• SkagitRiverQueen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Community-banned unanimously for 1 year for "constant issues with collegial editing"[1] (only to have the ban reset after subsequent sockpuppetry[2]) SRQ continues to disrupt article and userspace through her use of different IPs and named accounts that are routinely being discovered. When the initial ban was reset, it was to be followed by an indefinite block after the ban's expiration: I propose implementing a permanent siteban instead so that her edits can continue to be reverted on sight. The socking has become more frequent and harassing in nature towards her usual targets Crohnie (talk · contribs) and especially DocOfSoc (talk · contribs), and there is neither hope nor intention of this former editor returning constuctively here. With a lengthy and growing list of mostly "one-or-two-off" IP sockpuppets, she mocks the CheckUser process by challenging its ability to detect her, and has recently taken to blaming others for her sockpuppetry[3] (while blatantly and disruptively socking). Many diffs can be provided upon request, but I feel there is more than sufficient cause for a permanent community siteban to be implemented, rather than the fixed-duration community ban that is overdue for another "reset". Doc talk 04:14, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note This is a request to amend the ban from 1 year to indefinite, so I have updated the header. It appears that there are 21 confirmed socks, 68 suspected socks, and possibly more that have not been tagged. Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:31, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per Bwilkins, HJ Mitchell, EdJohnston, and others below. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:19, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Strongly Support Comment to follow. DocOfSoc (talk) 07:00, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I don't think she's gone completely out of hand. She still made an entirely constructive revert to a living person just recently before she was blocked. Minimac (talk) 07:12, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Clearly SRQ cannot adhere to Wikipedia's rules. One occasional good revert does not make up for the harassment and socking she's done and continues to do. AniMate 07:21, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I originally had hoped that she would see WP:OFFER or return after the block to edit constructively. I also supported the revdel of her very personal request since it showed some humility and seemed the right thing to do. However, the behavior before the block was so disruptive that when coupled with a complete lack of respect for the block and thumbing her nose at the community (especially the admin who showed some heart) means that it seems appropriate. If an extension of indefinite does not have consensus then it at least needs to be reset to the last edit confirmed to be by a sock and maybe even extended for continued disruption.Cptnono (talk) 07:22, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:29, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Enough is enough, once you start socking that much there's no hope. --Rschen7754 07:43, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. The disruption was so persistent that the 1-year ban was unanimous, and this degree of socking is simply outrageous. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:10, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Support This user will never stop. She has admitted to stalking my edits and that of DocOfSoc over at Wikipedia Review where she immediately set up an account after she was blocked. The latest sock that was blocked put this disgusting message on my talk page on 11/08/10. There are more of her going to editors that don't know her to cause problems like this on 10/26/10. If there is a checkuser about I would also appreciate a checkuser done to get rid of any sleeper accounts she may have too since she said she would set up a bunch of accounts to drive us crazy. Thanks for listening, --CrohnieGal^Talk 11:29, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, with the proviso that "indef" in this case means "at least 1 year" from its imposition. Mjroots (talk) 11:30, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Unfortunate support I'm one of those who believe that SRQ was pushed into a series of actions that led to the original block. However, their actions since that time have led me to believe that they don't give two craps about policy around here. They had a chance to perhaps come back. They blew it and got a 1 yr ban. They then had a chance to come back after that, and they continue to thumb their nose at policy. Well sorry, as much as I supported them originally, I have to say "feckit, you wasted my faith in you". (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:45, 9 November 2010 (UTC) No longer 100% convinced. Also, responses to my question below are from those with whom SRQ has significant non-positive interaction which waters down the overall argument. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:19, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Reluctant support. It's always a great shame when it comes to this for a once productive editor, but we can't excuse the repeated socking when it's used to harass and attempt to upset other editors. SRQ, on the off chance that you might read this: Please, stop this nonsense, disengage with Wikipedia and serve your time quietly before it's too late for you ever to return. Indefinite does not yet have to mean infinite. Yet. But if you keep this up it will. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:57, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, having had quite enough after participating in the latest unblock-my-sock discussion. Daniel Case (talk) 14:47, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support -- If this editor ever decides to start behaving well, and wants to return to the encyclopedia, they know what they have to do. No sign of that so far. The IPs would be hard to rangeblock, and there is a large number of them. See the suspected and confirmed socks as well as WP:Sockpuppet investigations/SkagitRiverQueen/Archive. EdJohnston (talk) 15:20, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose procedurally. Because of the model currently in place on WP, indef bans to stop sockpuppetering simply don't work because making a new account or switching IPs to get around a block is too easy. It's best to give the user the possibility to give up sockpuppeting and a chance to come back. -Atmoz (talk) 17:24, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Support I doubt it will help keep the socks away. Someone who already does this much socking is probably not going to stop. On the other hand, enough is enough. Inka⁸⁸⁸ 01:11, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support It won't stop the socking, but it will make it easier to deal with. RadManCF ☢ open frequency 02:48, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Serious question

As I would hate to impose a permaban on anyone based on evidence that was not beyond doubt, I have a serious question. First, I believe SRQ was on Verizon - which admittedly has thousands of editors coming from there. As such, SPI's would be quite a challenge. I know I gave a pretty damning !vote above, so I want to ensure that the socking is really coming from them. "Suspected" socks means squat to me. Even supposedly "proven" socks can mean that someone is an excellent impersonator - and we have had damn well enough of those. What really are the odds that someone is not effing us over and pulling some damned fine wool over our eyes? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:20, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would have to be the most epic case of sophisticated trolling ever if that were true. Socks like recently revealed Lazuli Bunting (talk · contribs) edit obscure articles that SRQ is the prime editor for[4] in ways identical to her (esp. changing to surnames later throughout the article)[5], and then try to get the same two users (Crohnie and DocOfSoc) "in trouble". That is how they are discovered: the socks keep repeating the same behavior. Some socks like True Crime Reader (talk · contribs) last a bit longer, until they predictably start harassing the same users and frequenting articles that SRQ did. With her avowed devotion to edit here, and admitted off-site socking[6], I can't see anyone wasting their time to so closely imitate her. The massive list of suspected IPs was compiled when the SPI was in progress, and the attempt to confuse by changing IPs so frequently is obvious and still continues. A contribution check for any IP or sock, suspected or confirmed, shows this can be no one else. I received an off-wiki legal threat from SRQ just two months ago in response to referencing her medical condition on someone's talk page (which she revealed on WP); and she recently responded instantly with IP socks (always Cellco Partnership DBA Verizon) after I tagged a sock that I was wrong about being her. She's actively watching, socking, and stalking edits, and there's no reason not to be positive that 99% of these are her. I've repeatedly asked for CU backup to tie named accounts together: to no avail. Doc talk 18:31, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment as promised with "Strongly support, earlier" I made my first edit in Wiki on April 8, 2008. From November 4, 2008 until the present, I have been maligned, excoriated, libeled, vastly insulted and stalked by SRQ, minus the few months I did not edit, totally discouraged and nursing my bites inflicted by SRQ, when I was an admittedly clueless "Newbie". She dragged my name thru ANI, without informing me, which discouraged admins from assisting me, when I begged for help. Too bad she took this road, she is a bright, talented editor, who can not hide her obsessive and unfounded loathing for me and others. (for her personal agenda tool lengthy to list here) Despite her egregious interference, I have survived to edit another day with great support. She must be unequivocally stopped. She has an admitted "medical condition" which affects her judgment, and enhances her ability to inflict pain. After 2 and half years, (it felt much longer,) 17 ANI complaints, 21 confirmed socks and 68 suspected socks, it is time for all of us to admit that her case for being a Wiki editor is hopeless. I do not state this lightly and do so without any retaliatory or vengeful motives whatever. She is sad case.DocOfSoc (talk) 01:43, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum to Serious question: Bwilkins, you have been an enviable supporter of SRQ. I never report a sock puppet of hers unless I am 100% sure. Having been her target literally hundreds of times, I can assure you. when I know, I know unequivocally. Bless your good heart and honest efforts. DocOfSoc (talk) 01:43, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Question #2 What happens now? Does the ban reset? What are we supposed to do when she is here again and she will be, the same as always or have the rules changed about how we do the reporting? These too are serious and not sarcastic questions. I just don't understand what the purpose of doing this was for again, so here I am to find out. Oh and is there a chance that a checkuser is about to check for a sleeper accounts so we can at least know she hasn't built up a cache of awaiting accounts like she said? Thanks for your responses, --CrohnieGal^Talk 12:01, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Before this discussion, the ban was only for 1 year; each time the user tried to violate it, the ban would be reset each time (making a nightmare trying to figure out when the ban expires after each violation). Presuming that the user was not detected for 1 year (or stopped socking), then the ban would no longer be in force. This would leave the indef block that an admin imposed - in order to have that lifted, the user would then only need to convince 1-2 admins that no more socking would occur and then that would be that; they'd be free to edit.
  • What this discussion does is make the ban indefinite so that there's a more stringent requirement than convincing 1-2 admins - now, the user will need to appeal to the Community before they can be unblocked under any circumstances. There's also no longer a need to go through the complicated process (for each violation) of resetting the ban because now the ban is not for a definite (1 year) duration; it's in place (indefinitely) for as long as the Community deems necessary, so there's nothing to reset (as such). Edits by that user can be reverted as if they are obvious vandalism rather than worrying about whether the ban has been properly reset or not.
  • Hope that helps. Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:01, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Thanks, it does help, --CrohnieGal^Talk 10:34, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Move To Close

With this being a few threads away from being archived without decision, having been here twice as long as the "24 hours to allow time for comments from a broad selection of community members"[7], and having a rather decisive 14-3 consensus of support, I feel it's time for an uninvolved administrator to close this thread with the decision to move SRQ down to the appropriate spot on the List of banned users as a result of this discussion. Doc talk 01:08, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bzzt. This user is already banned with an expiry of indef. This thread is nothing more than a failure to deny recognition. You want SRQ to stop? Then stop responding to teh soks. Dropping each other notes about the lastest IP from Verizion, posting SPI junk about them, and regularly coming to ANI is exactly what perpetuates this. WP:RBI, littluns. Jack Merridew 01:31, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I beg to differ, Jack (good to see ya again, BTW). She's banned for a limited and ambiguously "re-setting" duration, not indef: that's what this thread is about. When socks continue to come at and harass "teh" editors (whether they "respond" or not), it's not about just WP:RBI. This should clarify whether she's banned with an expiry of indef. "It's not going to make her stop socking" is not the best reason to oppose extending the ban, IMHO. A large segment of editors on that list were banned because of socking subsequent to their community bans. Doc talk 01:44, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, SRQ is blocked indef and I very much doubt any admin would be willing to unblock if she asked, so it is a de facto permaban already. And I don't think there's any ambiguity in the resetting of the one year community ban, it gets reset every time SRQ uses a sock. Every time. She has to stay away for one whole year, and after that try to convince someone that she understands her errors - I really doubt that will happen, but I agree with the few dissenting voices that removing all possibility of redemption is either counterproductive or pointless. Franamax (talk) 19:24, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The primary everyday functional difference between a community ban and a permanent indef block is that the banned user's editing can be reverted on sight, and does not put the reverting editor at risk of a 3RR violation. If the de facto permaban also allows this to occur, then I suppose there is little difference between them. Still, considering her behavior since being blocked, I think it would be more fitting for her to have to convince the community at large to be reinstated, as she would if community banned, rather than simply convincing any single administrator, who may or may not be totally aware of the circumstances, to unblock her once her one year ban is up (if it ever is). (I would hope that any admin approached by her would perform the due diligence of checking into the background story, but stranger lapses have happened.) For these reasons, I still believe a community ban is called for. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:58, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well I think that if your communbity ban has expired but you are still blocked, you are still a banned editor, and if you get into an edit war using sock puppets, which is the only way the issue could come up, it would seriously prejudice your unblock request - so if the editor truly changes their behaviour, this won't happen. They will still have to pass the unblocking hurdle, and that won't be 'til at least 23Jul next year, but as far as I'm concerned will be a year from, like, 3 days ago. After that I guess I would just use "rv - block evasion / banned user" and do it as much as needed. Who would file the complaint, or better, has there been a problem with this before? But really, if you're spending as much time as to make 3 reversions you should pass it to an admin before the troll wins. So if I saw it happening in a pattern I would pass it over to AIV first, to get a quick response or RFPP if appropriate, then AN/I if needed, at which point I would claim immunity to 3RR if it ever came up. Defending the wiki, done properly, is a pretty high card to play. As far as the editor being unblocked by a naive admin, I would say trust the reviewing admin, but that might make you spit milk up through your nose. :) Seriously though, I think the admins who watch the unblock requests learn pretty quickly about their orange bar lighting up and they probably wouldn't miss the half-dozen comments below the unblock request. But even so, that possibility presupposes one whole year (minus 3 days) of total quiet. That would be a good thing IMO. Franamax (talk) 00:42, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SRQ is already a "unique case" on the list of banned users under "Bans of fixed duration (currently active)", having a far longer entry because of the original reason for banning, and because of the clarification of the reset. To keep that page accurate, another reset notice (and another admin resetting) would have to be added, and this entry would become even less "standard" pretty quickly I would think. Several of her off-site postings at the "troll forum" (where, not surprisingly, she is also socking, even by their standards) prove utter contempt for this project, the same old stubborn determination that she is right and WP is fundamentally wrong, and a hypocritical "flip-flop" in her former condemnation of socking (I've got the diffs and can present them here, but DFTT, right?). SRQ could have waited out the ban and honored it, and she did (and does) not. She could have socked away peacefully, editing content, and never been discovered: but the same disruptive edit-stalking behavior always resurfaces. All of her socks were discovered initially because of disruption, and only after adding "2 and 2" with the edit histories was it painfully obvious who it was in each case. She does not want to participate in a community project: she wants it her way. And there is no changing that.

WP:List of banned users states under "Banned by the Wikipedia community": "Users who alienate and offend the community enough may eventually be blocked indefinitely by an administrator with no administrator willing to unblock them. Although this has, at times, been considered a de facto ban, only an official community (or ArbCom) WP:BAN allows any editor to automatically revert all edits by banned users (and their sockpuppets) without violating WP:3RR." An indefinite block does not equal a community ban. I further think that it would be more unusual to keep resetting this ban, especially when she's apparently made no effort to actually appeal her initial ban (and still could, even if her ban was extended to indefinite) than it would be to make the next logical step and simply "file her in" with the rest of the community-banned users. Doc talk 02:52, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just on the first point, at this moment that user list says no such thing. [8] That was changed two months ago by an editor who appears to now be retired because xe couldn't stand the admin bullying, and for the life of me I couldn't find any discussion of such a major change in guidance. If someone can show me though where this all came about that we are not free to revert serial abusers, do tell and I will fall in line. Else I'll just use IAR and my own definition of banned - which means "you blew it, go away" for whatever duration it is or forever if no-one can be bothered to unblock. Franamax (talk) 10:34, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Franamax: That's all well and good, and I certainly agree with you on the theoretical level, but if there's an admin who doesn't agree with your formulation, it exposes the good-faith editor who's been reverting the latest SRQ sock's edits to being blocked for edit warring, because the underlying editor isn't (technically) banned. That hardly seems fair, or a good way to insure that GF editors will counter her disruption. Beyond My Ken (talk) 10:53, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Has this been a problem in the past? If so, I would like to address it directly. I don't see amy admins jumping in to correct my formulation of "banned means banned", though it's early hours yet. Franamax (talk) 11:52, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Would someone please close this? There is a consensus, can anyone just update the information now or does it have to be by an administrator? Thanks, --CrohnieGal^Talk 20:34, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Verizon Abuses

