and worried that we were seeing a repeat. When I learned that the user planned to leave Wikipedia, I had no interest in preventing his pages from being deleted.

I hope that someone may find these comments useful. Sincerely, --BostonMA ^talk 03:10, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

You're probably right. As long as someone can resurrect the talk pages if it becomes an issue later, I don't foresee it being necessary unless it gets really protracted. Probably should establish some sort of protocol for such instances though.- WeniWidiWiki 02:56, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

We frequently get these people claiming that they are leaving for good in the middle of an RfA, who, lo and behold, after the RfA has been closed because they are gone, come back and start the same behavior all over again. PLEASE do not close the RfA. User:Zoe|(talk) 05:47, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

• Indeed. I believe all the arbs are sysops as well, so deleting the pages should not significantly hinder that process. Guy (Help!) 09:33, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Proposal

I have a proposal that I believe addresses m:right to vanish and the need for evidence for the RfArb. I suggest that the talk page and archives be undeleted and then moved to an appropriate sub page(s), eliminating all redirects created in the process. (no suggestion as to where they should be moved to - but if the RfArb case was taken on then a sub page of the case page would be appropriate). When the RfArb is finished or if it is rejected then the pages get moved back to their original position and redeleted. The purpose of the move is to assume good faith and honour the right to vanish. The username would no longer be associated with the content of the pages, any more than any other comments he has made on other talk pages would be. The purpose of re-moving the pages to their original position and then re-deleting them would be to have them availiable for revival in the right spot in the event that the retirement was not permanent. All these actions could be performed by any of the sysopped RfArb clerks, or if that idea is rejected, I would be happy to take them on myself as long as someone notifies me of the outcome of the case. I would have his talk page and user page on watch, looking for signs of editing (ie other users questioning edits) and a note in the RfArb case to be notified of the close or rejection of the case. Thoughts? Viridae^Talk 10:10, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I suggest leaving the situation at status quo for now (i.e. deleted). Evidence of Hanuman's bad behavior toward others (if such evidence exists) will be mainly on their talk pages, the mediation pages associated with the case, and the articles themselves. Assuming Hanuman's talk page contains evidence of other editors' bad behavior toward him, it can be restored or examined by the arbitrators if the case is accepted. Thatcher131 12:11, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Hanuman may be only tangentally involved in this case. My concern is that we are accepting all this at face value when in the past there have been users who have used Right to Vanish to game their situation. We also don't want to start expecting Arbitrators to be the gatherers of facts in a case. We need to let involved parties find their evidence to present where ever they can find it, and not tie their hands in building their case. NoSeptember 13:20, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Question - if someone invokes the right to vanish (sounds like a magical spell), insisting that their talk pages and user pages get deleted, is their account also blocked? Proto::► 17:02, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

No. User talk pages are not deleted. =Nichalp «Talk»= 17:13, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, user talk pages are quite frequently deleted. The argument that a user's warnings and history of problems needs to remain visible only applies if they don't stay vanished. (I used to be more hard line on this, but I have come to really dislike the scarlet letter mentality that some folks have.) In this particular case the talk pages will probably be undeleted if the case is accepted. I'm not convinced they are needed in order to make a case for acceptance. Thatcher131 17:29, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I think we have to distinguish between a vandal's talk page full of nothing but warnings and unproductive messages (which we can delete without a second thought), and that of a long time user who has had much discussion about articles and other productive Wikipedia issues over many months (which is the case here). The history of the page has value to the project (and since he used page move archiving, so do his talk page archives). It's about having the history, the top page can be blanked and protected (this is not about the removing warnings issue or anything like that) NoSeptember 17:40, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Question and comments

Please pardon my ignorance, but doesn't m:Right to vanish being a meta-directive, trump en.wikipedia concerns? I've read through the meta page and the meatball page linked from it, and IMO you are treading on very treacherous ground here. The ability to vanish is listed as a "right", not a privilege. In my opinion, it should not be conditional in any way. Perhaps mediawiki foundation needs to clarify the talk page issue on m:Right to vanish, but with it being ambiguous, and with talk page deletion having been done for other users recently (e.g. User:Ars Scriptor), it would seem to me that if you are going to undelete H.D.'s talk page, you'd need to undelete every other vanished user's talk page for consistency.

In any case, as someone also involved in the issue, I don't think H.D.'s talk pages are significant in any way to the arbitration request. He was occasionally quite rude - on other people's talk pages. His edit history is still available, and I beleive the contention is that he kept restoring links after other editor's deleted them. I also believe that both sides believed that they were in the right, i.e. it was not a case of intentional vandalism. Anything that was said to him on his talk page about the situation is most likely also brought up on one of the meditation pages. And Mattisse has been keeping "files" on her user subpages about all of her percieved "enemies", so she should be able to answer precisely what information might be needed from H.D.'s talk page. (Interestingly enough, Timmy12 keeps "files" on his "enemies" in the very same way as Mattisse does). It seems like perhaps some people want to go on a fishing expedition on a user who decided that his involvement in Mattisse's manipulations was a waste of his time. That doesn't seem right to me.

Finally, please do kick this up to the MetaWiki level. I would like to know definitively what exactly I could expect if in the future I should want to avail myself of the Right to vanish. Currently, based on observation, I believe that I could expect to have all my user space pages deleted, including talk pages and archives. If this is not the case, I think Mediawiki Foundation should be clear and explicit about it on m:Right to vanish. Ekajati (yakity-yak) 18:23, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Right to vanish is not an official policy but a general internet principle which we apply in a way that we try to balance the competing interests of this project. Just because an essay is written on Meta instead of enwiki does not confer to it more authority. See m:Privacy policy to see what is our official policy (which leaves tremendous leeway to each project on the Right to Vanish issue). NoSeptember 18:47, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

If the concern is harrassment of HD after he leaves, then blank and protect his talk page. Nobody can leave messages, but the history is still available if people need to review discussions or other information (whether to provide diffs for an arbitration, or for other constructive purposes). If HD believes that there is information in the history which compromises his privacy, then by all means he should ask an admin to delete the appropriate revisions of the page. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:51, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

The page :m:Right to vanish describes removal of personal information (real name, address, political views etc.) that are pretty far short of deleting an entire set of user and talk pages on request, that are of interest in an ongoing dispute and that don't all contain personal information. It also explicitly says info is deleted "provided it is not needed for administrative reasons (which are generally limited to dealing with site misuse issues)" (IMO that would include an arb case, if there's a legitimate need for the material).

I have some knowledge of the former contents of HD's talk page and don't remember any personal material on it but (from what I saw) it also wasn't obvious there was important evidence on it. I don't see a compelling reason to undelete the page at the moment, though that may change if the arb case progresses. I think Matisse should work this out with the Arb clerks, as Thatcher131 suggested [162]. They can undelete it or grant private and/or redacted access to Matisse as appropriate. To Matisse: try leaving Thatcher131 a talk message or sending an email (you can send email through the "email this user" link at User:Thatcher131).

IMO, HD is not the most important participant in that dispute. 67.117.130.181 10:04, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Other people's contributions

The whole thing about deleting user talk pages (and talk pages in general) is that they also consist of other people's contributions. If I have a long and involved and productive discussion with someone on their talk page, I don't want that discussion to vanish with that person. I want my contributions, which might contain important material on my thoughts on certain issues, to be preserved somewhere. Should I really have to keep a list of all the user talk pages I've edited and then 'rescue' my edits if the page gets deleted? Carcharoth 11:20, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Possible libellous entry on living person

See this diff that is libellous about the subject. It is unsourced and almost certainly false. I have reverted it, but should it be removed from the history? --Bduke 01:30, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it's common practice to do that unless requested to by the subject of the article. I'm not 100% sure, so others more experianced should reply. ---J.S ^(T/C) 01:37, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Unsourced negative or controversial material in the biography of a living person should be removed from the article immediately per WP:LIVING. I do not know that the claim in this case is so scurrilous as to warrant removing the edit from the history, but it couldn't hurt. The statement that Somare's face is on the 50 kina note, however, is accurate and may be included. Newyorkbrad 01:47, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Appears to have been deleted. Viridae^Talk 03:17, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Looks like Glen S deleted the edit and the revert. Doesnt hurt to be safe, but I'd not want to be the one to clean up the libel from the history of an article like GW Bush. ---J.S ^(T/C) 04:32, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Socks of User:Sion glyn

User:Sion glyn has been using sockpuppets to make disruptive edits to Republic of Ireland and Isle of Man in an attempt to make a point regarding an ongoing content/naming dispute on Wales.

