Resolved

 – Civility addressed, NPA addressed, removal endorsed and copyvio reported at Wikipedia:Copyright_problems/2009_October_22. Toddst1 (talk) 12:41, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

 – Per SPI report, IP has been range-blocked. --Elonka 15:21, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I posted this at the Jimbo Wales talk page, but A: He may not be around. B: It may not be the appropriate Venue.

I have been ordered to create an account:

As judging by the discussion at WT:SOCK, the unanimous consensus is that you should create an account and only edit while logged in. This is your last chance to comply voluntarily. If you choose not to comply, technical means will be instituted to prevent you from editing anonymously. Please do not make that necessary. Just login, create an account, and then only edit while logged in. Thanks, --Elonka 20:55, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Is this appropriate? I looked at posting at ArbCom on this issue but it is locked. I seem to be in the crosshairs[2] at the moment as User:Elonka and I are currently in disagreement[3] over an interpretation of a WP:RSN discussion[4] which itself was started, by me, but at the request of User:Elonka. I'm also not comfortable with Elonka baiting with leading questions editors engaged in a content dispute with me. [5] which interestingly may have produced this response[6] to my edit here:[7]. Further my participation on the page at the heart of this issue began recently when it was at this stage:[8] as a stub without references. This was my work:[9]. I don't believe that my edits are disruptive, I believe my contributions to be civil, well referenced and supported with clear, concise reasoning.

As an IP I have received some very quick blocks, the most recent was for a week because I made a revert after 6 days. (I reverted an Editor on patrol making multiple edits a minute[10] - and who never returned to the article, or any other page) Apparently Elonka thought I shouldn't make two within 7 days. This was immediately reversed[11] under pressure from the community, but is being used to label me as a troublemaker. As is this edit discussed here[12] for which I was also blocked and which was quickly lifted. No attempts to evade have ever been made, nor have I ever shown anything but the utmost regard for community rules and respect for sanction. That I've been blocked is without question, but I have done my time so to speak and moved away from the source of the tension. That blocks come quickly and easily to IP's puts me at a disadvantage on paper, the black marks are there. A previous discussion on the Wales page regarding IP editing can be found in this edit history[13] (not sure how to link to the archive of the section). I realize it's a narrow question, my thoughts regarding IP can be found in the section noted and also here[14]. I also realize that the debate over IP's is quite significant, many make no attempt to hide their contempt for non-reg users - and discrimination is simply a reality. But as anyone can see by my contributions they are the serious and well supported work of a dedicated Wikiauthor. And although I make a reasonable attempt at discussion I have always left articles if too contentious. None of my work shows any signs of being poor research, bias, SPA or deception through the artificial illusion of multiple personality's (Sock). I had the temerity to believe myself equal to my fellow editors and attempt to participate on administrative forums such as RSN and the like. It would appear that this has caused a great deal of strife as my mere presence as an IP is quickly referred to as all manner of bad things. Thank you for your time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.135.174.186 (talk) 16:52, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"None of your work" shows such signs? Seems that the way that Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Troubles is going, that statement seems a bit doubtful. Tarc (talk) 17:18, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