A huge amount of abuse has come from Verizon ranges recently; see WP:ANI#Zsfgseg: Narrow range blocks seem to be possible below for more info in this. Access Denied – talk to me 19:27, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Access Denied, what are your recommendations? --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:41, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Verizon users are impossible to stop. See my suggestions in the below thread. Access Denied – talk to me 21:32, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Original ANI post here. Though most of the fans of this meme have given up on adding the synopses, now an User:Rooot is trying to circumvent the consensus by adding a news blog post about it as if it is a notable meme (which it is not), a violation of WP:Notability and WP:UNDUE, and perhaps WP:POINT. Root also made a personal attack and removed the subsequent warning from their talk page). Would appreciate back up on this as it's not as much of a slam dunk as removing the silly summaries. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:44, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are failing to assume good faith here. It clearly has taken on a life of its own and is notable. The edit in question was a single line referencing this fact. Don't try to portray me as having put in even a segment of the "synopsis" in an attempt to circumvent anything. This was the entirety of my addition: "In early 2010, a highly-detailed 'synopsis' of this song was added to its Wikipedia page to much fanfare and media attention." (with citations) Rooot (talk) 21:59, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One blog on one fairly minor news source is not sufficient to show it either 'taking on a life of its own' or 'fanfare and media attention'. The fact that it is a 'single line' edit is largely irrelevant and, in any case, when you consider the overall length of the article, creating a whole section about this is most certainly giving it undue weight.--Korruski^Talk 22:54, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that, as the lone entry in the "legacy" section, it drew significant attention. However, that section was not created just for this piece of news, but could easily be filled in with all kinds of other cultural responses to the song. This is common practice on Wikipedia articles. The reason I made the section was that it just didn't seem to fit into any other existing section. Furthermore, stop pretending it is just one isolated blog. As I mentioned before, there are hundreds, if not thousands, of internet sources on the subject viewable with a simple Google search. Please do not try to diminish my position because of the simple fact that I only linked one of them as the citation. If you would like, I can go back and cite 50 different sources. Either way, the fact remains that the creation of the "synopsis" has become a notable, newsworthy cultural event. Rooot (talk) 23:26, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wait. We're linking to an off-Wiki article which describes an on-Wiki edit which has been removed? Does navel-gazing not apply here? Corvus cornix_talk 02:52, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And apparently Rooot is willing to edit war to get their way: [9]. Corvus cornix_talk 02:54, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, they have not yet, so lets not convict them of such a crime until they do it. --Jayron32 03:00, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The original assertion is that the edits are a "violation of WP:Notability and WP:UNDUE, and perhaps WP:POINT". Are you able to explain how the edits are a violation of each of those policies? Otherwise, just dropping them in adds no value, please.Cander0000 (talk) 22:02, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is no reliable sourcing for the claims made in the silliness, just people's interpretations. Re-addition, up to and including edit warring, for which you have been blocked before, is the POINT problem. Corvus cornix_talk 19:11, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't re-addition. Rooot (talk) 00:03, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unresolved

Still waiting for a response from admin on the possibility of these rangeblocks. Access Denied – talk to me 07:29, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:MuZemike just now lifted the edit filters and rangeblocks designed to stop Zsfgseg because it was starting to seem like he was impossible to deal with and that the huge range blocks were doing more bad than good. (He has access to several /16 ranges spread out throughout a /6 range.) But now I think I've found some narrower ranges after looking at some of his IPs used:

Cheers, Access Denied – talk to me 05:11, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly stupid, or even inappropriate question, but.... given the efforts being put into dealing with this, are we absolutely certain that Verizon will not help, or even respond, in any way, no matter how much they are asked in different ways? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 05:25, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Basically, there are two ways this should be approached for vandals like this (note that this is not the only active vandal; this would also pertain to the Scruffy vandal, for instance). If we're blocking and protecting too much, a different and hopefully smarter approaches to dealing with the vandalism need to be taken. The second approach is to simply stop trying; I hate to be defeatist, but if we know we cannot, with our software, stop these vandals, then there is simply nothing we can do. I know it sounds like letting the socks and vandals win, but is it worth the increased effort to go at great lengths to stop unstoppable vandals? –MuZemike 08:23, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My 2c is that it is worth the increased effort (until smarter approaches are available). --HighKing (talk) 11:31, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This sockmaster must be very nasty to justify rangeblocks as large as /18 over an extended period. Nothing presented here in this report shows any serious abuse, and there are no links provided to a fuller discussion anywhere else. If User:Access Denied wants to pursue this further, they should consider opening a new report at WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Zsfgseg. EdJohnston (talk) 17:56, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

EdJohnston, this has been going on the past 6 months or so, and he is already community banned. See my talk page, User talk:The Thing That Should Not Be, this ANI page, and a couple other admins' pages to see what he does. There is very serious abuse going on here, and some people don't have the patience (unlike other users) to deal with this on a daily basis. However, I suppose that's the cross I bear, and that's my consequence for blocking the user in the first place. –MuZemike 18:19, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Even if we rangeblock all those IP addresses, that does not stop him from his disruption. Many times he likes to "play" with his talk page like requesting unblocks to make his block longer or says that he is Zsfgseg and that we should unblock him because he is Zsfgseg. In order to stop him, we would have to disable the range's talk page ability as well and I don't think that's a good idea. Elockid (Alternate) ^(Talk) 18:27, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Would an abuse report go anywhere, or would we just get the standard "thank-you for your time, have a good day" response? Also, unrelated, did I calculate those ranges properly? my point is, Wikipedia is not a play pen, no matter what he likes to think. Access Denied – talk to me 02:24, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Use a script, block the 1024 /16s. Direct all complaints to the ISP. Maybe then we will get some action from them. T. Canens (talk) 04:06, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Yeah, then we'd be blocking 67,108,864 IPs. That's not worth it because of one editor. And the ISP proably still would not budge. Access Denied – talk to me 04:56, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, it's bad. But "when all reasonable attempts to control...disruption...have failed, [we] may be compelled to adopt seemingly draconian measures as a last resort for preventing further damage to the encyclopedia and to the community" (quoting arbcom, with modifications). Same principle here. And a large number of complaints from Verizon customers is probably our best shot at getting the ISP to act. If you want to be conservative, maybe we can block each and every /16 he is on instead, but given the abuse coming from Verizon ranges,including this one, I'm not optimistic. T. Canens (talk) 06:15, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Actually about 8 or so ISPs cone from this /6. Access Denied – talk to me 07:26, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • Does he have access to all these ISPs or just Verizon? If it's just Verizon then we just need to block the Verizon ones. T. Canens (talk) 18:49, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

      Not sure; that single isolated IP traces to the New York City public school district though so we have a good idea where he lives. Access Denied – talk to me 19:31, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How should this be approached?

It seems we have four choices right now. Access Denied – talk to me 08:07, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Approach 1: Softblock entire /6 range

Softblock the entire /6 range, which contains over 67 million unique IPs. Use a script to block all the /16 ranges, and create a bot to hand out necessary IP Block Exemptions.

Discussion

• Do this, force Verizon to act. It's something we should consider seriously, if all else fails. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 23:07, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• This would be an end to the "everyone can edit" bit, which should probably have wide support and the consent of the federation. I'm not opposed to this per se, but wonder if the action might cause more churn than the vandalism which we are otherwise unable to deal with. Jclemens-public (talk) 04:15, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• As fun as this might sound, I guarantee it will make us and not verizon look bad. Protonk (talk) 17:42, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  And we'd have to change "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit" to "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit... unless you use Verizon or another ISP within the same IP range". Sounds a lot less catchy. Access Denied – talk to me 22:51, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Approach 2: Softblock all Verizon IPs

Go through the /6 range and softblock all IP ranges which belong to Verizon. An incredible amount of abuse has come from Verizon IPs, including Zsfgseg and Grawp AKA Hagger.

Discussion

Approach 3: Selectively block /16 ranges

Individually review contributions from each /16 range using X!'s tool. Hardblock the ones in which the vast majority of edits are abusive. Use CheckUser to hand out necessary IP Block Exemptions.

Discussion

Approach 4: Implement narrow rangeblocks as suggested above

Implement the narrow rangeblocks suggested above. Use checkuser to hand out IPBE, and make more narrow rangeblocks if the need arises.

Discussion

To me, this is the best choice. Major collateral damage is a big no no. Access Denied – talk to me 08:12, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Contacting the ISP should be the first step, preferably coming from someone with the authority to say they're speaking for the Foundation rather than just as a concerned editor or admin. If that fails, we can and should block as necessary. But it seems improper to just assume the ISP won't care and won't do anything without even trying first. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:43, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • We tried it with Grawp, IIRC. Verizon didn't seem to care. T. Canens (talk) 18:50, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, as I recall, several attempts have been made to contact Verizon with no luck whatsoever. The Thing ^T/_C 19:35, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

      Are you kidding me? That idiot wasted hundreds of hours of admins time, spent all his free time libeling people, outer hundreds of Wikipedia editors by mass-creating hundreds of accounts the included their phone numbers (or so I've heard) and they don't care? What is wrong with those people? Access Denied – talk to me 19:50, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

      Verizon is a business. It'll only react when the situation affects its Public Relations, and most Verizon costumers don't give a damn about Grawp or Wikipedia's problems. In fact, the media often paints Wikipedia as the problem rather than the victim. Verizon handles abuse on its Internet service the same way Google handles abuse on YouTube. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 21:27, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, Verizon (or nearly any ISP) would just say it's our fault for creating a user-editable website. However they might care if we decided to simply block all Verizon IP's, and create a custom block message that says "Due to abuse from this ISP, all editing has been disabled." Though I wouldn't suggest doing that, personally, we'd be well within our rights to do so. I believe we once did something similar with AOL, which led to AOL changing their internal system to support XFF headers to make it easier for us to distinguish one AOL user from another. See Wikipedia:AOL. We even created a custom block template {{AOLblock}} to explain to those users why they were blocked. When they began using XFF headers the repeated blocks were no longer necessary. That solution would not work here, though, because this user is changing IP's by himself rather than having AOL do it automatically. —Soap— 21:36, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• • Yup. Verizon could give a shit about wikipedia's problems. Basically in order to get any serious action from an ISP about an account you either need to sue them (RIAA) or wait until the person commits a crime and get the cops involved. Otherwise they don't care. Protonk (talk) 17:41, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  I thunk he was actually reported to the cops after the phone number incident (I'm gonna go find the ANI thread) Access Denied – talk to me 21:12, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here it is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive511#I_have_reported_Grawp_to_my_police_department Access Denied – talk to me 21:19, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just to note, I have reported him to the FBI more than once for certain threats of his, with no replies at all. The Thing ^T/_C 21:25, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Have you phoned them or done it by email? If you've emailed, try phoning. Maybe a report from the WMF might carry more weight? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:37, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A number of editors are concerned that articles related to long-lived people are being treated as a walled garden. Various threads are going at FTN and RSN, plus discussion on a number of talk pages and WikiProject World Oldest People. There is an open medcab mediation on Longevity myths, currently moving very slowly. It would take anyone a while to read up on it all, and I don't expect that. But I would really appreciate effective action on the conflict of interest issue. This thread on COIN has not resulted in any clear-cut yes or no. The diffs are provided there. Could a completely uninvolved admin look into it? Otherwise, I fear that it will drag on into an ArbCom case. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:28, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-administrator comment)J Just a comment by some one who has been observing the COI and WP:MEDCAB case and Related threads, and see mostly conensus against you. Thus I personally view this a Forum shopping. Focus on the WP:MEDCAB case resolve issue there instead of coming here to get something done about Ryoung122 The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 22:56, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As someone who I guess is involved at this point, or at least outspoken, I don't see a consensus against Judith. I see general disinterest in addressing this issue. Yes all the wikiproject members don't agree with Judith, but what neutral voices have really weighed in here? Most of the posts, at various noticeboards, have just fallen on def ears. Personally I think this is a shame, because this case represents a serious trivialization of the project.Griswaldo (talk) 23:49, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)I came to this set of articles in response to a post on WP:FTN about the still-thorny question of how we handle "myth" in relation to the Bible. Before that I had not come across longevity articles at all. I have been discussing on FTN very patiently but the issues involved go beyond fringiness. So it's not forum shopping, but unpacking separate questions for appropriate dispute resolution. I left the COIN thread running for a long time to see if it would get uninvolved input. And it's far from being mostly consensus against me - see RSN today where User:GRuban has been convinced through argument. The medcab case has for several days now been just issues between me and JJB, which we could have resolved civilly on talk pages anyway. I would really like admin comment on the COI, which has in the past attracted the attention of arbitrators. RA, if you would like to comment on the medcab page then I will be interested to read your perspective. Itsmejudith (talk) 00:01, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Disinterest in a COI case is usually means lack of a real case. My observation is a our "Experts are scum" mantra in action. Ryoung122 has been an asset to area where there is a lack of expertise in Academia. So far from I what observed his work has not been anywhere near the trouble some experts have caused on Wiki. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 00:32, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Except for when the supposedly reliable source he runs claimed someone had died based on the word of an anonymous government official, prompting protests from a member of her family, see this for details. O Fenian (talk) 00:47, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The government (A RS!) reported her death! End of story! Not Ryoung122! I am not seeing what you want me to see in that link.The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 01:18, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, the government did not report her death. Some anonymous government official told Ryoung122 she had died, and Ryoung122 reported it as fact. Since when do the deaths of living people get sourced in that way? You will also note that the editors involved in the walled garden insist that for their claim of death to be contradicted a news report stating she was alive was required.. O Fenian (talk) 01:30, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I said this over at the WikiProject talkpage; expert input is welcome, but not to the exclusion of policy. To elaborate on the example I used over there, we don't allow Moonies to have the final word on what members of the Unification Church clergy are notable or the information required to insert claims about them; similarly, the experts on centenarians shouldn't have the final word on which ones are notable or what the sourcing requirements are. And no, anonymous tips to a specific editor (like the one in the example) don't pass RS; how can we possibly verify that? There is a bit of a walled garden mentality; it can definitely be fixed, but we can't have people with major COIs stonewalling every attempt to break out of said mentality— which is why I took a look at it, to give it a fresh set of eyes. I'd encourage other uninvolved editors to do the same. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:52, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I confirm everything Blade, O Fenian, Itsmejudith, and Griswaldo have said above. I'm disappointed that RA characterizes O's link as saying a RS reported the death, which indicates indifference to standard WP:BLP policy that a recent death be cited to an accessibly linked RS (or perhaps a view that Ryoung122 is a walking RS). I'm disappointed that RA characterizes the COI link, our second strong consensus that Ryoung122 has massive COI, as lack of a real case (rather than a COI finding without an enforcement option). I respectfully request an uninvolved admin make a recommendation on how to prosecute a COI finding not voluntarily admitted by the COI party nor enforced by anyone. Earlier today I listed some options here, ANI being one of them.

Though the issues are widespread, I think these are salient and diffs are available: (1) Ryoung122's return from indef block being accompanied by a promise to avoid COI, which appears totally forgotten shortly after; (2) Ryoung122's failure to comment at mediation cabal for 2 weeks now, while continuing strongly incivil and POV editing; (3) Ryoung122's propagation of POVs into many other editors' minds (some stated to be teens) over a 5-year period such that these concerns, when stated by one or two individuals, often get drowned out by an apparent consensus that is no different from (are we still calling it) meatpuppetry. Specific instances of content issues abound, but a simple one to understand is that we had a bolding war of about 15 cycles of editors restoring bolding to a date, clearly contrary to WP:MOSBOLD, citing such reasons as IAR, we've always done it this way, and all the researchers think it's important to keep the date bolded; such that an admin had to threaten a block for the very next revert. Incredibly entrenched. Looks like I've gone long again, please propose a best option. JJB 02:01, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

(ec)As anyone can see there is hardly a consensus against IMJ efforts. This area of the Wiki needs lots of cleanup. There is no anti-expert anything going on here and I highly resent the accusation from ResidentAnthropologist. We all recognize the expertise, and we are not arguing against it. We're simply asking for people to abide by Wikipedia policy in relation to things like WP:N, WP:V, WP:BLP etc. Ryan is an expert in an area that covers information that is mostly trivia. Good for him. But that doesn't mean we need to follow his lead an disrespect the afore mentioned policies on his say so. No way. When subjects aren't notable they should get the axe. When reliable sources are needed we need more than the word of his yahoo group and when reporting the death of a BLP we most certainly need more than his say so. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 02:04, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ryoung122 even considers his fellow verifier, Louis Epstein, more a rival than a friend, and considers the GRG founder, Stephen Coles, to be less reliable than himself. If Ryoung122 thinks even the GRG pages are unreliable until he double-checks them, this is a bit more than just COI going on. Anyway, repeat, respectfully request uninvolved admin. JJB 02:36, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

COMMENT: THIS IS LITTLE MORE THAN WIKI-STALKING BY JJBULTEN and "friends" Itsmejudith, Grismaldo, and DavidinDC.

Ummm, if I'm to be accused of wiki-stalking, in all caps, no less, it might bolster the accusation if I had actually posted to the thread in question. Regardless of bolstering, it's required, if I'm to be discussed, that the person initiating the discussion of me put a notice on my talk page that looks like this:

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

I'm just sayin' David in DC (talk) 22:28, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First, a response to O Fenian:

Sometimes referees get calls wrong...in virtually all sports, from football to baseball to tennis. That doesn't mean they aren't the refs...and it's only a problem when they are caught cheating (as in the NBA). Margaret Fish's death was reported by the UK government, erroneously. I in fact helped clean up the mess, but when it comes to JJBulten and Itsmejudith in particular, they aren't going to let facts get in the way.