Confirmed socks are User:Englishpound and User:Aperfectmanisaenglishman.

Results of CheckUser investigation can be seen here: [163] Dppowell 05:10, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Protection hoaxing

Pshicine (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has just run a protection hoax on today's FA, complete with clever {{indefblock}} templates on his userpages (they are now true). Just something people should be aware of. Oh yeah, and now he's requesting to be unblocked.--Kchase T 05:18, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

• Well the protection template stuff could have been good faith (just uninformed) but the indef block template and the "admin abuse!" unblock request aren't good signs. The unblock request has been denied by Netsnipe, by the way. --W.marsh 05:48, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Zeoblast

This guy's user page and contribs lead me to believe he probably is a sock of User:Zeosurfer, even though I hadn't previously heard of the latter. Anyway, he's clearly a vandal. --Masamage 05:40, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

 Confirmed as a sock. Essjay (Talk) 07:26, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Canuckster

Canuckster (talk · contribs · logs) seems to be harassing Sarah Ewart. See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration for the latest in a long line of incidents. Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Ottawaman will give you some background. I am rather concerned that this will be a waste of everybody's time and energy, and be unnecessarily demoralising for Sarah, who I think is one of our better admins. Canuckster's case seems to be that Sarah ought to apologise to him for saying he was anti-American, when even a very casual trawl of his contributions revealed this. It seems to me Sarah was quite correct in what she has done and does not deserve to be treated like this. In the spirit of defend each other, I thought I would raise the matter here, as my intervention on the user's talk page has seemingly failed to produce any real response.

If my suspicions about this account being a sockpuppet of Ottawaman turn out to be unfounded, I will be the first to apologise. Meantime, I propose a community ban of Canuckster, and as speedy as possible a resolution of the sockpuppet question. --Guinnog 08:17, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Agree on all counts, my attempts to support Sarah have not worked either, it seems, as he persists... – Chacor 08:20, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I endorse the suggestion of a community ban, as this is blatant trolling. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 08:28, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Support, this is harrassment, and it's pretty obvious he's a sock. User:Zoe|(talk) 08:33, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Some of his discourse has been bordering on legal threats. (Throwing around the words "libel" & "slander".) An indef block might be in order. ---J.S ^(T/C) 08:41, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Just for informational purposes, a checkuser has been run; a conclusion of sockpuppetry is probable based on the technical evidence. Essjay (Talk) 09:01, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

OK, I've indef. blocked him. User:Zoe|(talk) 09:07, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Honestly, I think a block would be in order even if he is not a sock. This is just obvious harassment. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 09:19, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I still think it'd be good to establish concensus for a community-based block/ban, as a failsafe just in case. Hence, I urge people to keep giving input as to the merits of a community ban or block. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 09:21, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Support the block per harrasment reasons. Viridae^Talk 09:23, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Support indef block, clear trolling -- Samir धर्म 09:38, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I think this person's behavior shows a resemblence to Hollow Wilerding/Eternal Equinox/Velten: he has some kind of obsession with Michael Ignatieff - he probably thinks that he can somehow "own" that article by edit warring, attacks, etc. Furthermore, Ottawaman claimed to "quit" [164] [165], but since this has now been disproven above, I think it is highly likely that he will (at least attempt to) come back under a new identity and begin this whole cycle over again.

On the other hand, however, I'm not exactly sure if a community ban is necessarily needed at this point. Since I noticed that the vast majority of this person's edits are to Michael Ignatieff, I'd suggest the following: (1) restriction to only one registered account; (2) ban from editing Michael Ignatieff and related articles, and (3) prohibition from interacting with Sarah Ewart & other users he harasses. Scobell302 09:45, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

i could support that, but then there would be no raison d'etre for this person. User:Zoe|(talk) 09:54, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Support community ban. Durova^Charge! 14:18, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

FWIW, I would prefer a community ban over restricted editing. Eternal Equinox at least tried to improve articles. Ottawaman, on the other hand, has shown a singular focus on smearing Michael Ignatieff. Some of his accounts have even been used for vandalism (eg [166]). I don't believe his contributions this far justify allowing him to edit at all and I don't think that he will honor any restrictions anyway. Sarah Ewart 22:48, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

HimalayanAshoka

I had blocked Himalayanashoka (talk · contribs) for one week for vandalism & trolling on the India page. He was warned and blocked earlier too.

He keeps changing the sovereignty entries in the India infobox from Indian independence in 1947 to the Indus Valley Civilization, 5000 BCE. [167] When challenged to cite sources, he beats around the bush and does not quote any. See Talk:India#Formation of India Information. Was warned by Ragib, for making personal attacks on me there. Efforts to discuss the matter by a few wikipedians have hardly made an impression.

Now the user comes up with two sockpuppets MichaelWolfgang (talk · contribs) and Entourage_brune (talk · contribs) to carry out his agenda. I have blocked both.

Unfortunately I am very busy over the week to follow this up. So requesting further admin intervention.

Regards, =Nichalp «Talk»= 13:57, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Looking at [168], [169] and [170] it is evident that it is the same user. I am extending Himalayanashoka's block to 2 weeks. Will keep an eye on the article for more socks. - Aksi_great (talk) 16:30, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

User:KPbIC (Again)

Before anyone goes anywhere Please see the archived discussion where I explained how a user has been repeatedly stalking on my edits and opening up disputes that are most silly at times (Maladzyechna). Well yesterday was no different and it looks like that the previous comments by the admin had no effect on him. The only thing that did change was that WP:STALK is now not the only policy that KPbIC is violating. Now he is using his open vigilantism (even though he is not an admin) to challenge the WP:NC(UE) policies for the English name of Kiev, and combining the two into one: [171], [172]. Like I said before, this user has his own understanding of what wikipedia is and with a silly alibi (it does make one chuckle reading his explanations on the archived topic, the refrences to the big and evil "russifiers") he is openly stalking and harassing me and other users and completely disregarding wikipedia guidelines. Like I said before, I do not wish to commence the suggested time-consuming WP:RFAr, hence why I once again ask that someone talk some sense into this disruptive user.--Kuban Cossack 14:29, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

One again, Kuban kazak, I'm asking you to leave your Russification spirit out of Wikipedia, and start to do something constructive. Dispite WP:REDIRECT#Don't fix links to redirects that aren't broken and WP:NCON#Dealing with self-identifying terms, you continue to devote yourself to the useless activity of substituting each and every instance of Kyiv to Kiev, as you did yesterday ([173], and [174]). Not challenging WP:NC(UE), which prescribes to use the most common English name for a title of the article, I'd like to remind you that Kyiv is also a (1) well-established, (2) official Ukrainian, and (3) self-identifying name of the city, which redirects to Kiev. There is no need to substitute each and every instance of Kyiv to Kiev, unless you want to be involved in trolling, harassment, disrespect of other contributors, or being uncivil. (The same applies to Odesa/Odessa). --KPbIC 23:18, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Well I'll just link to my response on the Russification charge (which has no basis) in the archive. However what you self-interpret as right and the vigilante stance you take is hardly acceptable to wikipedia. Once again I am telling you to back off, write articles and leave other users alone. Kiev is an ENGLISH spelling of the city that was decided upon by a lengthy consensus on the talk page, and hence, by wikipolicies that you have never read, it applies to the whole of en-wiki! So drop off the stalking, the harrassment and the vigilantism, as you are no admin to make such decisions, before I go through the WP:RFAr. So far not a single admin told me that what I am doing is wrong!, and I do not need an alibi such as insulted national pride to base my edits on. --Kuban Cossack 23:50, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

And here is today's Kuban kazak activity: [175], [176] --KPbIC 23:36, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Found undoubtedly by stalking on my edits... however at the same time forgetting that this activity included de-stubbing two articles, one that is ironically set in Ukraine...--Kuban Cossack 23:50, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Found by checking your edits... Please familiarize yourself with WP:STALK on what substitutes stacking before making groundless accusations. On the contrary, your edits like [177] or[178] do violate WP:REDIRECT#Don't fix links to redirects that aren't broken, and bring disruption to the project. Over the last year, you have been repeatedly asked by many contributors to abandon such activity. --KPbIC 00:24, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

This above is a classic example of his disregard for wikipedia, sigh, here we go WP:REDIRECT is a guideline, whilst WP:NC(UE) is a policy. Now quoting from WP:RULES:

• A guideline is any page that is: (1) actionable and (2) authorized by consensus. Guidelines are not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception. Amendments to a guideline should be discussed on its talk page, not on a new page — although it's generally acceptable to edit a guideline to improve it. People are sometimes tempted to call a vote on a guideline, but this is a bad idea because it polarizes the issue (see Voting is evil for details). Instead, a guideline is made by listening to objections and resolving them.
  • A naming convention or Manual of Style entry is a specific kind of guideline, related to proper naming, or the way articles should be written.
• A policy is similar to a guideline, only more official and less likely to have exceptions. As with guidelines, amendments should generally be discussed on their talk pages, but are sometimes forked out if large in scope. One should not generally edit policy without seeking consensus first.