99.1x has been using dozens of accounts, has accumulated countless warnings, and been blocked several times. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Troubles. 99.1x, sorry, but we're onto you now. The disruption must stop. The only debate now is whether to completely block or ban you from Wikipedia, or give you a chance to start over fresh on a logged-in account. --Elonka 17:23, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)X2: From reading the entire section, WT:SOCK#Dealing with a disruptive user on changing IPs, things are apparently not as innocent as you'd have us believe. There are personal attack blocks, edit warring blocks, etc., etc. Since we can't tell when the IP is you and when it is someone else, we have to assume it is you. Low-key editors doing low-key activities in low-key areas over a range of IPs won't even be seen, let alone cause consternation. You apparently are not doing low-key activites, nor are you doing them in low-key areas. You need to register an account. Otherwise, you appear to be changing identities to obscure your record here. That is the part of WP:SOCK that you are violating. Wknight94 ^talk 17:24, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a discussion over Polanski[15]. I was accused specifically , as you can see by the blocking admin, of adding "fugitive" , and "convicted" and changing an S to lowercase s. As I said, it's pretty easy to get blocked. But I have respected the sanction and removed myself from the source of controversy. The discussion linked to is ample evidence of Ip editing issues, and my moving away is a positive that is being re factored into a negative. One can only imagine the accusation if I had not moved away but become entrenched in the article. -99.135.174.186 (talk) 17:32, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Even now, you're sugarcoating. The nature of that discussion began as you said, but then moved on to contentious changes at other articles - inserting text saying that Anjelica Huston was present when Polanski raped a girl, almost as though she were involved somehow. I'll repeat what I said: low-key dynamic IPs in low-key areas are fine - neither apply. You're editing subjects apparently include pedophilia and The Troubles - what's next, war in Iraq, 9/11 conspiracies, and Holocaust denial? It's as though you are looking down the list of closed WP:RFAR cases and editing only those areas! If you're going to do that, people need to see who they are fighting, so you need a stable user name. Wknight94 ^talk 17:56, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My edit at Anjelica Huston is still the stable version. I alone added each and every word of this and the supporting ref's:

...and included an incident in which she became a witness for the prosecution at Roman Polanski's 1977 trial regarding the rape of a 13 year old girl in Nicholson's home.http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/09/27/zurich.roman.polanski.arrested/ Her testimony, in which she arrived unexpectedly at the residence she had just recently shared with Nicholson, was used to place Polanski definitively in the bedroom with the victim.http://books.google.com/books?lr=&id=ZkjtLnkozWQC&dq=roman+polanski+anjelica+huston+rape&q=+anjelica+huston+who+place#search_anchor

And although I was criticized mercilessly for "disrupting" Huston, that - and my Talk page comments, are the entirety of my edits there. Feel free to revert them if you feel they are still disruptive and inappropriate. I honestly believe them to be GF additions to the Encyclopedia. -99.135.174.186 (talk) 18:07, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your original content was worthy of criticism. Your cleaned-up version was after being reverted and discussion - and even an RFC - on the talk page. Regardless, you're missing my original point - you're in contentious areas so you need an account. Wknight94 ^talk 18:24, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I did not add the incident, this was my first edit there[16]. I improved, wikified and ref'd the mention. My editing there lasted about 60 hours, a handful of edits and one sentence.99.135.174.186 (talk) 18:39, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see I'm also being accused of disruptive at Black and Tans. Here is the section as I found it:[17]. Here are my changes:[18]. Still the version. Added to this piece of supposedly disruptive editing in which I arrived at a dormant [19] stub without references and brought to this stage:[20]. Which again is still there and has been added to by others now.99.135.174.186 (talk) 18:34, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Get an account, get an account, get an account. Wknight94 ^talk 18:41, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Folks, you're wasting your time, trying to persaude the editor to 'create an account' & 'sign in'. If he/she wants to be blocked or banned, that's his/her choice. GoodDay (talk) 18:51, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is no precident to block an ip simply because the person using it will not log in. If there is vandalism, then block, but no one should "rewrite" policy to require a person using wikipedia to log-in or be banned.--Jojhutton (talk) 18:55, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, we as administrators lack the authority to compel someone to edit while logged in. Indeed, as was pointed out elsewhere, Special:CompelUser seems to be broken. We can treat this IP user (and the IPs connected to him/her) as one user, per policy, and block them from editing through technical means. If they choose to then acquire an account and begin editing while logged in, that is their decision. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 18:59, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not requiring, just strongly suggesting. S/he is going to be viewed with far less suspicion if s/he were at a constant identity. The more s/he protests with pointers to contentious areas, the clearer it is that s/he needs a constant identity. It would work out better for everyone. Wknight94 ^talk 19:02, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the wording of your "suggestion", it sure did sound like you were giving the person a choice of creating an account or being banned from editing. Perhaps a nice WP:Trout would be in order. We don't like it when the police tell us not to do something thats not against the law, nor do some of us like it when admins decide to rewrite policy to ban people.--Jojhutton (talk) 19:51, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not "a protest with pointers to"... - and I didn't mean to leave the impression that they were being introduced without cause. I'm rebutting the charges that Elonka has directed at me and that are referred to above.99.135.174.186 (talk) 19:08, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note:(As a nod to the genuine sensitivities of the community at large, should I regain my privilege to edit I shall refrain from any discussions here or at other administrative forums for 3 months. If this requires some sort of formal direction and attachment to a neutral admin for probation oversight and ip id - that's fine.) 99.135.174.186 (talk) 19:24, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody's explained it to me yet, as to why it's so difficult to 'create an account' and 'sign in'. What's the point of refusing to do so? is it out of spite? GoodDay (talk) 19:27, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