Let's examine some facts:

1. Itsmejudith and JJBulten have launched non-consensus attempts to delete or merge articles such as Oldest people and Longevity myths. This is not an issue of trying to create or save an article on every centenarian or supercentenarian. This is an issue of editors who don't particularly care for the field attempting to annihilate it.

2. We can see how JJBulten is being lawyerly in his discussion of Louis Epstein. First, he accuses me of being "friends" with Louis, now he accuses me of not being friends in an effort to isolate me. Then he attempts to divide me from Dr. Coles...this reminds me of Jesus, who after being accused of being a drunkard, said that when John the Baptist didn't drink, you said he had a demon...which way do you want it?

3. JJBulten has already identified that he has a COI: he doesn't agree with the mainstream scientific view that humans don't live to 950 years old (because the Bible says Noah was 950). I don't see him denying that, anywhere. JJBulten's actions are akin to a Creationist editing articles on Darwinism while calling out scientists as if they have a COI. I find this highly disturbing. If appeals have to be made to the Wikimedia Foundation, they will be made. Allowing a religious fundamentalist to suppress science and education on Wikipedia is simply unacceptable.

4. Speaking of divide-and-conquer, JJBulten was against Itsmejudith's attempt to delete or merge the longevity myths article, so the idea that they agree on everything is not accurate.

However, it is clear that their actions on this and other threads are not appropriate. Their own actions have been questionable at best. Comparing material on supercentenarians to articles on Moonies is like Bishop Eddie Long claiming to be David, when he is in fact Goliath.

The reality: it is, in fact, the editing of JJBulten that is religious in nature and up for discussion regarding fringe theory.

If we use Google search to find articles on Eugenie Blanchard in the news:

http://news.google.com/news/search?aq=f&pz=1&cf=all&ned=us&hl=en&q=Eugenie%2BBlanchard

We find that this is quite mainstream. In fact, it's the skeptics' point of view, not the ideas being pushed by JJBulten (pro-religious) or Itsmejudith (pro-deletionist).

This field has been around for more than 140 years. We find newspaper stories about it in the New York Times from 1909. Who is the fringe theorist here? Who is the editor who is abusing their position by attempting to use Wiki-lawyering to overturn long-established consensus?Ryoung122 20:07, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't you want to present something in your defence rather than chucking dirt indiscriminately in all directions? If JJB's edits unduly promote a particular religious perspective then there are ways of dealing with that. To uninvolved admins: Robert Young is a paid investigator for the Gerontology Research Group. He has authored a book, derived from his MA thesis, that is available for sale online. He clearly has experience in investigation of suggested cases of extreme human longevity and should be quite capable of making useful additions to the encyclopedia, but instead he has created a walled garden of articles that are expected to mirror - to the letter - his web pages. A group of people have been gathered in a WikiProject with a membership that overlaps with a Yahoo! group. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:42, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rubbish. Any supposed "walled garden" of longevity articles is not down to Robert Young. Most users who regularly contribute to those articles respect his opinion as an expert on the subject. There has been considerable discussion over many aspects of these articles and frequently some disagreement. What I, and it appears many, if not most, regular contributors to those articles object to is what appears to be a campaign by a minority of users to eliminate Mr Young's contributions and impose a regime of article style and content which not only contradicts the consensus in those articles but does not appear to have any constructive merit for the articles themselves and is merely pedantic rule-following. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 23:18, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The "walled garden" charge falls flat once the evidence is examined. For example, the List of Living supercentenarians includes references to www.recordholders.org (the Epstein list), and instead of maintaining the exact ranking of the GRG list, merges them together.

The real issue is that Itsmejudith and JJBulten, in particular, have attempted total deletion or merging of mainline articles. If this were just an issue of whether to keep a marginal article, there wouldn't be an issue. But even though I and others supported deletion of marginal articles (such as 103-year-old and 105-year-old siblings from Ireland), there has been ZERO attempt by JJBulten to compromise anything. More than that, he then typically recruits Grismaldo. Let me be more specific. This is bullying-type behavior, sort of trying to get a three-to-one or four-to-one fight. JJBulten has even scoped out people I had issues with in the past and attempted to bring up long-dead issues that were resolved. That is nowhere near an attempt at resolution, it's an attempt to make the problem worse. It's like trying to "win an election" through negative campaign ads. But guess what? Wikipedia isn't about winning elections, it's about attempting to present encyclopedic material objectively. It's not right what JJBulten in particular has done because it's a violation of Wiki policies.Ryoung122 23:28, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You either aren't listening or pretending not to. Just to begin, I wasn't comparing the content of articles on supercentenarians to articles on the Unification Church or its dedicated followers, which should have been fairly obvious. What I'm actually saying is that we don't allow Moonies to hijack articles about the Unification Church, even though they would probably know far more about its inner workings than the rest of us. It's the same thing here; you may be an expert, and your input is certainly welcome, but you have to work within policies such as WP:N or WP:NPOV. I'm looking at this completely from an outside perspective, having watched but never edited the subject area, and I'm seeing a problem. When you've got several editors telling you there's a problem, you might just have to accept that there may actually be one. What I'm suggesting is that you step back from something that you're obviously very attached to and allow people with a less biased view to have a look. What you, as an expert, may consider notable may not be to everyone else; this isn't a personal thing. For instance, I'm very into Burmese history and politics, and the name Mark Farmaner is very significant to people like me; however, you'll see that the link is a redirect to the Burma Campaign UK because outside of that specific field, he's almost unknown. It's the same thing here; just ease up a bit and allow some outside input. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:04, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with what Blade said. I also came to this as an outsider. You talk of "attempted deletion" as if it were some great attack. What I actually did was start merge discussions that anyone could join in. No-one's wiki-stalking you, and I haven't even complained about your incivility. I didn't know much about longevity research as a hobby, but now I see that some people are very interested in it, I would like to see it covered appropriately on Wikipedia. The World's Oldest People WikiProject should be improving the articles in line with Wikipedia policy, rather than making them mirrors of researchers' sites. The straightforward thing to do - and a main activity of other WikiProjects - is to take articles one by one and work them up to GA then FA status. For that you need good faith collaboration by people who know and care about WP policy - input by experts in the field should also be a help rather than a hindrance. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:49, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ryoung122 says "Margaret Fish's death was reported by the UK government, erroneously", where? Some tip-off from an anonymous Deep Throat style informant is not "reported by the UK government". You were told someone had died, you did not check your facts, you reported her death on your website, the claim was then transferred to Wikipedia prompting complaints from a member of her family that she was still alive. O Fenian (talk) 17:46, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Boxer Rebellion is a controversial topic, because there are two versions of it:

• (1) Version one: The Chinese government official version, in that version, Boxers were patriotic anti-imperialists hero.
• (2) Version two: According to independent historians (Chinese and non-Chinese, including Yuan Weishi, 侯宜傑, (中国社会科学院研究员) Boxers were bandits, killers, rioters and arsonists. I have read a lot of assays, books, including 庚子國變記, 拳變餘聞, 西巡迴鑾始末, and 「神拳」義和團的真面目, books by Jane E Elliott, Peter Harrington, Michael Perry, Albert Feuerwerker, S. Cheng, Larry Clinton Thompson, and Xiaorong Han. After reading so many books, I know that the current version of Boxer Rebellion is a unbalanced and misleading article, which required a complete rewrite.

When I tried to discuss with Дунгане on ways to improve the content of the article, Дунгане began to accuse me of being a racist and a lier:

• User:Arilang1234's position on this article is almost exactly the same as White supremacist Arthur Kemp,
• Arilang1234 has lied about his translations before
• According to Arilang, Leo Tolstoy and Mark Twain are Communist propaganda activists,
• The Kuomintang has also called Western Christian missionaries imperialist,
• User:Arilang1234 pushing blatant POV, violating concensus, and refuses to talk out disputes with me before editing the article,
• Arilang1234 has lied about his translations before,

It is very clear that Дунгане is more interested in conducting in personal attacks against me, than trying to improve the article. I strongly feel that such a conduct should not be tolerated among wikipedia editors. Arilang ^talk 00:31, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Separating the issues is of paramount importance here. Disputes over content are not the province of admins, and if they can't be sorted out on the relevant Talk pages, should be referred to some form of dispute resolution. Personal attacks, however, should be supported by clear examples. Thus far, your complaints are too vague to be actionable. Sorry but we aren't psychic, so please try to narrow down your complaints. Rodhullandemu 02:54, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Laundry List of Bad faith edits by User:Arilang1234

Hello, everyone, I'm afraid that User:Arilang1234 has been exhibiting blatant POV and has not shown and interest in constructively contributing to wikipedia. This is not a mere dispute, i actually tried to talk it out with Arilang, but unfortunetly, he revised massive sourced sections of the article without giving an explanation, falsely claiming that the "Lead section changed per talk page discussion", no one except Arilang had agreed to change anything in the lead on tthe talk page.

Also, Arilang displays extremely hateful and uncivil language toward manchus in his sandbox intro

Arilang violates WP:SOAP by suggesting that wikipedia articles are to be edited for political reasons

Also, lets take a look at Arilang1234's earliest edits on wikipedia- quote directly from what Arilang added to the article in 2008- "The Boxers were complete salvages and barbarians,were stupid to the extreme." he and some hired Mongols fought off a group of barbaric attacking Boxers with wooden sticks - Manchu tribal rulers chose to remain ignorant and barbaric

I hope you will objectively analyze Arilangs "contributions", to the article, and his massive copy and paste from wikiesource into the talk page, claiming these wikisource text should be used as a "reliable source" for the article.

User:Arilang1234 does not understand that wikisource is not a reliable source- [10]. Not only That, even if wikisource is counted as a reliable source, User:Arilang1234 has either not read it, or, I'm afraid to say- has lied about the contents, saying "You need to be able to read Chinese", yet the majority of the wikisource article is about the Communist party against Japan, not just the "Chinese Communist Party only attack KMT", as Arilang claimed here

Arilang is also engaging in Ad hominem Straw man attacks, claiming that the "Propaganda Department of the Communist Party of China" was used as a source in the aritcle, yet i only see western sources in the refernces, none of them from the "Propaganda Department of the Communist Party of China".

in another edit, User:Arilang1234 either did not read the content, or, again, i'm reluctant to accuse people of this, but this is the only other possibility- lied when he said "Remove unreferenced content", since there was a reference in the information he removed

User:Arilang1234 claims here that "Jane E. Elliott's book is not about Boxer, it is about art.)"

Yet anyone can see the description of Jane E Elliott's book "Some did it for civilisation, some did it for their country: a revised view of the boxer war", on google books is "This book marks a total departure from previous studies of the Boxer War. It evaluates the way the war was perceived and portrayed at the time by the mass media. As such the book offers insights to a wider audience than that of sinologists or Chinese historians. The important distinction made by the author is between image makers and eyewitnesses. Whole categories of powerful image makers, both Chinese and foreign, never saw anything of the Boxer War but were responsible for disseminating images of that war to millions of people in China and throughout the world."

In addition, Arilang1234 has frequently insulted dead people because of their ethnicity, calling Qianlong Emperor a outdated,backward barbaric chieftain, just because he was a Manchu.

Arilang thinks its okay to say barbaric Manchus, which is clear racism against Manchus.

Arilang also thinks wikipedia is a platform to accuse Manchus specifically of perputrating atrocities.

Arilang also does not understand that the article is not "limited" to actions only done by Boxers, just because it has "Boxer" in the title, Boxer Rebellion. According to Arilang's logic, all references to British should be remove from the French and Indian War article, since the title only says French and Indian, yet the British played a major role in the war

arilang seems to think that since the title only contains the words "boxer rebellion", that the article should only be about Boxers, and that massive sections should be deleted because they don't contain the word "boxer".

Quote from Arilang1234- " have make a judgement based on commonsense, is that the Chinese official version cannot stand up to scrutiny, in short, their effort to promote Boxers as national hero is just pathetic."

Since when are wikipedia users allowed to insert their own personal opinions and use wikipedia as a soapbox?

I also do not appreciate the threatening tone Arilang1234 is displaying in this question against me. not only is it threatening, it is completely irrelevant to the article.Дунгане (talk) 02:49, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• User:Arilang1234 does not understand that original research is not allowed in wikipedia

User:Arilang1234 should take a look at Wikipedia:No original research- "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources."

Arilang1234 said above- "After reading so many books, I know that the current version of Boxer Rebellion is a unbalanced and misleading article, which required a complete rewrite."

Apparently, Arilang1234 does not comprehend that original research is not welcome in Wikipedia.Дунгане (talk) 02:59, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• User:Arilang1234 also using straw man attacks

NO WHERE in the Boxer Rebellion article, did i edit that the Boxer were "anti imperialist hero", and no chinese source, government or otherwise, was used as a reference by me or anyone else-

• User:Arilang1234 has a history of making hateful, racist comments on Boxer Rebellion talk page, and threatens to attack people

Quoted directly from User:Arilang1234- " when it comes to the subject of history, we need to be more firm towards lies and cheats. Do you follow internet news Benj? There is this guy by the name of 阎#年, he is 72 yrs old yet was slapped in the face in public! Because he shamelessly advocate Manchus rule on CCTV. If I happen to be there, I personally will throw some rotten eggs on his face. "Old Chinese communist education history text books blamed the western power on everything, is just like putting the horse behind the cart. Yes, western powers were evil, we all know that, but what about Manchus, have anyone really really have a closer examination and analysis on Manchus, WHAT THEY HAVE DONE IN THE PAST 300 YEARS? Why didn't they adopt modern western weapons(or at least buy them, if they cannot manufacture them), Why did they stick to bows and arrows when fast loading rifles(Wincester) could be bought in international markets, instead they spend massive amounts of silver bars on garden building. My conclusion is the Manchus deserved every battle field defeats they got in the 2 opium wars"Дунгане (talk) 03:15, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Arilang1234 does not understand that wikipedia is NOT a political platform

In addition, he seems to think that wikipedia is a political platform for him to put issues in the "spotlight. Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotionДунгане (talk) 03:17, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• User:Arilang1234 use wikipedia to advance ethnic hatred against non han chinese races

[11] [12] [13]Дунгане (talk) 03:37, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Again, Arilang1234 is using wikisource as a source,- [14][15] Arilang1234 Himself created the wikisource articleДунгане (talk) 04:26, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stop creating a new sub-section for every single qualm you have with this editor. Just use a simple, bulleted list, instead of what I term to be spamming ANI by making this bigger than it is.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 03:48, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hehee - I was gonna say that if this becomes a standard AN/I report procedure, we're in for some serious trouble... Doc talk 03:56, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pot, meet kettle. One says "barbarian", other says (in effect) "Nazi". Are we done here? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 04:08, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not so sure. Дунгане put a lot of effort into this report (duh ;>): and this random diff stands out to me in particular. "The Boxers were complete salvages and barbarians,were stupid to the extreme."[16] That's a really terrible, unreferenced "addition" to the article. Sure, that's possibly just a content dispute, but "overzealousness" (is that even a word?) in reporting shouldn't necessarily reflect negatively on the issues brought forth. Дунгане: "short and sweet" is often the best way to go about it, but each case is different. Doc talk 04:23, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Good thing there wasn't a Wrestler Rebellion; those buggers fight dirty... HalfShadow 04:45, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What I meant was (and is):

• Arilang, you don't have to change your views, but quit throwing "savages" and "barbarians" around.
• Dungane, you don't have to change your views, but quit letting "white supremacist[s]" out of the box.

Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 04:52, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I noted Arthur Kemp, a White supremacist's views on the Boxer rebellion were similar to Arilang here to refute Arilang's ad hominen attack that in which he claimed that since that the view in the article is the same of that as Mao Zedong, that it must be falseДунгане (talk) 04:56, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• sigh*.... so was that helpful? Or did it pile on? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 05:12, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• User:Arilang1234 had added the word "undefined" across the article, breaking numerous links and causing massive mispelling, not only once, but twice here and here

I'm not a tech guy, but i seriously doubt Arilang's explanation, which is that his "PC had been planted with some sort of bugs". If we look at the way Arilang inserted "undefined" into the links, it looks as if he did it in almost the same places, but added one more in the second attempt, almost as if he did it manually.