Conclusion: In a policy vs guideline debate, the latter is defeated, particulary for naming convnentions, otherwise my argument on the viewpoint of Eastern Ukrainians would fully justify a crusade of changing Ukrainian names into Russian...however I, contrary to your misleading belief did come here to do something constructive, (which explains my barnstar count vs yours) and such details are not my priority. However, off the record, I do like to make a positive contribution to wikipedia by giving the correct name, by following the naming conventions policy;)--Kuban Cossack 00:38, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Spider-Man 3 The Page is freaking out (software, not editors)

We need Admin/sysop help immediately over at Spiderman 3's talk. the page is doing wierd stuff when we post there, deleting one person's comments for anothers, or duplicating new sections, or both, and so on. All editors are working together on this, we have for a while, so it's not a 'conflict' situation, but software. Please follow up, Thank you! ThuranX 18:27, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

This happens sometimes when the database server is struggling. I've seen it happen today in a number of places. You'll also see edits in your watchlist that aren't in the article history, and other weird stuff like that. The best idea is to go outside and play in the sunshine. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 18:34, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I temporarily protected it. There's nothing else that can be done, really. --Deskana talk 18:41, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not playing in the sun, (laundry and building a coffee table), but perhaps we can get an unlock 12 hours out from the lock to see if it's better? Or do you recommend something else? If so, let me know who to follow up with. ThuranX 20:25, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

NLP

I invite t'committee to scrutinise the following:

• Neuro-linguistic programming (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• AlanBarnett (talk · contribs)
• Fainites (talk · contribs)

Also

• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Neuro-linguistic programming (see enforcement log)
• Comaze (talk · contribs)
• HedleyDown (talk · contribs)

I am wondering if we have some socks here, but in any case it looks like the mediators have either left or been sidelined. I don't know what, if anything, to do about this. Guy (Help!) 19:31, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Committee? User:Zoe|(talk) 20:28, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

It's faux-Yorkshire t' is an abbreviation for the; hence "t'committee has decided". Ah'm English, tha knows :-) Guy (Help!) 21:13, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

T'in't int' tin. Proto::► 10:59, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Department Store Article Vandal

A user who keeps switching between the two IPs 72.82.212.127 (Talk) and 141.150.233.178 (Talk) has been committing persistent sneaky vandalism on the Lord & Taylor article and to a lesser extent against other department store articles. From their edit histories, the two IPs appear to be static ones since the same edits keep coming from them. They've both gotten up to level 4 vandalism warnings in the past few days. The substance of the vandalism is difficult to detect if you, as I, are not familiar with the subject. If, however, you compare the citations that he/she has falsified to the actual citations in the article, you'll see that the information he/she is posting is incorrect. This person has never complained about our constant reverting of him/her either in edit summaries or the talk page, so I have no idea what his/her agenda might be. I've asked for semi-protection of the article and was denied. I posted 72.82.212.127 on Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism and was again denied. So here I am, asking for help. Thank you very much.--Elipongo ^{(Talk|contribs)} 20:00, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Stand by, looking into it... Sandstein 20:22, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Looking at the history of Lord & Taylor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), it's really quite clear-cut: two IPs regularly vandalising this article even after final warnings. I'd give the more recent IP a short block and temporarily semiprotect the article, but as some other admins have apparently declined to ... what do you others think? Sandstein 20:28, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it would be a good idea to semi-protect if there are only two IPs vandalising, I would just block the IPs for a day if they continue. Prodego ^talk 20:40, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd also block both IPs, starting with a 24 hour block. Firsfron of Ronchester 20:51, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I'm blocking the recently active 72.82.212.127 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) for 24h, just message me if the vandalism continues. Sandstein 21:13, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, I will.--Elipongo ^{(Talk|contribs)} 05:51, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

medbib.com remote loading

http://medbib.com

Appears to be mirroring Wikipedia content in real time, and transcluding Wikipedia images. No mention of Wikipedia or GFDL except as happens to be contained in article text. Possibly intended as SEO spam. I've reported this at Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks/Mno but I think a block may be in order per WP:MF#Remote loading. Could someone notify Wikitech as suggested there? 67.117.130.181 22:17, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

User talk pages used for password swapping??

I just deleted the talk page of LilSWIMMY lol (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) (see Special:Undelete/User_talk:LilSWIMMY_lol), which only consisted of notes like "My friend just got on her username is Cindy1234 and her password is 123456abc". The user has no other contributions. This is obviously not what talk pages are for, but is there anything else we can or need to do here other than delete this page? Kusma (討論) 22:38, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, assuming you haven't already, you could block all of the accounts listed under the "Public accounts" section of the blocking policy. —bbatsell ¿? 23:26, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Good idea. I could only log in to one of the claimed accounts and have blocked it. Kusma (討論) 09:56, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Offensive username

• DevilsSin666X (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), per WP:USER policy. Yuser31415 (Review me!) 23:55, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

just for future reference - what's offensive about it? --Charlesknight 00:10, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

It's probably unnecessarily inflammatory towards religious folk who really have nothing better to do than get offended by certain numbers. --Cyde Weys 00:28, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I tend to agree... I'm not religious, but I just blocked a "jesus", "DevilsSin666" is little better. Blocked. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 00:31, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Cyde has the right explanation, but I'm not impressed by his personal attack: "... who really have nothing better to do than get offended ...". Wikipedia should have a NPOV, right? As of 00:37, 18 December 2006 (UTC), Devils' block log doesn't show that he's been blocked yet. Thank you. Yuser31415 (Review me!) 00:43, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

He has been, I fixed the block log. NPOV applies to articles, though WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA could be relevant. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 00:38, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Good. BTW, I was referring to the username as being not-WP:NPOV, not the user's behavior, which was under WP:NPA. And please, I'm getting a little sick of coming here, reporting a username which is POV, and having to answer 3 questions before it is finally blocked. Thanks for blocking it, anyway. Yuser31415 (Review me!) 00:43, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

You don't think a little oversight and discussion is a good idea? We are talking about indefinitely blocking an account, after all. That shouldn't just be automatic; you should expect discussion. --Cyde Weys 03:00, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I wasn't personally attacking anyone (my comments certainly weren't addressed to anyone in this thread). I'm just pissed off at hyper-religious folk in general who go insane over a simple number. --Cyde Weys 02:58, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Personbally, I wouldn't have blocked that user name indefinitely. Unless it is flagrantly offensive (such as User:Fuckbeans or User:Jimbo eats poop out of dead men's bums), or an obvious sneaky impersenation of an existing user, WP:USERNAME suggests maybe trying to talk to the person first and suggesting the change their username. That is clearly not happening enough. There are too many admins blocking for usernames when they should try actually communicating. Proto::► 10:56, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Indef Block

I just blocked 70.48.205.239 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) for making legal threats on quite a few user pages, see Special:Contributions/70.48.205.239. Posting this notice for review. --Trödel 00:39, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

This IP posted on the talkpages of almost all of the active ArbCom members, and I suspect it might be Canuckster himself (or at best, a meatpuppet). Any thoughts? --²¹⁰physicq (c) 00:42, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

IPs should not be blocked indefinitely, unless they're open proxies. I suggest Trödel shortens the block to a week, or something similarly effective but temporary - otherwise somebody else probably will. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 00:43, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

This is pretty basic—a different person is going to have this IP tomorrow. Where can we put this information in big, glowing letters for the several admins who appear to have little understanding of Internet technology or Wikipedia blocking policy? —Centrx→talk • 00:47, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't sure about the policy re IP's figured I could always reduce it - and will - just want to get some more feedback first. I know my IP is leased for 6 months, so a 1-3 mo block does not seem to be out of line, IMHO. --Trödel 00:49, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Well Id say a 1 m block would be more than enough to seee if this user is a serios conributor to WP or not--Light current 00:53, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