allowing people to edit without requiring them to register an account is a founding principle. So, really, you need to re-word the question to "Why is it a problem that someone decides to edit without an account?" - it isn't; problem editors still get blocked, pages still get locked, etc. NotAnIP83:149:66:11 (talk) 19:58, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why does the IPs 99 prefer to go through all this hassle? It's so easy to 'create an account' & 'sign in'. GoodDay (talk) 20:01, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My earlier concerns were indirectly linked here [[21]], you'll see that I felt that IP editing had become quite difficult around two years ago, things had just changed. In a related discussion more recently[22] I said. "It may not honestly be possible much/any longer to contribute effectively without an account. Neither right nor wrong - just reality.". I accept that it's now time to part company with the project, "anyone can edit". Good luck on achieving your goals, whatever they may be. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.135.174.186 (talk) 20:14, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The editor-in-question, was given the option of creating an account & signing in, nobody prevented the person from being able to. Regrettably, the person chose not to. GoodDay (talk) 20:42, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@NotAnIP83: To answer your question, the problem isn't that someone is editing anonymously. The problem is when someone is IP-hopping to continually reset their warning and block history. This is a violation of WP:SOCK, which states that alternate accounts "must not be used to avoid scrutiny". If an anon is making non-controversial edits in non-controversial areas, there is no problem with editing anonymously. But as soon as they're editing in such a manner that they're accumulating warnings and blocks, while using a dynamic IP to then mask the fact that they have those past warnings and blocks, that's where they're violating policy. --Elonka 20:46, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't ask a question. There's some beans around the effects of IP hopping editors, whether they're logged in or not. Someone deliberately hopping IPs to avoid block-logs will continue to do so, they'll just use different accounts when the do. You mention "non-controversial edits in non-controversial areas" - what about "non controversial edits to controversial areas"? NotAnIP83:149:66:11 (talk) 11:08, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeeed, the anon would've helped him/herself, had it stopped hopping from IP to IP. GoodDay (talk) 20:52, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Let's remind ourselves of WP:IAR: we're here to build an encyclopedia, not to protect the rights of people to edit using IPs rather than with a free, equally or more anonymous, alias. This crops up often enough that I'm inclined to say it should be written down somewhere (if it isn't already). There are good reasons to give users the right to edit via IPs, but editing from a dynamic IP can cause particular problems, and a user consistently refusing to solve those problems by getting an account is being disruptive and should be treated as such. Rd232 ^talk 22:35, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No one is telling you not to block IP editors when they're being disruptive. Editing from a dynamic IP without an account is not disruptive. I have no idea how you come to that conclusion. NotAnIP83:149:66:11 (talk) 11:08, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

From long experience editing from IP addresses, those of us who edit without using accounts get a little more scrutiny on each edit, which is appropriate and is generally good enough to handle most issues. And as Rd232 says, users exposing their IP addresses are less anonymous than users with made-up account names. It is also harder (though not impossible) to manufacture IP addresses in large quantities than usernames. In general Elonka is right to have decreased AGF towards the activity of IP addresses (or named accounts) in battleground topic areas, and as she is an experienced admin her judgement towards that particular IP should be taken seriously.