In addition, Arilang1234 made five consecutive edits to the article and one to the talk page in between the two edits when he inserted undefined all over the article, and nothing happened in those edits. they are listed here-[17][18]http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Boxer_Rebellion&diff=prev&oldid=395301531[19][20][21]

I find it nothing short of amazing that this was the result of a bug in Arilang's PC.

He also thinks its okay to test the article instead of the sandbox, leaving another editor to remove what he added during the "test".

As Arilang1234 stated above, he wants a major rewrite of the article. So hypothetically, if he slipped in the word "undefined", all over the article, instead of blatant vandalism, which would be seen right away, later, he could come back to it, and fix it, by "rewriting" the entire article to his own POV.

And i've been advised not to add more incidents to the list, so after this, i will not report anything unless it is ongoing in the article.Дунгане (talk) 06:06, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm the third opinion editor that got requested to take a look at the dispute. From a third party perspective, this dispute basically boils down to this:

1. Arilang notices that the article has a POV slanted in favor of the Boxers (which is true).
2. Instead of changing the contentious content, he leaves it as is, and adds more contentious content in favour of the opposite POV.
3. Дунгане begins to revert him.
4. And thus, we have this dispute. They've been going back and forth, over increasingly trivial problems.

Now, it should be made clear, the original article did have POV problems. But the correct response was to discuss the POV content, gain consensus, and change it, not to add more controversial content, but from the opposite POV. I've been trying to remove POV from both sides, although there is a lot of cleaning up to do.--res Laozi speak 06:18, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Editor User:Hahndyto has repeatedly removed things from this article such as:

• Defaultsort and categories
• Persondata
• An interwiki link
• Tags such as multiple issues, orphan, poor English, and rough translation, without the issues being addressed (diffs: [22], [23], [24], [25], [26])
• Syntax fixes (diff: [27])
• Conversion of external links to Wikipedia articles to internal link format

He/she has also re-added some things that were taken out such as:

• Notes about the author of the article (diffs: [28], [29], [30])

Additional diffs showing examples: [31], [32], [33]

There are more diffs, but I think these show what I'm talking about.

I've tried to explain that other editors are allowed to edit this article, and that some of the things being removed are standard to Wikipedia articles and should be left in, but I don't seem to be getting through. Can someone help? Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 03:54, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

tagged under G12, it said at then end The article had been published in magazines Tabaos, Media Information & Communications, for limited community, Maluku Foundation Scholarship Fund (YDBM), Volume 7, No. 3, October 2010, Jakarta The article reads like a bad translation of such an article as would be published Foundation's website or News letterThe Resident Anthropologist (talk) 04:33, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The images he uploaded to Commons are all blatant copyrigh tviolations and I've tagged them as such there. - Burpelson AFB ✈

The G12 was declined becuase the source the Author claims its copied from is not an online source. Thus the Admin was unable to verify wehther or not it was a copy vio when the idividual says it right there in the above diff. Ug The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 03

54, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

I was watching The Big Bang Theory tonight, when one of the characters mentioned Wikipedia. To be precise, it was Amy who mentioned it, the nerdiest of three women in the scene. These women were having a slumber party, & Amy, who had never been to a slumber party, consulted Wikipedia for ideas of what to do at one. Which led me to look at Slumber party, where I found a rather surprising assertion which I reverted. (This is the reason for my comment to Wil Wheaton in the edit summary.)

Silly me. I had no idea this assertion about "harmless experimentation in lesbianism" was an important part of the plot of tonight's episode. (I should mention here that Wil Wheaton had nothing to do with that episode, to make it clear that I am not violating any of the rules regarding WP:BLP.)

I'm not sure what more need to be done at this point than perhaps semi-protecting this article. Or maybe we can call up one of the show's creators & ask him if his refrigerator is running. But I thought some folks here might like to read about this as a change from the usual WikiDramaz. -- llywrch (talk) 05:47, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ehh...I would say semi-protection not needed, most likely. It's now several hours after the show aired, and nothing has happened since you're revert, so it's not exactly moving at a fast pace. I think if a few people here who will be on for another couple hours would volunteer to watchlist it, we should be good. This might be worth posting at Wikipedia in culture, though. =) Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 05:59, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That also looks like a coincidence, but I could be wrong as I don't watch that show. We're officially cool now! Kevin Rutherford (talk) 07:16, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Never having seen the show in question, I'm curious how Sheldon Leonard figures into the old joke about Prince Albert. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:34, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Fixed. Wil Wheaton, Dr. Cooper's arch nemesis, made me confuse the two. (And I should know how to spell Wheaton's name; I happen to have his autograph.) -- llywrch (talk) 22:54, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, so how does Sheldon Cooper connect with the old "Prince Albert" joke? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:43, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd prefer Wil Wheaton in a can. Several of them. HalfShadow 09:55, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Why do you want several Wil Wheatons? Uncle G (talk) 10:17, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Not several; several pieces. HalfShadow 10:19, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Ed Brey is violating WP:OWN and WP:COI at House rabbit, e.g. [34] and [35]. Does not listen to article talk page consensus re proper pronoun usage and makes the page his personal playground in other ways (e.g., insertion of self-promoting links). Also see discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#He/she or it when talking about pets? --Morn (talk) 11:20, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I know that you've been referred here, but the person who referred you here was wrong. You have a plain, garden variety, content dispute. At best, the thing that involves administrators is the edit war between Wjemather (talk · contribs) and Ed Brey (talk · contribs). Administrators are not content arbitrators. Decisions as to content are made by the editorship at large. Every editor is capable of involvement. What you really need are more editors to come to the talk page, to supplement the mainly two editors that are there. You need third opinions. You've got some at the MOS talk page. Maybe some administrators, with their hats on as ordinary editors, will provide additional opinions. But there are, comparatively, few administrators and a lot of editors. AN/I is not a good third-opinion-seeking mechanism. Uncle G (talk) 16:54, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm counting six editors on the talk page who say it should be "it". That count does not include me, nor those editors at the MOS talk discussion (where "it" was also the consensus), nor reverts from "he/she" to "it" by IPs like this edit: [36]. This is not really a content dispute; instead it's about a single user violating the rules of WP conduct (WP:OWN and WP:COI). And using "it" or "he" is a question of proper encyclopedic writing style, not content. --Morn (talk) 19:14, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ownership, very probably. Especially since this has been one editor trying to fight off unrelenting modification since 2007. Conflict of interest, I doubt. How can one possibly have a conflict of interest as to what is the correct pronoun for the prose in an article about rabbits? Content dispute, very much so. This is exactly a dispute as to article content. One person wants one word; several others want another. Uncle G (talk) 22:31, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • The COI refers to that link to his web site: [37] --Morn (talk) 23:39, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Excuse me Uncle G, but I looked at the article for the first time after seeing the notice at MOS a couple of days ago. There is clearly a problem with the article, that is not being helped by User:Ed Brey's insistence that his version stands. I have simply reverted to what appears to me to be a clear consensus with Ed being being in a minority of one with his opinion. I would tend to agree with you that this is the wrong venue at this time, and I am trying/have tried to engage Ed in discussion to explain to him why there are problems with his, but have not managed to get anywhere yet. _wjemather^bigissue 19:22, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, and the problem is that it's just the two of you. You need to get some third opinions in. AN/I isn't the place to seek third opinions from the editorship at large, for the reasons already stated. List the article at RFC. Ask the MOS editors for their help, not just their opinions. Uncle G (talk) 22:31, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • There's little point in soliciting more opinions IMHO. Everyone except Ed already seems to agree that "it" is correct, and even if we had the opinions of ten times as many people who think the same, that probably wouldn't stop Ed from reverting. --Morn (talk) 23:39, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Would have been nice if Uncle G had actually looked into the matter before commenting, but perhaps that's asking too much. _wjemather^bigissue 00:57, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • I looked into the matter, and the fact, that you don't like but that is true nonetheless, is that you have a content dispute over pronouns for which we have normal dispute resolution processes. You're looking for a way to pass the effort onto administrators. That doesn't happen. Get those third opinions. There are big boldface notices at the top of this page that this noticeboard is not a part of our dispute resolution processes. Uncle G (talk) 01:07, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • Hard to see how that is the case given what you have said, but I'll let you beleive what you want. _wjemather^bigissue 09:37, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• THF (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User THF has come quite close to violating the No Legal Threats policy, here [38]. When I warned him about this, he blanked his talk page [39], as "vandalism". I filed a report to WP:COIN about THF, diff link. This user's behavior is erratic and disruptive across multiple pages on Wikipedia, probably due to the offsite conflict of interest that is ongoing. If the user cannot abide by multiple warnings given to him by separate users including Jehochman (talk · contribs) and Nomoskedasticity (talk · contribs), and does not abide by No Legal Threats, then an admin should block. Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 15:09, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's no Wikipedia-related lawsuit, and there was no legal threat. Cirt is harassing me by making an inappropriate COIN report in retaliation for an editing dispute on a different article: his complaint is that I disclosed a conflict of interest and then discussed the subject on a talk page, which is explicitly permitted by WP:COI and WP:COIN. He's also violating WP:MULTI by harassing me on multiple message boards on the same topic (this is his third one). Can someone end the wikidrama and ask Cirt to stop being disruptive? Thank you. THF (talk) 15:13, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

THF (talk · contribs) has received COI warnings from multiple users including Jehochman (talk · contribs) and Nomoskedasticity (talk · contribs). When a WP:COIN report is filed, he responds by posting to my talk page in close violation of No Legal Threats. That is why the issue was brought here to ANI. -- Cirt (talk) 15:14, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This situation arises from THF's continued editing at an AfD ([40]) in relation to a BLP subject who has sued him. Continuing to post to that AfD after an administrator has advised you to stop is, well, not advisable. This issue will be handled by other editors and THF's input is neither needed nor helpful. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:43, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with this comment, by Nomoskedasticity (talk · contribs). -- Cirt (talk) 16:04, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You can end the drama yourself, THF. I'm amazed that you do not understand the basics of the no legal threats policy. One of the very foundations of that policy is that it is not in your own interests to come to a wiki and publicly comment in writing on matters that involve lawsuits that you are currently party to. Has the recent Cooks Source infringement controversy débacle taught nothing about the errors of putting admissions in writing? Don't come here. Don't comment. You're on a wiki. Everything that you do here is in public, visible to the entire planet, and in writing. It's not in your interests to be discussing your lawsuits anywhere in Special:Contributions/THF and it is not in our interests, as people who wish no involvement in the matter ourselves and who moreover don't want the opposing parties in the lawsuit coming here and arguing their case, to let you. Take your involvement in this matter entirely outwith this project, please. Uncle G (talk) 16:41, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with everything said in this comment by Uncle G (talk · contribs). There is simply no reason for THF (talk · contribs) to continue referring to and posting about this manner on wiki in Special:Contributions/THF, over and over again. -- Cirt (talk) 17:32, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Uncle G (talk · contribs), I basically asked this question of THF at his user talk page, he responded by page blanking that part out. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 17:33, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Given the lack of helpful response from him, I suggest a short block if it continues, or possibly even now to prevent continuation. The involvement is totally improper. DGG ( talk ) 19:53, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • DGG, I agree with your comment at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#No_Legal_Threats_and_User_THF regarding THF (talk · contribs), how do you suggest admins proceed from here? You seem to be a neutral party to this particular issue involving this user THF (talk · contribs), perhaps you could carry out the admin action you have proposed? -- Cirt (talk) 05:26, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • the most recent edit of his I see relative to this was at 14:58, November 12, 2010 (edit) [41]. Conceivably the discussion here has convinced him to stop this line. I have left him a note to the effect that if it resumes, I shall block, in order to reinforce it. And I shall. I'll check in the morning. DGG ( talk ) 06:44, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Agree with this assessment by admin DGG. Thank you, -- Cirt (talk) 06:45, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I agree with the analysis of the problem by Cirt and DGG. From now on we should have no patience for inappropriate comments by THF. At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arthur Alan Wolk he said: "I have serious concern that Wolk will sue Wikipedia and Wikipedia editors if his Wikipedia presence is not to his liking." I think a block under WP:No legal threats is justified if User:THF continues in this vein. EdJohnston (talk) 06:48, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • It can also be read as a well-intentioned warning. The silence can, too, be read as actually doing what was asked and not discussing this anymore anywhere on-wiki. So really there's only a problem if there's further on-wiki discussion, as DGG notes. I was going to say pretty much the same thing earlier myself. Uncle G (talk) 07:39, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • If User:THF is concerned that Arthur Alan Wolk may sue other Wikipedia editors, then he should email them, not post this speculation on Wikipedia, because that type of notice can be misinterpreted in several ways. WP:NLT is one of them. It could also be interpreted as violating WP:BLP by hypothesizing what Wolk might do. Either way, not a smart course of action to take on wiki. Tijfo098 (talk) 07:49, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • I would be very concerned if THF were to be blocked for warning about that BLP. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 09:53, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • I don't see anything improper or disruptive in THF's handling of his concerns. It would be improper and highly provocative for THF to email Wolk et al directly. I would take a two-step approach to handling these situations. Step one is for the community to apply normal Wikipedia standards to decide what articles should be deleted or what content should go into articles, regardless of possible legal difficulties. Step two would be that based on those decisions, parties who feel liabeled can contact the Wikimedia Foundation and then the foundation can make a cost-benefit analysis whether to fight to retain the community's content or to delete it. Please don't let the fact that a person is highly litigious influence the scope of Wikipedia's coverage or be used as a basis for silencing well-intentioned editors. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 15:47, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • THF cautioned editors to make sure that everything in that article is "true" (or let's say "verifiable"). Isn't that the standard caution regarding any BLP? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:54, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Xe did a bit more than that. Xe also nominated this article for deletion, for example. Uncle G (talk) 18:13, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • There is also the question of which part of WP:COI THF is actually supposed to have violated. Hasn't he followed WP:COI to the letter, restricting himself to talk pages, and not editing anything in mainspace? Don't get me wrong, I do think it is better for him and the project that he has stopped commenting about the case on talk pages here. I commend him for stopping, even though he may feel it is unfair -- I think he may just be too involved in the situation to see it with outside eyes. But he has asked, several times, what part of WP:COI he has infringed, and as far as I can tell he has never received an answer. I think the reason is that there isn't an answer in policy, and it is just the judgment of several admins (which I share) that his edits were somehow not helpful. --JN466 17:17, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • I can't say about the letter of COI, but it seems to me that as a general practice, an editor should totally stay away from anything that involves him in some way, and especially should keep quiet about real-world issues. As well-meaning as he might have been, the statement that he's been involved in a suit with that guy should have no bearing whatsoever on the appropriateness (or not) of the article. That's his problem, not wikipedia's problem. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:38, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • It's more than that. The other party in the case now has public written statements to point to. Then there's the whole we-demand-that-we-have-right-of-reply possibility that it opens up, that we have no interest in, this being a project to write an encyclopaedia. And finally there's something that even non-lawyers know: You don't discuss an active civil action that you are currently party to in public, in writing, if you are wise.

              That said, we have this now. What's desired is what's going to happen, because several people all asked. No blocks; no drama; no muss; no fuss. Uncle G (talk) 18:13, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

            • Again, this issue arose because of continued participation in the AfD (which COI strongly discourages) after being advised not to do this by an admin. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:46, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• To be fair, THF did not try to promote AfD outcomes that favored him. Wolk lost the lawsuit that THF nominated for deletion. What does THF have to gain from giving less visibility to a lawsuit that Wolk lost? The main problem was the WP:BATTLE tone of those posts [42] [43] —continuation of dispute started outside Wikipedia, even if only in rhetorical terms. Tijfo098 (talk) 17:56, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• @Nomoskedasticity. If an admin advises someone to do something which is not based in policy and they don't oblige then how does that become an issue? It may be good practice for him to stay away from the AfD and the talk pages, but it isn't policy to do so. Repeatedly advising him to stay within good practice is commendable, and he seems to have obliged, but if he is sanctioned simply because he didn't follow the non-policy based advise of an admin then we have serious problems here. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 18:00, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Also, someone ought to address THF's concerns about the editor who posted this and several other threads about THF's COI. THF's concerns are also worthy of a fair hearing.Griswaldo (talk) 18:04, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

THF has agreed on his talk page to cease commenting on topics related to Wolk anywhere in Wikipedia, so I think this matter is resolved. Perhaps a similar self-imposed topic ban can be agreed with the presumptive PR representative of Wolk here, User:Lawrencewarwick. Tijfo098 (talk) 18:05, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If he hasn't already done so, he should go to the AFD page and anywhere else he's brought this up, and delete (not just strike-through) his own comments, to take himself out of that picture. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:44, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I must note that a recent group of edits by Tijfo098 on THF's talk page [44] seems to be highly provocative, especially since Tijfo098 should have been able to see that THF could not reply. I would like to believe that it was just thoughtless, not specifically indented to bait THF into continuing. I am warning him that if he continues this dispute in such a manner, I shall bock him to prevent further escalation.