That would seem to be a waste of effort on your part and liable to failure. It would make more sense to just block it right the first time. Use whois; most IPs on Wikipedia are dynamic. —Centrx→talk • 01:05, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Ummm, actually, it's pretty basic that a significant number of IPs are statically assigned, or only semi-dynamically (that is, they stay the same for months on end). I've had the same IP address now for months, so if I was anonymously posting all sorts of threats and harassment and you only blocked me for a week, I could easily continue it again the next week. --Cyde Weys 02:55, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

It is Ottawaman/Canuckster/etc. However, he uses dynamic Bell Sympatico IPs and comes straight back with a new IP soon after being blocked. For this reason, I've always tried to use short blocks. I think even a week long block will have collateral damage. Sarah Ewart 00:56, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

He can just disconnect his modem and get a new IP, possibly right away. You would need to block 70.48.204.0/22 to be effective. —Centrx→talk • 01:04, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, he just used a completely different IP address, so we may have a problem here, or he may be utilizing open proxies now.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 01:17, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Roman Dog Bird (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Based on the recent edits from this account, User:Roman Dog Bird qualifies for blocking as a vandalism-only account. Despite the extensive vandalism from this account, and despite the fact that Kevin Federline is now fully protected primarily to prevent further vandalism by this particular account, Husond removed the report regarding this account from WP:AIV with the summary "rm Roman Dog Bird, inactive". However, since vandalism by this account isn't reported in a timely manner, it will never be blocked unless it is blocked when it is inactive. Furthermore, it seems far preferable to block the accounts responsible for vandalism than to fully protect articles, such as Kevin Federline, due to vandalism. John254 01:37, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

It is not a vandal-only account, there are some valid contributions despite all the vandalism. Warnings are fair enough, and in fact the user hasn't vandalized since the last warning. --Húsönd 02:11, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Of course Roman Dog Bird hasn't vandalized since his last warning -- but only because he keeps receiving more and more warnings instead of being blocked. He received a test2 on the 15th [179], a bv on the 15th [180], at test3 on the on the 16 [181], and yet another test3 on the 17th [182]. Whatever constructive edits Roman Dog Bird has made, they are far outweighed by his extensive vandalism. Since his account is older than 4 days, Roman Dog Bird can vandalize semi-protected pages. It would be advisable to block Roman Dog Bird, to prevent him from engaging in even more vandalism. John254 02:25, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

(Edit conflict, sorry) I would agree with a block in this case. His edits are too far apart for any short term block to affect him in any way. Edits like this, this, this, this, this, and this far outweigh contributions like this.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 02:44, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

The user is clearly causing more damage than benefit, I agree. But still, he abid by the last warning, that makes a block rather unfair and unnecessary atm. I think it's preferable to closely monitor him and block immediately if he vandalizes again.--Húsönd 02:51, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Roman Dog Bird might not be blocked immediately after his next act of vandalism. If an editor gives Roman Dog Bird yet another test3 after his next act of vandalism, and I request that Roman Dog Bird be blocked, say, sixteen hours later, we're going to be back here debating whether Roman Dog Bird should actually be blocked, because, after all, he did stop after his last warning, and the account is presently inactive. This sort of nonsense could continue for weeks, unless Roman Dog Bird is actually blocked, irrespective whether he presently appears to be active, and whether he has vandalized after his "last" warning. John254 03:05, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

If this user's misdemeanors are not detected in 16 hours then he probably isn't causing damage enough to have someone on RCP notice him. Once again, I reiterate that the user is respecting a last warning that was given to him and therefore a block is unnecessary at this time. Just keep an eye on him, watchlist his talk page and report swiftly further actions. --Húsönd 03:25, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Roman Dog Bird's edits are being noticed and reverted, long before 16 hours. The problem is that editors are simply issuing additional warnings each time he vandalizes, instead of immediately reporting him on WP:AIV. Roman Dog Bird has been slipping through the cracks for far too long, and should really be blocked indefinitely. John254 03:39, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I have put him on the RC channel's blacklist, just so we can see if he continues to edit maliciously. Any first sign, I will contact someone to block him indefinitely for persistant vandalism (if it is necessary).—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 03:28, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Agreed.--Húsönd 03:49, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Indefinite block?

One anon user 24.5.111.44 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) dropped an indefinite block message on another (apparently moderately useful) anon, 172.150.25.18 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) as its second edit. Now it is just possible that this is an admin who forgot to log in (or block). But if not, it should be dealt with. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:48, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

My guess would be no, not an admin. 1st edit vandalism [183] and 3rd edit a modification of the resulting vandalism warning [184].--Húsönd 02:47, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Husnock

I have kept these linked sections under separate headings to preserve direct links. --bainer (talk) 05:23, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

After Thebainer blocked Husnock for a month, Husnock unblocked himself six minutes later, and clained that Thebainer was abusing his admin powers. I don't know who's right or wrong here, since I'm not involved, but I definitely think this needs to be reviewed. Scobell302 05:10, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

A month? For what? Regardless, Husnock should not have unblocked himself. -- tariqabjotu 05:11, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Husnock (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) — Thebainer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for those who are interested. I'm doing more investigation. --Cyde Weys 05:13, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I see I've been a little slow in drafting my message - see the section immediately below this one. --bainer (talk) 05:16, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

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

A short time ago I blocked User:Husnock for a period of one month for disruption. The block arises out of a comment made last week by Husnock, that was misinterpreted by User:Morwen as threatening. A lengthy discussion ensued on the Administrator's noticeboard. Several editors and administrators, including myself, made an effort to reach an amicable end to a situation which clearly began with a string of misunderstandings and had snowballed from there. Husnock was resistant to efforts to peacefully resolve the dispute, but ultimately a resolution was reached and the community moved on, regarding the dispute as closed.

Recently Husnock has been further pursuing the matter by posting an message on his userpage in which he continued to maintain that the situation was something else than a misunderstanding, which is what the community had recognised the incident as. Even allowing Husnock some latitude to post a reasonable message stating his reasons for taking a wikibreak, this edit signalled to me an intention to pursue the dispute and retreat from the peaceful conclusion reached several days ago. After warning Husnock several times that I and several other members of the community consider this pursuit of the issue to constitute disruption within the meaning of the blocking policy, Husnock once and then twice replaced the message. As a result, I blocked Husnock as outlined above.

Husnock has now unblocked himself. I seek the advice of the community on this matter. --bainer (talk) 05:14, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I think an emergency desysopping is in order. Husnock has already left Wikipedia "under a cloud" (as they say), and I see no possible good, and great harm, if he is left with the bit. --Cyde Weys 05:18, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Also, Hunsock apparently uploaded dozens, possibly hundreds, of copyvio images, giving them fake "public domain" tags. --Cyde Weys 05:19, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

What are these images you speak of? -- tariqabjotu 05:29, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

The image list was made by User:Durin, I am one of the mediators trying to figure out what is going on. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 05:31, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

There's a lot of military insignia from a number of different countries marked {{PD-USGov}} that need re-tagging, and a handful of imaginary {{NoRightsReserved}} claims that need cleanup. Jkelly 05:33, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Ah... I suppose it has something to do with User:Husnock/Durinconcerns (redirected from User:Husnock/Durinharass). -- tariqabjotu 05:39, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Although I'm not about to take Husnock's side on unblocking himself, I would like to ask a couple of questions to clarify.