Regarding GoodDay's query about not signing in, all I can suggest is trying editing from IP's for a while. If your edits are mostly of good quality, nobody will bother you much about not using an account, and you'll probably find that there are things to like and dislike about it. For some of us, the "like" outweighs the "dislike". If on the other hand your edits are persistently of poor quality, you should find something else to do instead, whether or not you use an account. 69.228.171.150 (talk) 23:38, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, many people can tell you that editing from an IP will get you accusations of socking, trolling, bad faith, etc, even if you're making good edits. Suggesting an IP is bad faith *just because* they're making edits to battleground topics without being logged in is not a good thing. Obviously, as soon as any of their edits are bad faith (even borderline BF) all bets are off.

It sounds like you're doing it out of spite or to make a point, to be honest. I have never seen one good reason given for why unregistered editing could be considered a positive thing. If you think it gives you more anonymity than a registered account, it doesn't. Tarc (talk) 04:34, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It really doesn't matter whether you think it's a good thing or not - it's a founding principle. Supposedly that means it's not up for discussion, but meh. NotAnIP83:149:66:11 (talk) 11:08, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The idea behind allowing unregistered editing is that it allows users to make their first edits to Wikipedia with minimal effort; a person doesn't have to do anything besides click "edit this page" to fix an error, and that is a Good Thing for most people, since such drive-by edits are how most editors start off. The idea is that, for your first few edits you edit anonymously, and once you get "hooked" you create an account, and then spend the rest of your life commenting at ArbCom cases and voting at RFA... erm, I mean improving the encyclopedia. Anyhoo, the idea is that most people won't jump through the hoop of creating an account just to fix a spelling error; however the ability to fix that spelling error is the bait that gets most people to create an account in the first place. The downside is that people can continue to edit forever anonymously, either to game the system and avoid scrutiny or to Make a point about something or other. The deal in this case is we should probably take the good with the bad; there would be a drop off in good registered accounts if we disallowed anonymous editing, not an increase, since its the ability to edit anonymously that gets a person interested in the first place. --Jayron32 05:48, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I said "There are good reasons to give users the right to edit via IPs, but [long-term] editing from a dynamic IP can cause particular problems, and a user consistently refusing to solve those problems by getting an account is being disruptive and should be treated as such." Thanks for spelling out the good reasons, but that's not really relevant to my point. To clarify, my point is that we should have a policy that explicitly says something like "when a particular user's [long-term] use of a dynamic IP causes problems in communication or behaviour monitoring, that user may be required to get an account and edit logged-in." Rd232 ^talk 09:15, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yup. Totally agree with Jayron. --John (talk) 05:58, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All I can say is that Jayron and Tarc are both wrong. 69.228.171.150 (talk) 08:23, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well you could explain your thinking, instead of making cryptic remarks. Rd232 ^talk 09:15, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not trying to be cryptic. m:exopedianism discusses some of the motivation, though hanging out at ANI like I'm doing right now wouldn't fall under that category, unfortunately. 69.228.171.150 (talk) 17:49, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well if you'd mentioned that, I wouldn't have complained about making cryptic remarks. However I don't buy exopedianism as a good reason not to get an account if you're making long-term contributions from a dynamic IP. It just makes communication and monitoring easier, which aid the purpose of creating an encyclopedia. You don't have to create a userpage or do anything else you consider non-relevant. Rd232 ^talk 18:38, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The only reason monitoring is important is if someone is making bad faith edits. It is trivial (easier) for a person to sock with logged in accounts than with IP hopping. I'm gently worried that the desire to force people to log in is yet another example of the pettifogging overarching bureaucracy that engulfs WP. NotAnIP83:149:66:11 (talk) 11:08, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The only reason I've heard anyone give for editting Wikipedia without an accounts was from Ward Cunningham, who once told me it is "because I can". However, he makes few edits, to the best of my knowledge none are controversial, & he has since created an account for himself here. The point here is, however, that we have an instance where you need to create an account so that other editors can have (to use the phrase as a metaphor here) a face-to-face talk with you -- which is essential in controversial subjects. Your refusal to create an account gives one the impression that you have little interest in discussing your edits -- beyond an exchange of anonymous notes. -- llywrch (talk) 19:02, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Communication on troublesome articles can (should?) take place on that articles' talk page. It's then easier for editors to hold a conversation with someone who's IP is changing. An editor that doesn't discuss anything anywhere is disruptive, and thus blockable. An editor who doesn't return to the pages they've edited isn't disrupting those pages (their changes either stick, or they get reverted, but if there's no revert war what's the problem?). NotAnIP83:149:66:11 (talk) 11:08, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good points. Wikipedia is a community that works because of collaboration and transparency. When a user sets themselves outside the community and lays impediments in the way of collaboration, as well as refuses to edit transparently, they are being disruptive and don't deserve to be here. Editing is not a right, so get an account or find some other hobby. If you don't do it now, I move that you be blocked, and that all articles where you edit have semi-protection as their default status. In fact, all controversial articles at Wikipedia would benefit from such permanent/default semi-protection. -- Brangifer (talk) 01:43, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The key to editing controversial topics is exactly the same for named and IP editors: write from the neutral point of view, and source every disputable assertion carefully. If everyone did that, there would be no purpose to having user accounts. And feel free to identify any edits of mine that you think are improper, and to request default semi-protection for articles like Fundamental theorem of algebra, Decision problem, Prime number theorem, and San Francisco – Oakland Bay Bridge, all of which I've edited in the past day or so. I think such a request would be more POINTy than anything I've ever done. I therefore don't feel like discussing this any further. 69.228.171.150 (talk) 02:22, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(End indent): Actually I'm an admin who performs roughly 90% of his mainspace edits from an anonymous IP, and I have done so quietly for the last seven years. I obviously don't think there should be any attempt to deny IP's access to editor rights.