And I do not think a request to get him to delete his comments is helpful either. I consider this too might have a tendency to be provocative. It is necessary to stop attacking someone if you expect them to improve their behavior. DGG ( talk ) 18:49, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but you surely misunderstand that post of mine. I only indicated to THF that I found the answer to the question I had asked in his edit history, so a reply from him was no longer needed, and the same time I acknowledge that I understand why he chooses to no longer discuss the matter. Your attack on me, both here and on my talk page seems quite unwarranted. I had hoped my post above would be last one on this issue. Tijfo098 (talk) 19:13, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of any apologies or backing off that an editor might give voice to, if an editor leaves controversial statements standing, then you have to assume he still stands by them. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:03, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree with UncleG and DGG, above; let's just move on and leave THF be. --JN466 20:17, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from WP:AN. Strange Passerby (talk • contribs) 17:32, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have been witness to several issues with Cirt in the past and wanted to point out to administrators that Cirt is not behaving in a manner consistent with wikipedia's standards for consensus, neutral editing and good manners. Cirt created an article, Werner Erhard vs. Columbia Broadcasting System, an editor requested this be deleted on the basis of it being a coatrack and NPOV article against BLP (see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Werner_Erhard_vs._Columbia_Broadcasting_System), Cirt proceeded to disparaging and personally attack every editor who requested deletion or disagreed with his POV, including [45], [46] and [47] ).

Cirt, against WP: Own, has sent messages to others to come to his support (see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Fainites&diff=prev&oldid=396172372) and has been objecting to any attempt to improve the article using every tactic possible, including now asking for a source that he actually put in the article to be declared unreliable because, due to other editors, he realizes now that it contradicts the POV pushing
(see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Werner_Erhard_vs._Columbia_Broadcasting_System&action=historysubmit&diff=396337035&oldid=396336473 and http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Werner_Erhard_vs._Columbia_Broadcasting_System&diff=prev&oldid=396341116 ). Spacefarer (talk) 17:25, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• You can add this ad-hominem in the same AfD. This referred to a warning Cirt had placed her/himself on the user's talk page, "Copyright violation and plagiarism", while in a content dispute with the user.
• The edits which Cirt described as copyright violation and plagiarism were [48] and [49].
• Note that the user's edit summary was "The purpose as stated by the originator." There was no intent to plagiarise Erhard or violate his copyright, MLKLewis (talk · contribs) wanted to quote him. MLKLewis (talk · contribs) appears to be a newbie, with less than 200 edits. As a newbie, he may have been unaware that direct quotations should be placed in quotation marks in Wikipedia, and the matter could have been dealt with simply by telling him that. However, it is clear from Cirt's revert that Cirt objected to the edit on content grounds, and then switched to admin mode to put pressure on the other editor. One month later, Cirt solicited another admin to warn MLKLewis for deleting Cirt's warnings from their user talk page. Unfortunately, there have been many, many, many similar instances in the past. --JN466 17:56, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have been following this discussion in multiple forums. First, the accusation that Cirt is attacking other editors is not supported, even by the links provided by Spacefarer. It appears to be only one editor, and the statement by THF that "you are going to get both of us sued" does sound close to a legal threat, which is precisely what Cirt said. Second, Cirt has not sent messages soliciting support. He has placed messages thanking other editors for their support (including to me, in the interest of full disclosure). Not the same thing, although I suppose some might argue it encourages support; still, it's after the fact, and I see nothing wrong with people thanking each other on Wikipedia - it's kind of nice, frankly.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:04, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Response from Cirt

1. I agree with the above comment, by Bbb23 (talk · contribs), thank you.
2. Spacefarer (talk · contribs) has been blocked for socking on this topic [50].
3. Spacefarer (talk · contribs) has been warned for disruptive AFD nominations on this topic [51].
4. I am the single most prolific contributor of Featured Article quality and Good Article-rated-quality-content to this particular topic on Wikipedia.
5. This section header is inaccurate. There is no "administrative" actions by myself as an admin (blocks, deletions, etc.) that are under question by the accusations made by Spacefarer (talk · contribs).
6. I agree with Bbb23 (talk · contribs) that the accusations by Spacefarer (talk · contribs) are not supported.

Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 19:15, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have at least two concerns here. Firstly, while it is always a good idea to ask Moonriddengirl for advice, you are an administrator and should already exactly understand the guidelines regarding editor leeway on their own talk pages. That's not something you should need to ask about. And your presentation of that talk page blanking in the AFD "recently blanked out his talk page with multiple issues relating to this topic" elides the fact that the bulk of what was removed was your warnings. That may piss you off, but again, if you want to be an admin you should be used to getting pissed off and dealing with it without fuss. Second, again, as an admin you should have a better grasp of NLT. Leaving the ominous possibility of blocking shuld be done with care, and telling THF something is "close to" a threat and not to do it again at risk of blocking doesn't meet the standard. If it's not a legal threat, you don't get blocked for it. Regardless of whether you intended to act on it personally as an admin, people can look up your status and will assume that you are the one threatening to block. So there's two things you are expected to know as an admin and you are demonstrating a shaky grasp of both. Franamax (talk) 21:05, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

update: I have been emailed a copy of the full source to this userspace page, by a previously uninvolved administrator. (Thanks!) It confirms my skepticism that the pages merited deletion. I would still really appreciate advice about where to have an official determination on whether the page was really a copyright violation. Geo Swan (talk) 21:02, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A userspace page I created was deleted as a COPYVIO earlier this week. The administrator in question has informed they will not email me the source. So I initiated a DRV. In that DRV I did not request restoration. I merely requested the source be emailed to me. The administrator who closed the DRV explicitly stated that they did not want to take a position, one way, or another, whether the material was a copyright violation.

This second administrator said he would email me the portion of the user page that was not an "identical copy" of the source page. What he or she emailed me was about five to ten percent of the userspace page -- essentially worthless.

I asked the second administrator, several days ago, where I should get the issue of whether or not the page was a copyright violation resolved. I asked them to reconsider their decision to not email me the full source of the page. They haven′t been online.

I won't go into all the details as to why I disagree that the page was a copyright violation, as per Feith v. Rural. The details are here -- Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 November 8#User:Geo Swan/Guantanamo/Brookings lists of released captives, User talk:Lifebaka#Your assistance please. The only thing I will add is that the initial deleting administrator's opinion seems to be that the last quarter of the very long page contained a few phrases -- sentence fragments that constitute a fraction of one percent of the page -- are sufficiently original that they are copyrightable. It is my opinion these these few sentence fragments do not pass de minimus, and are not copyrightable. An uninvolved third party has pointed out that, even if the few sentence fragments were copyrightable, since they constituted such a tiny fraction of the page, they would be includeable under the fair use doctrine.

So, I'd like to know

1. whether DRV is the appropriate venue to resolve whether or not the page violated copyright.
2. whether I can get the entire original source of the page emailed to me.

Thanks! Geo Swan (talk) 18:33, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I think there is no reason the source should not be mailed. I myself, however, do not want to take admin action regarding Geo. The copyvio is trivial and probably fair use. Myself, I think the initial speedy deletion was unjustified, and the speedy close to the DRV after only 3 hours improper, because additional time should have been allowed. DRV is meant to be a discussion. (I for example follow DRV regularly, and check it daily, but I missed being able to comment. I check it daily, not hourly around the clock.) The only people who had time to discuss were the admin who did the original deletion, one consistent opponent of this group of articles, and 1 person who expressed no opinion over the issue of copyvio. In fact, neither did the closing administrator for the DRV express an opinion about copyvio. If he was unwilling to make a determination of copyvio, he had no basis for not mailing the article. DGG ( talk ) 19:43, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

With respect to the last point, the admin did have a basis for not mailing the article — Wikipedia administrators are volunteers and are not compelled to take any action. If one admin is uncomfortable, unwilling, or simply unavailable, find another one who is prepared to evaluate the situation and render assistance as appropriate. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:03, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• You are absolutely correct that wikipedia administrators are volunteers, just like the rest of us. However, since the closing admin didn't feel comfortable going on record as to whether the page was or wasn't a copyright violation I am sure you can understand why I am mystified that they closed the discussion at all? You haven't said -- do you think DRV was the wrong venue to seek resolution over the issue of whether the page was a copyright violation? If you think it was the wrong venue, would you be so kind as to recommend the correct venue? Geo Swan (talk) 21:13, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia is not: WP:NOTANARCHY + WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND + WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY. -- IQinn (talk) 00:09, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

could you elucidate? we are --all of us-- discussing process, not anarchy. I think most of us on all sides are trying to avoid making it a battleground. But we are all of us trying to deal with copyvio questions properly, which is necessarily a little bureaucratic. DGG ( talk ) 05:08, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Is there any connection to this incident and the fact that Fram and Iqinn have recently nominated 34+ of Geo Swan's user subpages for deletion? This smells of Wikibullying to me. These multiple actions (coming from an admin, no less) against an editor in good standing are troublesome to me, although admittedly I may not be aware enough of the history of the situation to comment. SnottyWong ^chatter 00:36, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • No bullying involved. User Geo Swan has a truckload of userspace subpages, many of them useful or potentially useful, many others completely useless or even copyright and/or BLP violations. I am only deleting things that fall under speedy criteria G10 and G12, and nominating other pages I think are not compliant with our user space policies (like copies of articles deleted after an AfD, then userfied, and then left unedited for months or often years). In most cases, the consensus is that these pages are indeed deleteworthy. In some cases, I was wrong. That's the nature of deletion discussions. I have also indicated that I will not post the source text of pages I consider G10 violations or G12 violations to any user. And I don't understand why Geo Swan needed not only the minor parts he contibuted to the deleted page, but also the 50plus Kb he copied straight from a study... But if anyone thinks that e.g. User:Geo Swan/Guantanamo/rescue/Muhammad Rahim should not have been deleted, they are free to explain why... Fram (talk) 11:04, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• No admin has to offer mailing article copies; anyone of us is free to say, please ask someone else, or even ignore a request. But if we choose to do it or refuse in a particular case, we must do so in conformity with policy , & making correct factual judgments. We admins are responsible for what we do, and for how we do it. An admin who does not want to take responsibility in a particular case should let someone else handle it. I do this all the time and so does every admin--none of us deals with everything we see, just what we are prepared to deal with. DGG ( talk ) 05:08, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Geo Swan states, at the start of this report, that "The only thing I will add is that the initial deleting administrator's opinion seems to be that the last quarter of the very long page contained a few phrases -- sentence fragments that constitute a fraction of one percent of the page -- are sufficiently original that they are copyrightable." I have explained, repeatedly, that that is not my opinion, and I would like for Geo Swan to stop explaining "my position" if he doesn't understand it at all. My position is that he copied 50Kb of a scientific study word for word, with the exact same layout, section headings, order, comments, ... See e.g. my comment from November 8 on the DRV[52] and my comment from NOvember 9 in the same DRV[53], where I had to clear up Geo Swan's misconception that we allow more leeway in userspace for copyright or BLP violations. Anyway, my note in that last post, "a table which has a column "basis for conclusion", and sections like "LIMITED DOCUMENTATION – TENTATIVE CONCLUSION" can not be considered a list of hard, uncopyrightable facts, but a study, an interpretation of facts, an opinion of the authors based on reading sources." flatly contradicts Geo Swan's summary of my position, and he should be aware of this by now. Fram (talk) 11:15, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

could someone please look at recent reverts and vandal warning issued to me by this user, and give him a polite WP:AGF warning. thanks. i can't edit his talk page and let him know about this thread.188.2.48.67 (talk) 19:35, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Have you informed BR about this thread pursuant to the instructions you got when you started this thread? Hipocrite (talk) 19:44, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Try reading the post before complaining about it, Hipocrite. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:46, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My bad. I've informed BR of this thread, in addition to cautioning him about poor templating. Hipocrite (talk) 19:49, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for informing me of this. My talk page is semiprotected because of frequent harassment. I see now that we're dealing with a serial IP (using several IPs) who has been repeatedly - in spite of other editors' reversions and objections - deleting referenced material and otherwise being unconstructive. My intentions are good, but I'm not perfect. I'm trying to protect the project and may have used the wrong template, but I chose the mildest one, since mass deletion of references is usually referred to as vandalism, even if it's of a mild type. How should we deal with this IP user? They have been requested to start an account but haven't done it yet. All their edits need to be collected in ONE edit history. Right now they are avoiding the scrutiny of other editors by scattering their edits between several accounts. Permanent semi protection of the Quackwatch, Stephen Barrett and NCAHF articles would be one way to avoid these situations. That way IPs would have to use the talk pages more and get consensus before making such radical and controversial edits on these very touchy articles. This happens quite often, and semi protection for a week isn't good enough. It needs to be permanent. -- Brangifer (talk) 20:26, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

'protecting the project' from me? i feel like a criminal now :P if you were not serious, you would be funny. that article lacks reliable secondary sources that talk about it in depth, and therefore its notability is dubious. it has bunch of dead links so that it would appear as notable, and once they are cleaned, it becomes very obvious that its notability is practically non-existent. 188.2.48.18 (talk) 02:52, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your attitude isn't really the way to approach this. And IP-hopping doesn't make you look good, either. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 03:04, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

it takes two to tango. [54] 188.2.48.18 (talk) 03:06, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Except this isn't tango. Your being snobbish and condescending. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 03:07, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BR is 'protecting the project' from me, and now I am being condescending. interesting. 188.2.48.18 (talk) 03:11, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For those who wish to know, 188.2.48.0/24 would be the most effective method of dealing with this issue.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 03:41, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are you suggesting a rangeblock? Right now I'd be happy if the Serbian IP editor would get an account so their editing history would be collected in one place. IP hopping after having been advised amounts to a violation of our policy against avoiding the scrutiny of other editors. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:26, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's only avoiding scrutiny if the user is doing this on purpose. Have you any evidence that he's resetting his IP to keep being an annoyance?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 05:09, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Avoiding scrutiny" has to do with its effect here, not necessarily with motives. It's avoiding scrutiny regardless of motive. I'm not implying it's deliberate as there are other reasons for why IPs often change. The end effect here is still the same - other editors get confused and have trouble knowing who is speaking. If they had a stable IP it wouldn't be a problem. Since it's the same person, they should get an account when they have been notified that their actions are disruptive and confusing. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:28, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here are the Serbian IPs (so far)

• 188.2.48.18 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 188.2.48.67 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 188.2.164.130 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 188.2.165.138 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 188.2.172.107 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 188.2.174.133 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Brangifer (talk) 05:05, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An IP 128.157.160.12 is adding promotional links to their new holy book and saying such things as ""I have recently read this book and find it to be just as reliable a source of information as the Book of Mormon. Could you please let me know why this data was removed? I certainly hope this is not some Wikipedia editor trying to oppress an emerging religion". I've twice removed the material, sourced to an ad site for the book and to facebook, pointing them to WP:PROMOTION and tried to explain to them that this isnt a site for promotoing their beliefs or getting converts. I'm now at 2 reverts and they have reinserted the material. Could I get some outside eyes on this please> Heiro 22:44, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hate to be rude here but that really wP:BITEY, he is not a Spammer but a "true believer" here to share about his faith. I'm heading over now. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 22:51, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He is not a "true believer." I had a look at a google, and his "book of Zelph" is a parody of the "Book of Mormon." -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:54, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Even if he was a "true believer", pray tell what is the difference between someone here to "share about his faith" and someone here to share about his personal website, book or other creation? Both objectives seem to be promotion, something that should be avoided no matter what the reasons behind may be. --Saddhiyama (talk) 22:57, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Facepalm So Much for WP:AGF. My point is "true believer" then it would likely be counter productive to make the individual feel like we are trying to censor him. In that case we should welcome the individual and help him understand our complicated rule book about wP:NOTE, wP:RS and such not act like they phamacuitical company or Publicist. However since is obvious a NOT the Case Forgive me for assuming good faith on the part of the the IP in question. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 23:02, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could we bring some "Revert, block, ignore" love to the target pages, please? Thanks for the notification, Heironymous Rowe. --TS 22:55, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe no one noticed the sarcasm in "every bit as reliable as the Book of Mormon"? But what about Zelph itself? Is that entire article a hoax? Or is it just this "Book of Zelph" that's a hoax or parody? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:04, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No its a legit Figure Google Scholar no comment on whether he deserves his own article though The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 23:09, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure this is the right place to post this, since the article is currently under discretionary sanctions imposed by Arbcom.