1. If User A claims that User B made a death threat against them when they didn't, and the only response User B gets is that he should apologize (for something he did not do), do admins see it disruptive that someone takes a vast amount of offense at this?
2. The block on Husnock was for disruption. "Blocks for disruption should only be placed when a user is in some way making it difficult for others to contribute to Wikipedia." Can someone tell me what exactly he did to make it difficult to contribute to Wikipedia with a message on his user page?
3. If several people consider something to be disruptive, yet others do not, is the fact that someone finds it disruptive enough to block them for a month? --Elaragirl^Talk|Count 05:37, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't quite get question #1. Could you please clarify? --²¹⁰physicq (c) 05:39, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm asking what the parameter is for a death threat accusation. If someone accuses me of making a death threat when I didn't, I see that as disruptive. I see that as basically a very vicious form of attack and rules-gaming. If I get upset over this, and people are telling me I'm in the wrong for getting upset, I want to know if the act of being upset is disruptive, because this is what this is all about. Husnock didn't feel he had made a death threat and was vastly aggravated that no one appeared to care about his side of the story. His being upset lead to the message on his userpage that people appearantly feel is disruptive. --Elaragirl^Talk|Count

I'm kinda new to this husnock stuff, only running into him after nearly deciding not to upload a number of military badge images, before I realized the copyrights on the images we had was questionable... he's uploaded huge numbers of images with vague PD tags and from reading the history he's responded with a mixture of evasion, hostility, and implausibility to every question about the origins of the images. The images I asked him about have been available from a collectors website since the mid 90s.. After reviewing the recent history, I'm shocked that he hasn't been permbanned over the copyright issues alone, much less the other problems with hostile behavior. Regardless, self unblocking except in the case of obvious error or testing should simply not be performed. --Gmaxwell 05:42, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

By all means, desysop him. Unblocking yourself in a dispute is basically slaying your own bit. I'm just wanting a clarification on WHY he was blocked in the first place, because the reasoning above basically reads "I blocked him because I didn't like the message on his userpage".--Elaragirl^Talk|Count 05:46, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I do not know if the block was warranted, but unblocking oneself is no good. He should have posted on the unblock mailing list or e-mail another admin if the block was not valid. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 05:47, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Thats my thought.. the more incorrect a block the easier to get it undone. So there is simply no reason to self-unblock... as a result a self-unblock is disturbing evidence of a lack of self-control which we shouldn't accept from any admin. --Gmaxwell 05:52, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Great, but is anyone going to answer my questions on the block or this disruption? --Elaragirl^Talk|Count 05:55, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I will - the 'disruption' was for a threat allegedly made by Husnock, which stated "I would be very careful telling a serving member of the military they cannot edit articles". Husnock didn't mean it, I believe, in the manner of "I have access to guns and could kill you if you stop me editing", he meant it along the line of "I am serving my country in real life and should get special dispensation". Neither sentiment is particularly admirable when expressed by an admin. Morwen took the first meaning to be the one Husnock meant. This was unfortunate, and Husnock was asked to clear this up and apologise for any percieved threat, which would have resolved the whole unfortunate mess.

Husnock, instead, threw a hissy fit on this board, trying to get Morwen censured for feeling intimidated (utterly unacceptable). Husnock then refused to apologise until he was asked to by about thirty different people - even if he truly meant it in the second way, an apology would have calmed things down. He then made one of the most evasive apologies I've seen outside of Japanese Prime Ministers, but Morwen accepted the apology, and all was right with the world. Until Husnock decided not just to let things lie, and decided to insist he was right all along ([185]). This was disruptive, and once again not good conduct. I think a month's block for this, however, was very excessive. But Husnock then decided to unblock himself, which is wheel-warring, and, unfortunately, I can only see this ending up at WP:RFAr. Proto::► 10:50, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Response from Husnock

Gang, what just happened on my user page is absolutely outrageous. Three to four days ago I left editing Wikipedia articles due to some serious issues with the site. I have stayed around only to answer talk page messages and participated in an AfD by invite. The issues which caused me to leave the site were a real world Wiki-staking incident where someone sent e-mails out into the real world trying to find out who I was and then sent a semi-threatening e-mal to my wife. The second incident involved a user stating I had threatened her and that she was in fear of her life. That was resolved but still disturbed me greatly. So, I departed editing Wikipedia articles and posting a statement as to the reasons. Bainer then arrives and removes these statements from my user page, in effect censoring what I ahd to say. I explained to him these were not personal attacks, but simply my stating why I had left. I also was confused why he removed the Wiki-stalking statement since that didn’t even reference an actual user, just an event that had taken place in the real world. I restore my user page, Bainer removes the material again and then proceeds to block me for an entire month. At this point, not only has he removed material from someone else’s user page but he has blocked another user which he was currently involved in a dispute with, clearly something no one should ever do. My user page is not making personal attacks, it is stating why I am leaving this site. For a user to remove this material and then block me when I had a problem with that is against everything we stand for here. And, P.S.- what is this business about uploading “fake” images? I’ve done no such thing and that is a baseless accusation. Someone who states such a thing without evidence should be doing an investigation as it won’t be impartial. P.s.- to Gaxwell, I answered your query as to where the images came from and gave you a name and phone number to verify this Whats the problem? -Husnock 05:51, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

But why did you unblock yourself? HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 05:52, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I know not under what circumstances, atrocious or no, you were blocked, but this I do know: you are not to unblock yourself under any circumstances. It's not that hard to grasp. --²¹⁰physicq (c) 05:54, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Here is the link to the GMaxwell answer [186]. I have no idea why he would say such a mean thing, I answered his question with all civility. Yes, I probably shouldnt have unblocked myself but bainer should not have blocked me in the irst place as he was the other party in a dispute. The proper thing would have been to post here and let others deciede. I apolgize to the Wikipedia community for unblocking myself, I saw it as a self defense measure against someone who abused thier powers. -Husnock 05:57, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

With respect to the assertion that I was involved in a dispute with Husnock, people should be aware that I first encountered this matter on WP:AN and attempted, as a neutral intervening party, to achieve a peaceful resolution to the issue. Please see my extensive attempts to mediate the issue last week both directly with Husnock and on WP:AN. --bainer (talk) 06:02, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Forgive my rudeness, but if your noble (no sarcasm intended) attempts at mediation have failed, then we must bring this issue back to the community (aka this board) to discuss alternate solutions. --²¹⁰physicq (c) 06:04, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Once thebainer engaged in revert warring on Husnock's user page, it was time to bring the issue to the community, because however noble his intent, he no longer had the veneer of a completely neutral third party. NoSeptember 07:09, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Largely irrelevant. If Husnock had reaosnable grounds to dispute the block, there are several ways of challenging it or requestign unblocking. Self-unblocking is not a good response. Guy (Help!) 09:54, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I assume your comment here was mislocated. This part of the thread was about whether one should have support of the community or not before blocking. It was not about Husnock's reaction or his trend of bad behavior, which I think we all agree was improper. NoSeptember 12:33, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Good grief ... blocks aside, looking through his uploads, there are a lot that are obviously tagged wrong or just out and out copyvios ... it's the "if it's on the internet, it must be free" thing. Image:Wesley.gif, Image:SavanFlag.gif, Image:GermanKnight.JPG --BigDT 06:05, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

One of those examples is from 2005, before I even knew what I was doing and that is outside the issue we are discussing. if my image uploads are wrong, please fix them. Durin and I have alread buried the hatchet. -Husnock 06:13, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

If administrators really weren't to unblock themselves under any circumstances whatsoever, the MediaWiki software would be configured to prevent them from doing so. A blocked administrator could unblock an IP address to remove an autoblock, but he/she would not be permitted to unblock his/her own username. That being said, it would seem that self-unblocking would be properly limited to truly extreme circumstances -- i.e. if one administrator uses a bot to frivolously block a large number of administrators, preventing unblocked administrators from responding to the situation, the blocked administrators may unblock themselves. Such a justification for self-unblocking does not seem to be present here. John254 06:07, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

In the interest of good faith, let's not harp upon Husnock's unblocking of himself. He has already apologized. While I do not condone such a move, the unblocking is peripheral compared to other concerns. --²¹⁰physicq (c) 06:08, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I reviewed the policy and, yes, everyone is right. I should not have unblocked myself. I formally apologize for this, I should have posted "unblock" to my page. If someone wants to reblock me, I will follow this course. However, in the policy it also syas that when you are in a dispute with someone you shouldnt block them to keep them quiet or to stablize your own version of a pge, etc. Prior to my reviewing the policy, I thought my self-unblock was justified as a response to an unfair block in the first place Apologies all around. Lets get back to the issue. Am I allowed to have my departure statement on the talk page? And, if not, why? -Husnock 06:13, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Not if it disrupts the community and the building of the encyclopaedia, fails to assume good faith, or doesn't meet any other Wikipedia policy. No comment whether that is the case in this instance... Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 06:14, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Self-unblock is a nice trap door to detect people who are for whatever reason insufficiently qualified to continue holding adminship. As far as the good-by message.. there is a reason it's called a "right to vanish" and not a "right to salt the earth". --Gmaxwell 06:17, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Husnock, Your hostility with respect to copyright wasn't towards me, but rather it was towards Durin who asked you questions about the same images and you treated him with large amounts of hostility. I've looked into your claims more, but I'm simply having a hard to believing you: you somehow managed to upload the images in the same order/groupings that is used today on the website which claims to hold the copyright, while the archive.org history of the site makes it clear that the images were added over time and that the grouping evolved. Your claim that even if they images are the work of Mr. Ploessl that he has no copyright in them is incorrect (he can hold the copyright on the sketch of the images even if the underlying artwork is the PD work of the US Government). Furthermore, the number you provided me with is simply a generic number to a HR department. They don't know anything about CDs of images of emblems, nor are they authorized to give me any useful contact information for the name you mentioned.