The Arbcom decision provides discretionary sanctions - after a warning - if an editor "repeatedly or seriously violates the behavioral standards or editorial processes of Wikipedia" on Gibraltar-related articles, and explicitly reminds editors to assume good faith. In light of this serious accusation of bad faith and the editor concerned's refusal to withdraw it in that thread (twice), I should like to ask that an uninvolved administrator give such a warning to User:Imalbornoz. Pfainuk talk 23:17, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For information, I've walked away from this discussion as I saw it producing nothing productive. I'm only commenting here as Pfainuk drew this to my attention. To my mind, its a rather lame dispute that could easily have been resolved through discussion. Rather silly really, goodnight one and all. Justin talk 23:36, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I hope that Imalbornoz will respond here. The line that Pfainuk found offensive was "Have you looked at any source at all? Or is it just the usual disruptive edit warring just for the sake of it?" EdJohnston (talk) 01:36, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There was also the line "I get that you prefer that Wikpedia's users get the wrong information (for I don't know what absurd reason)." Pfainuk talk 07:26, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Justin A Kuntz is in fact showing a very WP:disruptive behaviour after his return from his 3 months topic ban, trying to impose controversial edits (which had been under discussion for over a year and upon which a consensus had been -finally- reached during his absence: this is his first edit after his return; it had been under discussion from July 2009 until April 2010, and then a consensus was reached), edit warring[57][58][59][60][61][62], accusing other editors[63][64][65][66], going into endless discussions (see his first and second comments in the talk page after his return from the topic ban, not exactly very uncontroversial)...

Please, just take a look at the history of the article and the talk page during and after his topic ban and compare the amount of clear signs of disruptive editing: battleground type discussions, accusations, reverts... (as a reference, look here for the typical signs that the WP guideline lists:[67])

Regarding what I suppose triggered this report: I suppose that seeing Justin revert the article to a version that he obviously knew was wrong[68][69] (please see the edit summaries) has been the last straw. I try to assume good faith, but he keeps sticking to a behaviour that strikes me as not too WP:COMPETENT. That's what I've meant with the comment that EdJohnston brings from the talk page. Regarding user Pfainuk, he is a quite more reasonable editor, although I suppose that his friendship with Justin makes him see the latter in a (not too justified) positive light.

It would be nice if an admin could take a look and see whether any discretionary sanction is justified on Justin or any other editors -including myself- in order to make it less painful to keep improving Gibraltar related articles. Thank you very much. Imalbornoz (talk) 02:26, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What Justin wanted here was for you to stop and discuss the edit. Instead, you edit warred to keep it in, accusing him of bad faith. This is despite the fact that you were adamant earlier this week that no disputed edit could possibly go into the article until it had achieved consensus. In terms of the content dispute, let me suggest the possibility that the word "Gibraltarian" might have two meanings: that it might refer both to status and to residency. I note that the original version was linked to precisely the statistic on which you base your objection. This was certainly not a case in which bad faith was the only possible assumption. And none of this should be new to you - even if you didn't think of it at the time, I pointed it out when I asked you to withdraw on talk. If you had done so, we would not be at ANI.

For the benefit of admins, I note that when Imalbornoz says "consensus was reached", what this means is that all editors who disagreed with him either were topic banned or had left following Arbcom and the period leading up to it. Justin has come back and reopened those discussions (and opened others), without significantly repeating the behaviour that Arbcom topic banned him for. Over the last week or two we've had a detailed discussion with good faith assumed on all sides, and reached a consensus on one of the issues - IOW we've done exactly what we're supposed to be doing.

During this time, there have been some ill-advised edits and some low level baiting. Imalbornoz has been fully involved in this: search for "SYN" on the talk page, and you'll see Imalbornoz repeatedly insisting that anything that was not a direct quotation from a source was original synthesis, despite multiple editors pointing out otherwise. Imalbornoz brings up Justin edit warring - well look who was on the other side of those edit wars and you'll see it was Imalbornoz. The atmosphere hasn't been perfect, but it has nonetheless been a marked improvement on what was there before Arbcom, and I didn't feel a need to bring any of it up here.

And then we had this. The sort of accusation I reference at the start of this thread is the reason we ended up at Arbcom in the first place. It was uncalled-for, unnecessary and very damaging to our potential for progress. And nothing that Justin has done could possibly justify it. Which is why I ask that Imalbornoz get a warning under the Arbcom sanction. Pfainuk talk 09:04, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever the merits of the case, Justin's behaviour, of systematically reverting every edit by other contributors three times in a row, without raising an actual content objection to them, simply for the sake of obstructing them, is plainly unacceptable. For an editor who has just come back from an Arbcom-imposed topic ban, this is more than a bit troublesome, and will certainly be met with further sanctions. In this situation, the line "have you looked at the source? Have you looked at any source at all? Or is it just the usual disruptive edit warring just for the sake of it?" is not a personal attack; it is a precise and amply warranted description of his behaviour. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:27, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Justin's topic ban has been over for more than three months now, so I'd certainly quibble "just come back". It's not as though he showed up immediately on the expiry of his topic ban in August and started up the same behaviour as before. He came back two months later and has not repeated that behaviour: discussion for the last month was going relatively well, particularly in the last week or two - until this message from Imalbornoz.

And do you really think that it's "amply warranted" to announce that an editor "prefer[s] that Wikpedia's users get the wrong information"? That was the accusation that I found the more inappropriate, given specific Arbcom remedies about assuming good faith. Getting consensus on those articles is already difficult and comments such as these only make it harder. Content objection? Yes, a content objection was raised on talk before these accusations were made. The original edit was uncited (see the edit summary for the first revert) and went into detail on the demographic mix of Gibraltar in the first paragraph of the lede. Pfainuk talk 09:58, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry to say that I agree with Future Perfect. Since Justin returned from his ban we have been struggling with his inability to conduct a useful discussion. I did produce a rather long comment at this diff, concluding with "I do have a suggestion which I hope will allow Justin's knowledge and interest to be used constructively. If we all wish to put a suggested edits on the talk page, with references, and then to engage in clear, relevant, and specific discussion in accordance with Wikipedia's principles, this would be welcome and useful. I really hope that he does so." (The comment might have been more appropriate at Justin's talk page, but that has a notice requesting me not to comment there.) In general however I have stayed quiet and done my very best to produce alternative consensus solutions - it is pleasing to note that we have in one case succeeded, and I was really hoping that we would take this as a template for further progress.

Then we come to the current issue: Justin's reversion with the summary "(rv whilst I don't necessarily disagree, all changes apparently have to be discussed and agreed in talk first (and a cite would be nice))". He didn't disagree with the facts, which are uncontroversial and are indeed, as specified, fully referenced in another article. This is a straightforward example of disrupting Wikipedia to make a point, and his summary relates to his inability to grasp discussion procedures, including my attempts at explanation above.

Imalbornoz then corrected the facts and supplied an authoritative reference. I breathed a sigh of relief and hoped that the matter was over. Justin returned with a reversion to information known to be wrong and the still pointier comment "(rv pls discuss in talk page, apparently there is a requirement for each and every change to be discussed in detail)". I moved the detail from the lede to an appropriate section, desperately hoping that this would be the end of it. In the hope of pacimollifying Justin, I also made a comment in a new section on the talk page. Justin reverted yet again to the known incorrect information, emphasizing pointiness with the summary "(rv pls explain why any change I propose must be subject to scrutiny but not anyone else?)". Imalbornoz then corrected the facts yet again and, at the moment, there the matter stands.

I can best summarize by repeating what I wrote in the earlier Arbcom case: "I feel there is one and only one editor whose improvement or absence is essential to enable the discussion to progress. All others, however strong their opinions, seem open to rational debate." I have just reviewed the entire current talk page; none of us is perfect, but, in my long-considered and often-reinforced opinion, Justin's incompetence at discussion, energy, sense of grievance, and inability to peep outside his own fixed position disqualify him from constructive editing in any area where serious underlying disagreements of principle make consensus difficult. Gibraltar has a notoriously intractable international dispute, and I do not believe that he is able to contribute constructively to the relevant articles. Richard Keatinge (talk) 11:24, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello FPAS, long time no see. I would have been more comfortable with your comments if perhaps you'd thought to mention that we were in dispute some time ago over the deletion of Fair Use images and that in the deletion review that overturned your deletions you were rather bad tempered, indulged in personal attacks directed toward myself and ultimately it lead to an RFC/U on your behaviour. In answer to your comment, I did in fact discuss the matter on the talk page pointing out that the wikilink that was erased actually discusses demographics and makes a distinction between native born and resident Gibraltarians.

I note that the editor Richard Keatinge had in fact noted that there was some merit in my reversions, noting the lede fixation and introducing details that really were not appropriate for the lede. I suppored him in that comment. I also made it plain that I had no intention whatsoever of edit warring but wished to have a mature and level headed discussion. Really the dispute was rather WP:LAME and when it resulted in further personal attacks, well I thought it best to simply walk away and go to bed on it.

I am glad that Richard Keatinge has drawn attention to his 2000 word essay entitled incompetence, which is nothing but a personal attack from beginning to end. In that personal attack he assets that I do not make my edit proposals clear. For example I proposed a change to the lede qualiifying the devolved powers of Gibraltar Government see [70], if perhaps someone could make a suggestion as to how I can make a proposal plainer, then I would be interested to hear it. Richard claims this is unclear and sought comment on a completely different proposal asserting it as the edit I proposed to make. The two editors following him, however, immediatly understood exactly what I meant.

I find it interesting to also contrast Richard's pre-occupation with my behaviour, with his habit ignoring of Imalbornoz's disruptive behaviour. He has set himself up as a "neutral arbiter" but in fact is far from it. Imalbornoz has seriously misrepresented sources in support of edits and in manner which stretches good faith to its absolute limits. Imalbornoz's behaviour in filibustering talk page discussions goes without comment, his personal attacks go without comment. And Richard himself indulges in personal attacks such as his comments here.

I note that I have not been disruptive, I haven't edit warred, I have discussed content in good faith and as far as possible focused on content rather than editors. Pfainuk posted here in good faith a request to have admin oversight on bad conduct by Imalbornoz, it is immediately deflected into an attack on another editor.

He alleges that I'm not prepared to listen and be open to debate. Well it is perhaps best to illustrate that is untrue by way of an example. See WP:NPOVN#Ceuta, Melilla and Gibraltar where I withdrew my edit proposal following outside feedback. It is nonetheless illustrative that whilst I posted a neutral question seeking outside opinion, Imalbornoz immediately posted to influence discussion and Richard followed this up by stating that we didn't need outside opinion.

I have never shrank from the fact that earlier this year my behaviour was not up to wikipedian standards. I apologised unreservedly for my conduct. I have made an extra effort to avoid a repeat of such behaviour, including seeking feedback from User:Atama to ensure there was not a repeat of my previous conduct.

Imalbnornoz and Richard Keatinge seem unwilling to let go of the past and acknowledge their own disruptive behaviour, simply because they were not sanctioned by arbcom. Their defence here is to adopt a previous practise of discouraging discussion with walls of text and when their own conduct is examined to adopt the Unclean hands defence spraying around accusations to deflect attention from their own disruptive behaviour. Their behaviour is showing severe signs of WP:OWN on the article, whereby the content they impose is the "consensus". I consider that they are also indulging in WP:BAIT to elicit an intemperate response. I have received a lot of abuse from both and I haven't bitten. Personally as I have repeatedly stated I would like to focus on content, instead I find myself repeatedly defending myself against personal attacks and any proposal I make requires interminable amounts of talk page discussion to move forward. Even when I propose content that is well written, reliably sourced, relevant and giving due coverage it is reverted out of turn. And in truth the stated objections are not rooted in grounds relevant to wikipedia, rather is seems it depends on who the editor is. Justin talk 12:59, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ADD: On reflection bringing up the prior dispute with FPAS was uncalled for and unnecessary. Although we had a heated debate, FPAS has never demonstrated any lasting resentment over that incident and has always been civil toward me. I apologise unreservedly for doing so and have redacted my comments. Justin talk 16:26, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This user has made the same repeated vandalism/hoax edits like this: [71] [72] [73] [74] [75] [76] I didn't use the formality of the wikiwarning, I don't even know where that format page is. Instead, I gave him a stern warning in english, which you can find on his talk page. He has continued to make the same edit, fraudulently calling somebody (presumably himself) the winner of an event, in record time, that he did not win. There is public record of those results on this official website. Trackinfo (talk) 04:52, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Although he has stopped editing at the moment, I indefed the account as a vandalism only account. Of course he can appeal and I would be happy to speak to him but every edit has been vandalism, there was no response to a warning on his talk page and there was no evidence of productive desire or work. No sense to leave it open to more damage. JodyB _talk 13:25, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Google's logo today celebrates Robert Louis Stevenson's birthday. If you click on it, the first Google hit is to Wikipedia's page. I just reverted vandalism on the page, but it's good to keep some eyes looking at the article. Corvus cornix_talk 05:22, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Semi protected for 24 hrs - lots of vandalism today.  7  07:13, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is an account created on October 29, Contributions. The Editors first edit was to create a Category Category:Northern Ireland election stubs and second was creation of Template:NI-election-stub. This shows high suspicious familiarity with our systems. It strikes me as clear block evasion but as I dont edit in the topic area I have no idea who would fit the MOThe Resident Anthropologist (talk) 05:30, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How does this make them suspicious? Perhaps they retired an old account. Perhaps they've just read Wikipedia for years. There's nothing vandalistic about the edits. Corvus cornix_talk 06:31, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And the eidtor is contributing to an edit war at Glenn Beck (a BLP) without using the talk page.[77][78] Cptnono (talk) 08:07, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bad faith much? The Resident Anthropologist, how you do turn on a dime. And Cptnono, see to it that you follow your own advice to "ake sure you are being NPOV and reading the sources." Lol. (By the way, what edit war?) Op finish them (talk) 10:17, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Incident

Rodhullandemu (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) stated on my talk page that another person in his house may have accessed his admin account.

His contribs in the same editing period indicate concern that either 1) his admin account is not secure, 2) he edits under the influence (including use of tools), or 3) he made the post himself. The edit summary, to an IP on 4 November at 01:38, of the post in question (and there are others similar) is:

• "rfor fuck's sakle shut up and let me reply!!!Q wanker!!!".

Background

1. On 20 October Rodhullandemu closed an ANI discussion with "Wankers".

   Rod's response

2. On 31 October, in a different incident, Nuclear Warfare warned Rodhullandemu that if his behavior continued, he would be seeking a lengthy block. (NW indicated that was the second warning: I am unaware of the first.)

   Found. On 29 October, Rod told MF to STFU. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:42, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

3. Today, Rodhullandemu began poking Malleus Fatuorum again, casting aspersions upon MF and his article editing (see WP:WBFAN for evidence of MF's editing), and after being asked to back off,
   1. continued the discussion on my talk, where he claimed his admin account was used by another person.
   2. He continued on Malleus's and my talk even after I told him he might want to stop digging and take the night off.

Rodhullandemu's contribs during the editing time frame on 4 November show

1. he used the tools to block an IP at 00:22 (I don't know how to supply that diff), (I did it Tbhotch^{Talk C.} 06:05, 13 November 2010 (UTC))[reply]
2. the "fuck's sake shut up" "wanker" post to an IP was at 01:38, and
3. he posted to Jimbo's talk page at 01:59.

A review of his other contribs in that time frame reveals other problems, and a continuous editing session until 02:11 UTC.

Disengage from Malleus

Independently of whether Rodhullandemu's admin account is secure or he edits under the influence and what is to be done about that, I request that the community consider that he should be asked to refrain from any engagement with Malleus Fatuorum, either at ANI or on user talk.

I will do notifications next. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:55, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rodhullandemu's reply

at 18:16, November 13, 2010 SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:24, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

• His explanation for the drunken edit makes no sense. He challenges you to attribute it to him? Does he mean beyond the fact that it's his account that made the edit? Also, someone connecting to your WiFi wouldn't give them access to your account. They have to be on the same browser and PC. Something is rotten here, and it isn't my socks. --Andy Walsh (talk) 06:13, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "someone connecting to your wifi" > try Firesheep. Works. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 06:15, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • What I'm more concerned with is the admin logs. Surprisingly, he hasn't made any incorrect actions during the compromisation. Minimac (talk) 06:33, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Firesheep is irrelevant: see Wikipedia:ADMIN#Take care and Wikipedia:Security. Compromise of the tools is serious business (but then, so is his continual poking at Malleus). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:48, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree, highly suspicious here. Rodhullandemu's general conduct would probably be better suited to WP:RFC/U (of which one is long overdue, imo, but let's not digress); in this case the apparent compromisation of an admin account should lead to (a) an emergency desysopping if he hasn't regained access; or (b) a strongly-worded admonishment about ensuring the safety of his admin account if he has. Strange Passerby (talk • contribs) 07:20, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Per Andy above, wifi doesn't give people access to his account; further, the edit itself was obviously that of someone at least familiar with Wikipedia, if not of the temperament and personality Rod has displayed on-wiki in the past. I am fairly certain that these circumstances do not allow for the account to have been compromised. The diffs above all seem characteristic of one experienced person who's simply taken DGAF too far. sonia♫ 07:31, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Reserving judgment until Rod responds, but the assertion that an edit might have been inserted into his unsecured wi-fi is not particularly credible, speaking in my personal experience as a computer security practitioner. Jclemens (talk) 07:42, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speaking as a fellow computer security practitioner, since the inception of Firesheep a few weeks ago the ability to access another editors account on an unsecured wi-fi has become a rather trivial matter possible. For admins reading it seems relevant to quote the advice of Dcoetzee, "You should always use the secure server when editing from a network that is not under your control like a public wifi network, especially if you're an admin or other privileged account". Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 11:56, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• It's 8am where he is - give him a chance to respond here. Personally, while he can be abrasive, I know he has a lot of personal stuff going on, too, so please - go easy on the guy - Alison ^❤ 08:05, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

10.20 now, but I expect he may be sleeping in late this morning! Johnbod (talk) 10:22, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Alison. That has been my sense, even without knowing the situation, which is another reason I asked him to stop engaging Malleus and think it might be best for all if he do so. He doesn't seem able to relate to Malleus without a good amount of unproductive needling (claiming Malleus isn't here to build the encyclopedia stretches credibility). UncleG's post below is so full of silliness that I won't take the time to reply. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:57, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• One only has to look up ⇑ at the "dishonest arse" and suchlike to see the real origin of today's outbreak of silliness. Malleus Fatuorum was silly. Rodhullandemu was silly. The idea that one can hijack a Wikipedia account via WiFi hijacking is … well … not quite silly but not very well founded technically; but it was a silly way to make the real point that Rodhullandemu was obviously trying to make, namely that the two incidents had no connection with each other. The assumption that Rodhullandemu's administrator account is evidently compromised is silly, given the content in that edit. I'm amazed that anyone, even the people who are not computer security practitioners, gives it serious credence. (Am I the only person to have read beyond the edit summary?) It's quite clearly a rather angry way of saying "Gah! Edit conflict NUMBER THREE!", two of which 1 2 were apparently with SineBot notice, so this wasn't aimed just at the editor without an account. And SandyGeorgia is being silly in escalating this; if the object is to stop people looking at Malleus Fatuorum, and to not draw attention to the double standard of ignoring a friend calling others "dishonest arse" and chastising an opponent for "wanker" as an expression of exasperation at multiple edit conflicts and at a discussion of a perennial topic that once again achieves no rise in standards of personal behaviour; and to not be asked why xe thinks "In a word [STFU]" (in the self-same discussion as Rodhullandemu's edit above) is setting a good example on xyr own part.

  A lot less of the silliness all around, please. Let's have the FA writers and the people involved with them being a little less of little clique all telling one another and other people to "STFU" and "fuck off" for years on end. Remember Linas. The "best of Wikipedia" should be accompanied by the best of Wikipedia behaviour. Toxicity has bred toxicity for years, here. It's time for you all to stop. Uncle G (talk) 08:36, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Having checked the diffs here, I think Uncle G has it exactly right. Jonathunder (talk) 11:02, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't believe a word that comes from Rod's mouth, particularly his explanation that his account was somehow compromised. Any other editor would, regardless of blame, apologise for such a mistake, but Rod's conduct is unbecoming of an administrator. Face it, if he were at WP:RFA now he wouldn't stand a chance. His posts are often abusive, overbearing, egotistical and plain unhelpful. I don't think he should be an administrator here. Parrot of Doom 09:01, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• The menacing tone of [79] edits like this, from an admin who was posting on someone's talk page for no actual reason, is completely unacceptable. Does anyone believe that anything useful or constructive will ever result from Rod posting on Malleus' talk page again, given the considerable history here? There are 24 posts by him there in the last 4 months. As a minimum he should be prevented from posting there in future. Johnbod (talk) 09:29, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• If Rodhullandemu has stated that his admin account has been compromised, then it shoud be treated as such. Therefore, a temporary emergency desysopping would seem to be in order until such time as it can be demonstrated that he has control of the account again. Mjroots (talk) 11:35, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • He has stated no such thing. He claimed (unconvincingly) that someone else had used in the past hijacked his wifi connection. He also said he is no longer editing over wifi, or something to the same effect. With an improper application of the "I think you are lying, but I will assume you are not and give you a lesson based on your false claims" technique you can easily shoot yourself in your own foot. Hans Adler 11:47, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Just noting, for the record, the trend: an editor who raises serious questions about an admin's use of tools is either called "petty" or "silly". So ... that's why admin misuse and abuse rarely gets taken to RFC/U or ANI, which should answer some of the questions raised by Jimbo on his talk. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:19, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't think there has been any misuse of the tools has there? Off2riorob (talk) 12:21, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  I was referring to a different case with "petty" (where there was misuse of admin tools)-- "silly" is this case. I don't know if there has been misuse in this case: I haven't examined his log. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:33, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Ah, I see, Uncle G, six sillies and two sillinesses in one comment, not bad going. Seems like this is more about inter-relating, Rod gets a bit involved sometimes but means well as the vast majority of users do, old enemies are the worst, perhaps we should have a make friends with your worst wiki enemy day and all try to accept each others frailties and get on a bit better. Only three or four admin actions in his log for this period, a couple of blocks and a couple of protections, usual vandal fighting stuff. Off2riorob (talk) 12:46, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Admin breaks are a good idea, when the community thinks an admin is getting a bit lost or carried away, get a consensus to ask them to take a one month break from the tools. All Admins should take tool breaks and edit as an ordinary editor or they lose touch with what it is like to be an ordinary editor. I support two obligatory one month tool breaks per year per admin. Off2riorob (talk) 12:51, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  I think SandyGeorge has a good idea and I concur. Let the two step away from each other. Hopefully that will prevent a problem from getting bigger. JodyB _talk 13:19, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't recall starting this, just as I don't recall going to Rod's talk page and making semi-coherent threats. It's really quite unedifying to see how frequently administrators make excuses for each others' poor behaviour. Malleus Fatuorum 16:30, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I commend the idea of voluntary desysopping for when wiki/rl stresses are affecting your judgement. Giving up my tools for a couple of months at the start of the year was the best decision I ever took. Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:07, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Might an RFC be worth considering? It just might help put him on the right track; if not, it may still be needed as preliminary DR before this ends up at AC (which I hope it will not need to). Heimstern Läufer (talk) 14:40, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree with SandyGeorgia that Uncle G's attempt to sweep things under the carpet was not helpful. This time around Rodhullandemu has given barely credible excuses for poor behaviour and has in addition gone awol, having been up most of the night, 20 minutes before this report was made. I realise that his real life conditions are severe. Nevertheless he should take a little more responsibility for his own actions, particularly if he envisages keeping his mop. Mathsci (talk) 15:46, 13 November 2010 (UTC) A secondary concern at the moment is that his irregular sleeping patterns might prevent him from witnessing a Great British public figure who must surely be one of his role models.[80][reply]
  • His sleep patterns look pretty regular to me? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:14, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see no point in speculating about his being awol or not; give him a little time to respond. If Uncle G's synopsis is correct, it is still an issue of great concern; he is not behaving as we expect admins to behave. "Silly" is not "STFU" etc. and calling it so does not diminish the concerns raised by this behavior. If I behave poorly, I cannot then pass it off as highjinks; I must accept responsibility for my actions. If he has been careless enough for another to gain access, he needs to rectify that; if this is he himself acting, he needs to rectify that. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 16:42, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Asking for less silliness all around is not sweeping things under the carpet. It's asking for what I suspect the majority of people want at this point. And that includes the silliness in that comment that you just made. Less of that silliness as well, please. In a complaint about Rodhullandemu "poking", here are you doing it — just as SandyGeorgia complaining about people telling others to "STFU" was doing that xyrself at the same time, in the same thread, on the same page, the same day. As I said: Silliness all around. We, the rest of us, want less of it from all of you — SandyGeorgia, Malleus Fatuorum, Rodhullandemu, you, and the rest. You've been at each other and anyone passing by like this, toxicity breeding toxicity and generating one of the most vile atmospheres in the project (compared with which even newbies at Articles for deletion coming to User talk:Ron Ritzman are paragons of sweetness and light) for years.

    It's time for all of you to stop it. This environment where for years you've all been telling one another to "fuck off", "STFU", and throw words like "shit", "fuck", and "arse" at all sorts of other editors, and feel an entitlement to do so, should stop if you want to actually resolve things here, because it's your basic problem that's causing almost all of the rest, just as this particular bout of all-round silliness started with the "dishonest arse" namecalling. The editors who are so proud of making the best of Wikipedia articles should start exhibiting the best of Wikipedia behaviour toward other people.

    I pointed it out in the case of Linas and I point it out here. One of the things that the whole we-can-abuse-everyone-else-with-bad-language-and-personal-insults-we're-content-writers subset overlooks in this whole silliness is that if any of you were content writers over at Citizendium, far from having a safe expert-friendly environment where you could just write articles in peace, you'd all have been thrown out on your ears, no ifs no buts no maybes, long since, at the first swear word, which was several years ago in several of your cases. Yours is the very expert-unfriendly behaviour that the experts-who-want-a-quiet-life do not want around. You want the content-writer-friendliness? You improve your behaviours out here in public to match the standards required for it. Just as those (quite a few) of us who are also content writers (and indeed experts), and yet who do not suffer the they-don't-respect-me-because-I'm-a-content-writer problems, have done all along.

    Uncle G (talk) 17:14, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • Your efforts to shift attention away from your admin colleague are very transparent and do you no credit. Malleus Fatuorum 17:24, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • You know, considering the admins are effectively on your side here, you could be a bit less of a dick than you usually are. Next you'll yell at that nice fireman for getting water all over you when you were on fire. HalfShadow 18:38, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Could someone please clarify where I ever told anyone to STFU? It has been said to me, but I can't recall returning the favor. In fact, there are quite a few things wrong in your summary, but I'll leave it at that for now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:36, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• (edit conflict) Haven't read this whole thing, but I will just say there is no excuse for calling other editors wankers, and Rod's refusal to take responsibility for his actions and simply apologise and take care to not repeat these attacks is contrary to what we expect from our administrators. I'll also note I warned Rod about this recently, see here (Rod blanked this thread per WP:BLANKING). I didn't think any action further than a clear warning was necessary at that time (such action would have seemed like punishment to me, since he wasn't actively attacking others at that point). - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 16:45, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• I just found this: At a recent ANI thread where we were discussing suicide reporting, Rod posted this: Likewise, I shall shortly be gone from here, for one reason or another. I'd prefer it if the fuss was minimised. Rodhullandemu 00:35, 25 October 2010 (UTC). Completely immature. Access Denied – talk to me 17:18, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Wikipedia is not therapy." If he's seriously contemplating suicide, he should go see someone about it and not try to lay any guilt or co-dependency or whatever on wikipedia editors. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:42, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    That wasn't a suicide threat, more a honest reflection of Rod's reality. Off2riorob (talk) 17:45, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Meaning what? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:45, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Sorry, my account is not compromised as far as I know. I have little or no recollection of recent events. I have a number to call in times of crisis and am waiting for them to call back, although it is the weekend. Wherever I am, I will be considering my position. Thanks to those who have supported me. Rodhullandemu 18:16, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • If my crisis center put me on hold, I think I would look for another crisis center. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:25, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Hello, this is the Admin 'Eh We'll Get Back to You Later' Crisis Center; what issue or problem to you eventually want us to address?" HalfShadow 18:33, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

has nobody above thought that discussing another editors personal problems here -- however well known they may be to the parties doing the discussion -- is very highly inappropriate? DGG ( talk ) 18:56, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since the one problem seems to be connected with the other, it's hard to avoid. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:00, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Just to remind everyone .. Rod's account is not compromised and he has not made any controversial administrative actions, as such no action is required, if someone wants to open a RFC user then that is their privilege but I don't see anything worthy of Admin action here and suggest under the situation the thread would be better off closed and allow a little time for things to settle down a bit. Off2riorob (talk) 19:05, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the guy is truly having blackout periods, how can he be trusted to be an admin, just because nothing bad happened this time? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:26, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think the blackout is a little tongue in cheek, from a contributor feeling a bit under attack. Off2riorob (talk) 19:48, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Then maybe he needs to come here and tell us what parts of what he's saying are true, and what parts are just kidding. I don't know the guy, so I have to take him at his word at this point. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:07, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• I'd have to say that I essentially agree with Uncle G on this. A major problem at Wikipedia is the sense of entitlement of long-time editors about their level of discourse. At times, when I read threads like this, it's like things are turned on their ear; people seem to feel that WP:UNCENSORED trumps WP:NPA; that is as long as I swear when I attack someone, I can claim, when I am warned or blocked, that it is my right to swear. As long as I swear I can claim that the person who warns or blocks me is doing so because of my use of the swear words, and it allows me to redirect attention away from my antisocial behavior, because I can claim that the block admin blocked me because of "naughty words" and not because my behavior is driving away good editors and making Wikipedia an unfriendly place to work. If you want to avoid getting blocked forever, swear at an admin. Then all you have to do when blocked for that is claim that the other admins are ganging up on you to protect their little club. It's growing tiring. I, like Uncle G, want to avoid assigning blame to anyone here, because that isn't productive. I would, however, like to ask for a general improvement in the level of discourse. This is, ostensibly, an academic and educational venture, and those that participate should do with a sense of enlightened decorum that does not cast a negative light on the entire project. --Jayron32 20:10, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Um, as far as I can tell, Uncle G did assign blame, and since you're agreeing, I'm still waiting to hear where I've told anyone to STFU. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:22, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• You have to laugh. Here we have an administrator calling other editors wankers, but that's apparently consistent with Jayron's "academic and educational venture", so that's OK. It's only not OK when a non-admin does that. Malleus Fatuorum 20:51, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Its totally true, no one should be calling anyone a wanker, but when said to an IP with five edits who has repeatedly inserted to a BLP that the subject was called a shyster is at least, not the wikicrime of the century worthy of all this. Off2riorob (talk) 21:07, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• That wasn't what started this episode, just an example of the problem. Interesting that you believe it's OK for an administrator to call some editors wankers though, but hard to reconcile that position with Jayron's "academic and educational venture". Malleus Fatuorum 21:38, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• No its as I said, not ok to be calling anyone a wanker. I don't really know what is happening with Rod but I don't think we need to do anything to protect the wikipedia right now, he seems to have gone off to sort himself out and when he comes back we can see how he is and go from there. David Haye v Audley Harrison is about to get scrapping, I wouldn't call either of them a wanker. Off2riorob (talk) 21:44, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• (85,000 ecs) I'm troubled that you view it that way, Off2riorob. The IP did have only five edits, and was inserting what she or he might have thought was a correctly sourced edit. When the IP tried to insert the material,[81] and then tried to discuss it with Rod, it was cursed at both times. Is that how admins treat IPs who don't yet likely know or understand Wiki policies? More concerning to me is that Rod has the lead edit count on that article, so even though this is not use of admin tools, it's how he interacts with an IP who is possibly still learning the ropes, and thought those edits were fine. A regular editor would be blocked for this. We have several editors here tossing about claims about who's to blame for the declining level of discourse on Wiki, at the same time that we have an admin using this kind of language to an IP who might not be aware of BLP policy or what a correct source is for one, and has only five edits. Admins are expected to have a certain level of conduct, precisely because other editors may be guided by their conduct and they are expected to enforce conduct. Yet we see precisely the opposite so often right here at ANI. I get as frustrated as the next person by edit conflicts, but Rod was cursing at this IP well before the IP came to Rod's talk page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:45, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I do see issues, what you can do if you think its needed is, there are about six editors here that see a big issue worthy of action and if six users in good standing request recall on his talkpage or here then that could be a route to take. Or perhaps there is consensus here to request he take a months break from using the tools. Off2riorob (talk) 21:49, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I am quite troubled by the level of discourse on this very page (nothing new, ANI is not equipped to deal with this, and the lack of respect from the peanut gallery certainly isn't helping); I continue to suggest a situation like this is better dealt with by the arbs, with some discretion, and away from the disgusting level of discourse that is typical of ANI. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:58, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• My experiences with recall pledges is that they're not worth the bytes in the database to store them. Malleus Fatuorum 22:02, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Personally I don't think it matters if the admin has pledged or not, if an incident arises and half a dozen good faith users ask for recall and there are not a balance of supporters the admin can't resist it and recently I have seen comments from Jimbo and arbcom that desop discussions should be an easier option and that arbcom would be open to taking them on. Off2riorob (talk) 22:07, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• But do you really think an RFC/U or recall is the best course of action for an editor who is, by accounts here, experiencing some level of personal difficulty? One thing is to get him to lay off of Malleus, but the bigger picture appears to be more serious. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:10, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, I personally would support if there was consensus asking him to take a month away from the tools. This may well benefit any personal difficulty he may be experiencing, and remind him it is not OK to call users perhaps editing in good faith, wankers, but I don't support desoppping. I also think Malleus is more than capable of taking care of himself and he doesn't need or request an interaction order.Off2riorob (talk) 22:16, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I think you're onto it. If there is general agreement that he has generally been a good admin but who's gotten into a "losing streak", then time off seems to make more sense than de-sysoping. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:22, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• OK. I hope Rod has some Wikifriends who are working on this, because other than figuring out how to keep him from poking Malleus, the concern about the compromised account has been answered, and I hope ANI doesn't continue to be a vehicle for some of the disrepect and lack of compassion shown below. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:20, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Immediate block needed, if compromised