I hadn't responded to you any further because you'd told me your version of events, so I had nothing more to say to you... and after reading the history of your interactions with Durin, I must say that I was afraid to say anything else. I'd like to assume good faith but a view of your recent history and your decision to unblock yourself (even after 'leaving') is making that rather difficult. --Gmaxwell 06:17, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Durin and I have made peace (I think), and the core of my upsetness was that during that dispute there was some real, very scary, wiki-stalking going on where my wife was getting strange e-mails threatening her. Its been resolved, but it would upset anyone. As far as these images to which you refer, I've already said I got them from our image database at NPRC which has links to IOH and Randolph AFB among dozens of others. The CD I spoke of I got from Pat Ratzel. 314-801-0800 isn’t a Human resource number, its a customer service number. Did you call it and actually speak to someone? Depending on who it was, they should to at least have been able to tell you images of military medals and badges are free to use by anyone, and they should have been able to give you the number for either Randolph or the Air Force Liaison Office. If I was there, I could investigate what you were told and by who but am deployed. And, yes, I should just leave this site but this is all a bit unsettling. It seems the original problem with a block by another user in a dispute who censored my talk page has now mutated into discussions about being truthful about where these images came from. I can only state what I know. -Husnock 06:39, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm glad to see that things are indeed more calm than recent history had caused me to believe. I don't want to think you are dishonest, and as you said.. you can only tell me what you know. It's also the case that most of the Federal Government does a terrible job with respect to keeping track of copyrights internally(recent conference on this subject). So it's not super helpful that when the guy at the website complained that you just reverted him :) [187]. It's possible that someone grabbed all those images off the fellows website and stuck them on a CD. I'll get to the bottom of it, and indeed I did call the number and confused them completely. I'll try again during the week and see if I have better luck. --Gmaxwell 06:50, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

As Greg says, self-unblock is a nice trap door to snare admins who don't know better than to not unblock themselves. I'm sure a surprising number of admins would fall for it. It would have been better to bring the discussion about days old disruption here first, allowing Husnock and anyone else to discuss it before the block was made. Husnock has acted poorly for weeks, and thebainer did the community no favor by blocking first, talking later. NoSeptember 06:39, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

He did talk first, which has caused Husnock to claim that he shouldn't have blocked as a 'party to a dispute'. Which way should it be? --Gmaxwell 06:50, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

As stated above, I mean talk it out with the community, there was no cause for bainer to take the community's burden upon himself when there was no immediate urgency. They already engaged each other in a revert war on Husnock's user page. It was time for bainer to pass it on to others to avoid the appearance of a one on one dispute. Blocking an admin for a month without any open community discussion should raise a red flag almost every time. NoSeptember 07:09, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

You wouldn't want some insane person or admin-bot to block everyone, requiring developer intervention with madness in the meantime; automation means that the one becomes as strong as the many. You also do want a person who accidentally blocks himself to be able to undo it. —Centrx→talk • 06:45, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Look, if self-unblocking was really totally unacceptable, change Mediawiki to make it impossible. If it isn't, then don't start complaining about the principle, look into the circumstances. Personally I have tried several times to make an absolute declaration that WP:IAR does not apply to self-unblocking for blocks placed by other users, and it gets reverted. That means that the community believes it can be acceptable, in certain circumstances. Fys. &#147;Ta fys aym&#148;. 11:50, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Pray enlighten me as to what was really special about this occasion? The community trusts few of the users as administrators for a reason; that is they are expected to exercise good discretion and show understanding of the policies and the process. There is a very good reason why the policies and the guidelines exist. Husnock has demonstrated in a very exemplery way how admin accounts can be abused. This warrants an immediate de-sysop; unfortunately many of the stewards are either offline or idle. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{L} 12:04, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Dunno about this particular occasion. Just commenting on the principle of self unblocking. The password sharing is another issue and it's pretty much unique in my experience for an admin account to have a password released. Fys. &#147;Ta fys aym&#148;. 12:12, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

The thing that gets me about all those conversation is that Husnock is claiming his right to leave a message explaining why he departed - thing is - he never departed and it seems to be using that position as a bit of a shield for leaving his message up. --Charlesknight 10:19, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

If you read his talk page, although he has 'left Wikipedia', he reserves the right to 'continue to answer questions on the talk page, vote in certain high profile AfDs, and revert vandalism against articles'. Proto::► 10:35, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Which was added after I challenged him about the message but his responses are still coached in "I left because" which frames the debate in an entirely different manner to "and that's why I'm just semi-active". --Charlesknight 10:40, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Dear Wikipedia

Dear Wikipedia-

My name is Dan Rappaport, I’m a Lieutenant Colonel attached to CENTCOM currently serving in the Middle East. In real life, I know who Husnock is and he is a pretty great guy. I’ve been on Wikipedia off and on over three years and I saw this conversation after hearing about it from Husnock. I had at first sent a strong worded letter to “Morwen” who started this thing by saying Husnock wanted to kill her. It was pretty sad that this was removed from your website as an “attack” when my point was to show to Morwen how ridiculous it was to state that a United States Naval officer, stationed in the Middle East, would want to kill her. Also, it was a slap against Husnock. The man is married and has a kid on the way. Why the fuck would he go to England to hurt some girl because she posted some crap about Star Trek? Right after all this, Husnock decides to leave this site but gets beat up even for that. His webpage is messed with, blocked from the site, and it seems the same people are showing up over and over again to run him down and say he’s wrong. Now, lets take a look at what’s happened in the last few weeks. My understanding is limited to what I can find, but here goes: 1) Husnock gets told by a guy named Durin that he’s been uploading bad images for months and he will be investigated and then he is asked to hand over addresses and phone numbers of everyone he’s talked too, including his dead grandmother or something like that. That same day, he learns that someone’s sending e-mails trying to find out who he is and then a week later his pregnant wife gets threatened when’s he overseas. Yeah, that would piss me off, too. 2) Okay, so the Durin affair ends and then he gets drawn into these articles about Star Trek. I took a look and it seems he came around about those. I don’t know your policies that well, but the whole point with that nonsense appeared to be references being called false and then, yeah, people got pretty mean with Husnock. I saw a couple of edits where he’s called names and one where he’s called crap. So, point 2, yeah that might piss me off too. 3)Now, here we are with this whole death threat bullshit. Husnock threatened no one. He told a punk kid in the UK that she had no right telling a United States armed forces member that he couldn’t edit this site. Good for him. The girl then posts for anyone to see that Husnock threatened her life and she now fears him. News flash since folks don’t know, that drew real world attention and Husnock was talked to by some authorities, including NCIS. After all, a citizen of the United Kingdom posted on a public website that a U.S. Naval Officer had threatened to kill her. Maybe you all don’t see how serious that is but I do and, you bet, that would ROYALLY piss me if it happened to me. 4) Last we come to Husnock leaving. He says he’s leaving, he tries, but again gets beat up since he came back to vote on one of your pages and then someone screws with his webpage. He tries to stop them, gets blocked, and then here we are all, beating him about it, going back to the death threat issue, and saying things about those stupid images, half of which I think Husnock deleted from your site. So, where do we stand? I think you guys have treated this fine man like total shit. But, hey this is a website, not real life, and I talked to Husnock at lunchtime he was cool with everything. He knows this is not real, do most of you? He is gone now, he really is not coming back. I just wanted to stop in and share my thoughts. I hope everyone is proud of themselves because you really have run him off for good. That’s my two cents. God Bless the USA. -Dan

P.S.: Husnock gave me his account password so I could post this letter since half the ip addresses in Dubai are blocked by this site. You guys should really do something about that. No one can log on or create a new account. -Dan

I haven't followed Husnock issue but something should be done re Dubai IPs. I don't know about Dubai ranges so if there are people who know about that, please do some action. -- Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®} 11:51, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

If the above is true, this is outrageous. Husnock, you and only you were given access to admin privileges, because it was believed that you could be trusted with the privileges. You were sysopped, your friends were not. You should know that as an admin, you should be very careful with giving others access to your account. Even if you believe they can be trusted, you are still giving them access to an admin account. Aecis ^{Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984.} 11:56, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

For the record, the above is true. The account isnt compromised since I can change the password and I am leaving anyway. Please consider this as part of the conversation on the issue. It isn't vandalism and it isnt trolling. Its just someone wanting to post; I was kind of shocked to see the letter reverted in less than a minute. Also, the Dubai ip thing really needs to be looked at. Noone can create an account from an American computer system right now as there are so many ip blocksthat it makes it impossible. Thank you everyone. -Husnock 11:53, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if you can change the password. You have given another person access to your sysop-privileged account. That is very serious. You are constantly doing something wrong and then covering up with some lamehearted excuse. You apologized for Morwen's feelings about your statement, but you only begrudgingly expressed something of an apology for the statement itself. You unblocked yourself, which is a grave abuse of admin privilege, and again gave something of an apology for what you shouldn't have done in the first place, and which you should have known not to do. Now this. What's next? Aecis ^{Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984.} 12:00, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

For the record, I complained about the intimidating tone of User:Husnock's statement, on Talk:Starfleet Security at 10:30. He complained about me feeling threatened by his intimidating statement to WP:AN at 10:45. NCIS must be really efficient, or perhaps you are distorting the order of events as well as leaving personal abuse against me?

By the way, yes, we have a serious issue here if an the password to a (supposedly) inactive admin account is known by another person. Morwen - Talk 11:57, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Giving away your password to a supposedly inactive admin account, which for an account that left a week ago, has made a heck of a lot of edits and blanking of the warnings on the account's talk page, is the final straw. This account needs to be desysopped immediately. Proto::► 12:00, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

The account is compromised at the user level (leaving aside, the story as presented makes makes no sense at all. Why has Husnock given his friend Dan the password as he seems to be either sitting beside him or is in direct contact with him and could have posted the material himself) and should be desyopped straight away. We wouldn't want any "accidents". --Charlesknight 12:00, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm already asking on IRC. No active stewards though, it seems... – Chacor 12:01, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I've blocked him on the grounds that his account is compromised. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 12:03, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Still useless right now because he could easily do what he did to get in trouble the first time. – Chacor 12:05, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I have left a note on WP:BN asking if a bureaucrat can step in. Proto::► 12:06, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Doesn't look like the kind of way most Lt. Colonels I have met ever talked...something just seems a tad bit off here, folks.--MONGO 12:09, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

All I have ever met is an Australian Naval Captain and an Australian Naval Commander, but I would have to agree with you. Viridae^Talk 12:12, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Husnock has requested unblocking. As I am involved, I won't handle the request, so could an uninvolved admin please do so? I think it is Very Bad Faith Indeed to insinuate any remote possibility that this Lt Col is an imaginary character Husnock has made up to say what he likes with yet another excuse - 'he' didn't say these things. Proto::► 12:14, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

There's ample precedent for blocking a compromised sysop account (see, for example, HolyRomanEmperor). It is because there could be two people using the account that it has been blocked. Mackensen (talk) 12:19, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

HRE was not a sysop. NoSeptember 13:16, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Gah, you're right. My point stands though--we've blocked compromised accounts before. Mackensen (talk) 13:20, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, quite. Also, it is interesting that User:Husnock said about this chap on December 13, that "I have never heard of this person but I do know there are CENTCOM offices in Dubai", and now they are good friends? Morwen - Talk 12:15, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

There's an easy way to find this out: a check of the IP Husnock edits from. He claims to be editing from Dubai, so his IP should be consistent with that. If they resolve to e.g. New Zealand or Greece (to name two examples), something is fishy. Aecis ^{Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984.} 12:23, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Except that a checkuser won't out his IP address. If the Arbitration Committee or a steward needs the information it can be supplied to them (of course, most arbs have checkuser themselves). Mackensen (talk) 12:27, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, we definitely did have some abuse left on my talk page by a .ae address, so I don't know what that is supposed to demonstrate. Morwen - Talk 12:26, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Well this all looks bent to me. --Charlesknight 12:30, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

You fear sockpuppetry? Aecis ^{Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984.} 13:05, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Not sure if Sockpupperty is the right word but even with AGF hanging over my head - I find the constant changes in story ("never seen this IP before" to "we have no idea who that IP could be" to "actually it's my good friend Dan") , the swift changes between Husnock, "dan" and then back to Husnock and all the other bits of the story odd to say the least. Would it be straining AGF too much to say that I would not find it a surprising turn of events to find out that "Dan" does not and has ever existed? --Charlesknight 13:14, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

The IP address that left the message on Morwen's talk page is a very active one, as most of the traffic from Americans in Dubai routes through that IP address (nb, I just undid my block a few days early), and so probably most Americans editing in Dubai would resolve to that address, as it is a shared IP address. That won't, unfortunately, prove anything. Proto::► 13:08, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

This issue has been brought to us on the #wikimedia-stewards channel. We won't desysop anyone unless the admin permissions will be abused. I don't know the previous accidents with the user Husnock, and my personal feelings on this are that nothing bad happened, since his admin powers haven't been abused. Since Dubai is blocked, this was (not the only one, but it was) a way to overcome the ban. In any case - please move this request to your local Arbitration Committee. Once again - if Husnock or his friend will abuse their admin privilages, please contact us - we'll desysop him for precaution right away. Datrio 12:19, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Should we begin a formal ArbCom request now? That may be best. – Chacor 12:25, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

We don't have to wait. -- Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®} 12:32, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, there have been a series of issues and lack of successful dispute resolution to justify a case starting whenever someone wants to start one. NoSeptember 12:36, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

As usual, the procedures that the Stewards follow here are correct and appropriate. There is no immediate emergency that calls for bypassing ArbCom. ArbCom can act fast if they needed to (with an injunction if necessary). NoSeptember 12:47, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Did anyone even read my letter? Does this website have any kind of understanding? Yes, I am a real person and yes Husnock gave me his password so I could post my letter. If anyone wants my e-mail address Ill try and find some way of getting it you so you can see I'm flesh and blood. I was trying to help Husnock. He is now kicked off your webpage forever? What kind of a website is this. -D. Rappaport, CENTCOM — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.42.2.22 (talk • contribs)

Note that the above IP, which resolves to the UAE, was also used by General Tojo. Aecis ^{Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984.} 13:16, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

The above IP is used by just about every American in the UAE, so that proves nothing, I'm afriad. Proto::► 13:30, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, it proves that they apparently have nothing better to do at CENTCOM ;) Aecis ^{Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984.} 13:59, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

• Guys, this is low Wikidrama and needs to be curtailed before it gets any more absurd. Husnock's made it pretty clear he doesn't want to be a sysop any more, so he should just make the usual statement on his Talk so we can get the sysop bit disabled, it's then up to him whether he leaves or stays around. It's be a shame ot lose him but clearly RL is too much right now so a Wikivacation looks like a great idea; he can reapply on return to normality (whatever that is). I don't feel we're doing Husnock or ourselves any favours right now. I don't think we should burn his boats for him, he's obviously been a good contributor in the past, let's just quetly walk away shall we? Guy (Help!) 13:32, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

  I would agree, but where did Husnock say this? I haven't seen him volunteering to give up his sysop status. Also, he already went on a Wiki-vacation five days ago when you last suggested it. This is Husnock on his vacation. Proto::► 13:37, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

There certainly seems to have been a lack of proportion/judgement from a number of those involved in these events, particularly given the self-identification of one as a senior company grade and one as a field grade officer. A holiday and/or a new start seems like a good idea to clear the air. David Underdown 13:49, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

---

So, what is going on now? These is talk of taking it to WP:RFAr, and User:Husnock's unblock request has been declined on the basis the question will be answered there. Morwen - Talk 14:06, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

CamelCommodore

CamelCommodore (talk · contribs)

Anyone like to look into the possibility that User:CamelCommodore is a sockpuppet of User:Husnock; see: [188] --Moby 13:34, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't say so. Judging by that edit, that is. Perhaps a checkuser? Or is that really required now?. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{L} 13:50, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

WP:BITE Case

Recently a user was indef blocked due to a problem with his name. I feel that it was completely uncalled for and a violation of WP:BITE. Quite clearly the user had no clue what a talk page was all about, he only once made an attempt to use one, nor did he know what the edit summary was; but was a very good contributor in a specialised topic. The actual allegations that his username is offencive should be reexamined as it was clearly the fruit of over cautiousness. Please unblock and find some way to apologise so he knows about it. Thanks frummer 06:30, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