If the account is compromised, there has to be an immediate block on it. Then the real person can come back to Wikipedia, explain what happened and get on a fast track to re-admin by just editing like he did before. After getting a featured article in place on an article with a similar subject matter as he previously wrote, then he can be fast tracked back to adminship. பின்லாந்துF (talk) 18:50, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• What does writing a featured article have to do with being fast tracked to adminship? Protonk (talk) 18:52, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators often get the tools after they can show they have made thousands of edits and did a FA. Since there was a question of the account being compromised, the person could re-establish identity. Since we don't have identity cards, a FA is a way to show ability. Most admins have or should have the ability to write a FA. பின்லாந்துF (talk) 18:54, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's like taking a good car salesman and making him a mechanic. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:25, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's a totally different skillset and set of interests. I've never written an FA and many admins have never written FAs, despite having written dozens or hundreds of articles. Protonk (talk) 20:55, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He or she now says the account is not compromised. If so, there has been a psychiatric breakdown and this administrator's tools should be placed on medical leave for a month. A month without tools never hurt anyone. It could be shortened if there is an explanation, like he/she forgot to take his Prozac but is now taking it. பின்லாந்துF (talk) 18:52, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I would agree. This is a strange case and if someone is having blackout periods they had best not drive or use admin tools. There are any number of us who would be willing to borrow his admin rights for a month, just to help out. I, for one, don't take impairing substances and don't have blackout periods, though I do sleep occasionally. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:55, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Baseball Bugs, RFA is thattaway >>>>>>> Mjroots (talk) 19:04, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nah, I tried it once. Didn't like it. But I do get amused when admin's go off into the wild blue yonder and do stuff I wouldn't even think of doing, and then I wonder how they got elected and I didn't. But all's swell. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:12, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • But do you enjoy the existence of the opposite sex? If so, you might want to look Up ⇑ and give a third opinion at Talk:House rabbit in the content dispute about whether all rabbits are "he". You won't need administrator tools; only the ability to give a sensible opinion in a content dispute. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 19:15, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm already on that one. The original author created that POV-fork almost 3 years ago, and now he's edit-warring over the "he/she" vs. "it" situation while others try to weed out the OR and see what's left, if anything. You've heard of editors with "pet" articles? In that case, it's literal. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:22, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I suspected that you wouldn't be able to resist. You're in the company of Vampire rabbit (talk · contribs), Nellythumper (talk · contribs), SouthernMNrabbitrescue (talk · contribs), Kitschbunni (talk · contribs), BinkyBunny (talk · contribs), Margobun (talk · contribs), and — my goodness! — Leporidae (talk · contribs). Uncle G (talk) 19:32, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Great. I'll be interested in what they have to say. I'm all ears. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:38, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. Some of this conversation is seriously disrespectful. Someone like Raul (on a recent RFA) needs to step in and starting putting some people in their place. (Uncle, Bugs, HalfShadow, and Mjroots, I'm looking at you.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:03, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is the admin's behavior under scrutiny, or isn't it? I don't know the guy, I don't recall having any particular interaction with him. But I'm alarmed at what I'm seeing here. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:05, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you're truly alarmed, you could express that with a bit of respect for the person we're discussing. Starting now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:15, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What I'm alarmed by is the apparent malfeasance of the admin. His personal problems should not even be a part of any discussion here - but he has made them so. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:21, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Move for an interaction ban

I will say first that I hold Rod in very high esteem. Let's not forget the good he does, most of it behind the scenes. Like any other admin, the only time the community hears of what he does is when he fucks up (and, yes, even admins, including myself, fuck up on occasion). That said, I move for a community-imposed interaction ban between Rod and Malleus (as suggested above by Sandy Georgia) because this is not the first time the two of them have come to the wiki-equivalent of blows and, whoever started what, I don't think either has ever had anything constructive to say to the other. This seems to me to be best for both parties (I don't think either especially wants the other to talk to them) and for the Wikipedia community as a whole. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:06, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If an admin is being seriously considered for an interaction ban, something is seriously wrong. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:13, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think you need to try taking off those blinkers. I have been avoiding Rodhullendemu for some time now; it was he who came to my talk page yesterday to issue some semi-coherent threat without any provocation whatsoever, which he now claims to have no recollection of. Yet you want to impose a sanction on me? Get real! Malleus Fatuorum 19:39, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If what you say is true, the admin in question needs to take a long vacation effective immediately. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:41, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The last post by MF to Rod's talkpage was two weeks ago. Unless there is an indication that MF has been pursuing Rod elsewhere, then I think we should take him at his word. Skomorokh 19:50, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't doubt that Rod is the aggressor here and I didn't mean to imply that Malleus was at fault, merely that a one-way interaction ban seems pointless to me. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:11, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I find that rather revealing. I have been avoiding Rodhullandemu and will continue to avoid him, interaction ban or no. It is he who has not been avoiding me. Obviously you don't believe me though, so as the non-admin in this incident I must spend some time on the naughty step, even though I have done nothing wrong. Malleus Fatuorum 21:11, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I do think that Rod should have an interaction ban with Malleus, but considering how this thread has evolved, I don't think an RFC/U is the most helpful next step, and suggest this should proceed to the arbs. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:48, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the ARBCOM will take this issue on, nothing has actually happened. Off2riorob (talk) 19:50, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect. They have taken action with other sysops when "nothing ha[d] actually happened" yet. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:55, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, yes, I have seen them step in .. is this an emergency threat to the integrity of the project? Off2riorob (talk) 20:01, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Other case wasn't either: we have an admin using tools in the same editing session where he himself characterizes one of his other posts as "not a rational edit". And, yes, I do think his actions wrt Malleus compromise Malleus's time and ability to work on top content. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:06, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well surely it's worth exhausting all other realistic possibilities, first? The interaction ban would be enforceable by block, so iff Rod violates it, he may well end up blocked for a substantial amount of time and if he doesn't, there's no need for any action, so ArbCom seems a little premature (though not disproportionate). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:09, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Getting him to stop poking Malleus would help part of the situation, but what about IPs he tells to shut up for fuck's sake and calls wankers? SandyGeorgia (Talk)

• Support for a period of time, maybe three months. It should be broadly construed to include comments to one another and about one another anywhere except at certain forums like ARB or ANI. JodyB _talk 19:51, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Except at ANI? That's where several of the diffs originate. Would you mind removing the subhead? This is not a vote-- that would be RFA-- it's a discussion. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:57, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No problem although RFA is not the only place !votes are cast. You are correct but we are talking about a ban and those parameters can be considered. I think this is the current hotspot but apparently not the only one. We just need to move this along.JodyB _talk 20:07, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Just as a matter of interest JodyB, what sanctions are you proposing should be applied in case one of us breaches the terms of this interaction ban? Would they be applied equally to the admin (Rodhullandemu) and the non-admin (me)? I somewhat doubt it. Malleus Fatuorum 20:01, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The particulars can be determined by the community but I would only support it if they were applied equally. JodyB _talk 20:09, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because? Again, this is not RFA, some sort of rationale would be helpful. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:24, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sandy, I know this is not an RFA and I think you know that too. I agree with HJMitchell above. I think these sorts of disagreements are time wasting drama fests but must still be dealt with. Now if you oppose the ban, please say so. If you have changed your mind from your comments above please clarify. When associations between two users become so spoiled that the broader community must step in there is a problem. And, as you have noted, it is not the first time. It would be nice if people could just walk away from each other but that doesn't seem to have happened. This is all I intend to say until some decision is reached on wheather a ban is a good idea. JodyB _talk 22:03, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You don't seem to be following the sitution you're opining on: Rod has consistently and aggressively come after Malleus, to the point that NW called for a lengthy block because Rod invoked Malleus in conversations when MF wasn't involved. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:04, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I find it very curious that you want to impose sanctions on me when I have done nothing wrong. Why not try dealing with the problem, Rodhullandemu? Malleus Fatuorum 21:02, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support Obviously it is better for the project, and him, that RH&E is interaction banned from MF - and that the ban of MF from interacting with RH&E is simply an extension of the primary restriction, and not a comment upon MF's rather individual approach to syop intercourse. If by such a restriction the effect on RH&E's general contributions is also improved, so much the better. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:35, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have no approach at all to "syop [sic] intercourse", and I don't recall ever having had intercourse with a sysop, nor any desire to. Your suggestion that I should be banned from doing something I am not doing just strikes me as bizarre. Malleus Fatuorum 21:46, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I might have worded it to strongly in that you should be banned from interacting with RH&E, since I should not like to set that precedent (see how many admins you do not have any "approach to" to would like to sign up for that!), but that there is a commiserate non interaction undertaking from you re RH&E. The community formally bans RH&E, on the understanding that you will do likewise. I would also like to point out that I am considered quite desirable by many persons, some of whom are aware that I am an admin - you seem to be the one with the bizarre tastes... LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:31, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Additional inappropiate edit summary:

• So fucking what? WHo cares wa#hat a Tory journalists' opinioni is?

On an article where Rod is the leading editor by editcount. This is the same IP who was later attempting discussion on Rod's talk when it was cursed at, so I don't think Uncle G's conclusion that Rod was cursing at SineBot is founded (and even if he were, how would the IP know that?) If Rod were a regular editor, he would be blocked for these edits. If anything, it seems he is showing extreme stress from too much time on Wiki. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:33, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I actually said that it was an angry edit summary, at the top of this discussion. What I said that it wasn't was evidence that the account had been compromised; which it plainly isn't. It's quite evidently frustration at multiple edit conflicts being expressed angrily and badly. (My translation of "Gah! Edit conflict NUMBER THREE!" would have made the same point without the vulgarities.) And yes, that latter is another poorly expressed edit summary. I have no, and I think no-one else has any, reason to think that Rodhullandemu has lost control of xyr account. We only have Rodhullandemu challenging you to prove that xe hasn't lost control of xyr account, which was a silly way of making the point that xe was actually trying to make, because of course people took that as a reason to go into "ZOmG! Hacx0rEd adMin aCCount!!!!!" mode. Silliness here on everyone's part, including Rodhullandemu's, as I said.

  Such poor typing is an indication of something extraordinary, but guesswork as to what it is is pointless. If things are as stated on their face, and what is stated above is not simply another ill-chosen way to explain one's point, then we need two things to happen from this: everyone shaping up their behaviour and not going around telling one other to "fuck off" and calling one another "arse" any more; and Rodhullandemu talking to the arbitration committee in private, as has been done in the past in other such cases, about the matter.

  If you think that other editors would be blocked by now, then you need to read more administrators' noticeboard discussions. ☺ Part of the reason that so many problems seem to be perennial ones is that in fact many ordinary editors are given chance after chance (in general a good thing, of course). To pick a recent example that was just on this noticeboard: Witness McYel (talk · contribs), who did some fairly strange and ill-advised things, a lot stranger than (apparently) writing edit summaries under the influence, but yet retained the edit tool, had a little experiment in July with making edit summary accusation of "racist lies" at Jesus, and had to go as far as doing this over a whole load of article talk pages before being blocked again. Uncle G (talk) 23:03, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Uncle, your posts are difficult to read (and too long and off-topic :) I'm a "she", Rod's a "he"; I don't know what that other stuff represents. Other than that, you've got still got quite a lot wrong there, but this situation has been resolved. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:32, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

for what its worth

I have left Rod a note about the discussion here and when he comes back editing we can see what he has got to say for himself. I don't see this thread as creating anything more constructive at the present time and if there are no objections I suggest we close it down. Off2riorob (talk) 23:21, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd agree with shutting it down: the two issues are resolved. Rod's claim that his account was compromised was retracted by him, and he's been asked to stop interacting with Malleus. The rest is up to others; I wish him well in resolving whatever is affecting him. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:30, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Radiopathy is on indefinite 1R restriction, but within 24hrs Radiopathy has violated that restriction. See here and here. Radiopathy may also be WP:WIKIHOUNDING: he made an revert to an seemingly innocuous of mine at Media Matters for America edit, and reverted another edit of mine at Alcoholics Anonymous[82]. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 17:06, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One change, one revert. Not a violation of the restriction. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:04, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how you can argue that, given that both edits make the same change; they both revert the same edit. Just because they change something else while reverting doesn't make it any less of a revert.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 22:06, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with HJ. Radiopathy (RP) has made a revert under the guise of a change after an accepted compromise was in place, added up to a 1RR violation. But I believe I could be more thorough in making the case, and will attempt to rectify this. RP made the initial change Nov 11, with the edit summary stating "the band has>the band have." After a couple of reverts, discussion ensued on the talk page next day. The issue was still whether to say "the band has" or "the band have", as RP said in the edit summary noted above. While the discussion was underway and consensus not yet achieved, I made a change that made the "have" vs "has" argument moot by using wording that used neither. After this change 13 RP made the first revert, saying "per discussion" reinstating the contentious phrase "the band have" (for which there existed and still exists no consensus upon). RP's second revert came within 24rs the edit summary of which mistakenly called my change undiscussed", though another editor had by then approved the change whole heartedly Another editor has since restored my change.

Resolved

 – Blocked for now. -- Ed (Edgar181) 19:59, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

68.231.63.115 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Could someone look at the edits being made to the Nickelodeon Kids' Choice Awards article by user talk:68.231.63.115 I can't tell if the person editing it is trying fix it or vandalize it. All I can say is he keeps making misspellings and his talk page leads me to think he is vandalizing, but I don't what to revert because I am not sure. Thanks! --CRJ200flyer (talk) 18:48, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's someone fooling around with the 2011 section. If it continues, please take it to WP:AIV and they'll bring the hammer down. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:52, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He has continued, and I'll do it myself unless someone has beaten me to it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:57, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I posted him to AIV, but they're taking their time about it, so we'll just have to keep reverting until someone wakes up there. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:18, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• The final Plastic Beach edit is not obviously vandalism. It superficially agreed with Doncamatic. Uncle G (talk) 19:24, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The user absolutely refuses to respond to or heed the many challenges on his page, and given his other weird entries, anything he posts is naturally assumed to be vandalism, or at least "messing around" with various articles. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:37, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've blocked the IP for the disruptive edits. If the user wishes to communicate, explain themselves, and request unblock I'll defer to other admins to respond as necessary. -- Ed (Edgar181) 19:59, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please block Garyseven (talk · contribs) who has personally attacked me here and here by vandalizing my user and user talk page. Since 2007, he has been part of a sockfarm chronicled here. --William S. Saturn (talk) 23:27, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]