This user's last edit was 2 Dec, and many editors talked to him/her about changing the username before the block occurred. Email is not enabled, and there hasn't been a message on the talk page in over two weeks. In all probability, the editor moved on to a new account. It's unfortunate that a great contributor was blocked, but I don't see anything to indictate the editor was bitten.--Kchase T 07:18, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

For anyone who cares, the above editor has persuaded me to leave this offer to unblock on Jewish's talk page, conditioned, of course, on him going to WP:CHU with me to get this all settled.--Kchase T 09:08, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

May I ask why this username is deemed offensive though? It simply denotes that the user is jewish...? Viridae^Talk 09:15, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

This brings up an issue which I believe needs addressing. Blocking users with usernames that could be deemed offensive (excluding trolls) happens very frequently and at the judgement of of the blocking administrator only. I believe (and I have been guilty of this myself) that far too often, a potentially useful user with a username that is deemed mildy offensive is blocked without warning within seconds or miutes of registering. Indeed, with some of the obscurely offensive usernames that get reported to WP:AIV sometimes, it seems like some of those trawling the user creation log are playing a giant game of whac-a-mole. I propose that except in the case of usernames that are deemed wildly offensive (including but not limited to swearing etc), the user with the offending name has a politely worded template added to their talk page with a request to change their username (or just get a new account) and newbie friendly directions on how to do so. This template should also have a category in it or some way for a bot to organise them so any usernames that have not been changed after a set period (say a week) get dumped to another page where they can be blocked by admins and the {{usernameblock}} template be added. If this proposal gains some momentum/support, I ask that someone with skills mock up an appropriate template to fit the above. It would also be good to approach one or more of the bot owners with bots that currently complete tasks similar to that which I have outlined and ask them if they would be willing to add this task to their bot. (once again - none come to mind, but I am sure someone will think of some)

To expand on the "whats deemed offensive" issue. We need to establish some sort of consensus as to how far we take the potentially offensive boundaries. Wikipedia is not censored, so it could be argued that outside of the troll accounts like User:Christians are fags, no good faith account that doesnt violate the other WP:USERNAME rules like non-commercial or non-latin characters (for example) should be blocked for having an offensive username, even if they are encouraged to change it and don't. However as current policy precludes "Inflammatory usernames" we need to work out some sort of system to determine what exactly is inflamatroy and what is being over-sensitive or rigidly enforcing the rules for no good purpose. Viridae^Talk 08:10, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I second this. The indef-blocks with no prior warning have a bite-like effect and are unnecessary in most cases. I'd also extend that to other criteria such as the non-Latin characters one (that rule will need to be reviewed soon anyway, once we have wikimedia-wide single usernames). Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:27, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Any figures on the "very frequently"? Last time I did any looking into this the number of blocks based on username over a 24 hour period was less then 1% of all accounts created. I didn't look further to exclude the very obviously offensive, but I would guess that the borderline cases were a small fraction of that. --pgk 10:45, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree on the BITE issue; WP:USERNAME already says but should be emphasized: Co-operative contributors should normally just be made aware of our policy via a post on their talk page. Voluntary changes (via Wikipedia:Changing username) are preferred: users from other countries and/or age groups may make mistakes about choosing names -- immediate blocking or listing on RfC could scare off new users acting in good faith. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-12-18 10:11Z

Not sure I entirely agree, without reference to this precise case: Immediately reverting a new users edits may scare someone off, a bite like effect, if that edit is unsourced rumour in a BLP situation it is exactly the right thing to do, similarly a truly inappropriate (offensive, confusing etc. etc.) is still inappropriate no matter who owns it or how long it has been created gor. As with WP:AGF, WP:BITE isn't a call to look the other way. To my mind immedidate (i.e. point of creation) blocking in many cases is preferable to blocking after an edit or two, provided the situation is explained and creation of a new username simple, then it isn't the rather emotive "Biting", but good housekeeping. --pgk 10:39, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

There actually is a User:Christian, which doesn't seem to have caused any controversy. (Of course, in that case "Christian" actually does seem to be the guy's real first name.) If "Christian" is acceptable as a username, why not "Jewish"? I don't really like the whole "offensive usernames" business where admins take it on themselves to decide the inherently subjective issue of which usernames might possibly offend somebody. *Dan T.* 12:18, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

The difference between Jewish and Christian is that Christian is a first name, and that this user Christian probably had no religious connotations with his name. What I wonder though is what will happen to a User:Osama, which is a common Arab name. Aecis ^{Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984.} 13:23, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Srebrenica massacre sockpuppetry and edit warring

Two things here. CheckUser shows that KarlXII (talk · contribs) is the same as Osli73 (talk · contribs), who is already on Probation and revert parole from Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Kosovo. This means he has been in violation of the revert parole multiple times, aside from and 3RR evasion or tag teaming with the sock. I'd like some admins to figure out the enforcement on this. Also, can we please get some eyes on the incessant edit warring at Srebrenica massacre? It looks like both sides are out of hand, so some admin attention would be useful. Dmcdevit·t 09:24, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Already blocked by admin User:Srikeit. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{L} 09:50, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I have indefinitely blocked the sockpuppet and blocked Osli73 for a week for direct violation of the arbcom ruling. I think a month's ban from editing the Srebrenica massacre would also be in order. Would like to hear what others think about that. --Srikeit 09:56, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

A week's ban, at least, for Osli is appropriate. Given the crapstorm going on at Srebenica massacre at the moment, I would suggest someone being prepared to protect it if they can't calm down, and come to some kind of consensus before unprotecting. Proto::► 10:12, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Sockpuppets indef blocked

Following the first incident and the RCU evidence i've blocked indef the 2 socks User:Aperfectmanisaenglishman and User:Englishpound. Those accounts were created to be used at Ireland/Northern Ireland/England topics. I've also given a 24h block for main account of the puppeteer User:Sion glyn. Please extend if you feel it is the right action. Please note that apart from sockpuppeting, Aperfectmanisaenglishman's userpage contained provocative comments against a few nationalities which i had removed earlier after discussing that w/ him. -- Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®} 11:16, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Starblindy

I was a user with a history of great edits that I thought were helping and constructing wikipedia. A short message to starblind saying I thought a block of a previous user might of been a bit harsh and he decides block me without reason. I then post a message on his talk page and he refuses to respond. I want my good history and credibility back. I won't ever edit wikipedia again unless I get my user back. I can't have whenever I make progress being blocked as a sockpuppet. It just is counter productive. If I didn't know better I would think starblind is trying to stop anyone with apposing views gain a reputation to become administrator. User:Starblindy. Please respond with your comments.--12.16.126.98 13:15, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Note that you only have twenty edits. Your block was in accordance with our username policy. Aecis ^{Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984.} 13:21, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Note 2 of those were creating articles. I hold to the point that no one has ever confused we with anyone else. Am I expected to go through every user and try and come up with an original username. Also he sights me being a sockpuppet of Enknowed or something. Is asking him for an explanation of why he blocked a user all of a sudden proof of being a sockpuppet with no other evidence.--12.16.126.98 13:25, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I will repeat that you were quite rightly blocked. Your username is way too similar to that of User:Starblind. Could you please explain your relation to Enknowed (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)? He is mentioned in your block log. Aecis ^{Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984.} 13:29, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

All i see is that the block was unjust. There is no proof of sockpuppeting and no prior notice at User:Starblindy re his username. Has anyone informed this user about all that? It is the blocking admin User:Starblind who should answer those questions. -- Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®} 13:36, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

A notice on Starblindy's talk page about the username might indeed have been appropriate, but that does not make the block unjust. Aecis ^{Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984.} 14:06, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

A new user with a name confusingly similar to an admin shows up out of the blue at the admin's talk page to complain about the block of a sock puppeteer. I may be missing something here, but why is that an unjust block? Starblindy, if you are reading this and honestly want to contribute in a positive way, just make a new name and get on with life. BigDT 14:08, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Need an outside opinion on User:Miracleimpulse

After inserting images that have continually been removed per consensus and having them removed yet again, User:Miracleimpulse posted this little gem on his talk page. Beyond the fact that this appears to be a thinly veiled personal attack against everyone who has reverted or argued against him (he thinks we are all "industry spin doctors"), it also appears the continually escallating blocks he's accrued for disruption and personal attacks have had no effect. per WP:AGF I've been giving him the benefit of the doubt, but at this point it appears he is pretty committed to continuting to be disruptive and attempt to insert his own original research into articles. So my question is, does this merit an Arbcom or is there another avenue that should be pursued? Based on his attitude I'm not sure a User RfC would have any effect at all.--Isotope23 14:03, 18 December 2006 (UTC)