My reasons for editing anonymously are because I personally believe that "edit count scoring" is wrong and harmful and that edits should be judged by the content and not by the author. But rather than make any noisy protest over it, I choose to just edit away quietly and prove my point with actions rather than noise. (And apart from an impressive collection of "Welcome notices" and some trivial reversions by a handful of slightly over-zealous hugglers, I've never had a problem in all my years of anon postings.)

The issue here is someone (allegedly) attempting to use anonymity for bad faith purposes. That is a VERY different state of affairs. Manning (talk) 02:21, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. If Elonka is correct she should (gather and present evidence and then) just block. No one cares if someone is blocked for poor behaviour. NotAnIP83:149:66:11 (talk) 11:08, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also editing as an IP and getting demands that I register. I'm not doing because I was once burned by violent, extreme nationalists as I think can be seen operating here. As long as the community seems unable to control such people I'll not go back that way and I've since discovered the problem is severe in other nationalist topics. 86.158.184.158 (talk) 10:30, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then edit in a truly anonymous manner, by registering. Your IP is telling where you live! -- Brangifer (talk) 14:47, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. A reverse lookup on your IP number (a free service you can find through a Google search) shows you are posting from London, UK. While there are a lot of people in that city, someone with sufficient time on her/his hands could narrow this area even further, perhaps as closely as the street you live in. -- llywrch (talk) 16:39, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The only "anonymity" afforded by editing from IPs is the hiding and scattering of edit histories, and THAT is forbidden here. The basic rule is ONE person/ONE account/ONE edit history, and since every IP is counted as an account with its own edit history, it is not allowed for one individual to edit in that manner. Register an account and use it, then it makes no difference where you happen to be when you edit, or how many hundreds of IPs you happen to be using. It's all collected in one edit history, so there's no problem. -- Brangifer (talk) 02:27, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I told myself I'd stop posting here, but Brangifer is quite confused: editing from IP's is not forbidden and has never been forbidden, and it has never been limited to newbies. See m:founding principles item 2. While there have been some proposals to change the practice, they have not gotten anywhere. Brangifer, please stop posting incorrect information. If you want to post your opinion that things shouldn't be as they are, that's fine, but label it as such. (Better do something about all those enrolled users running multiple accounts, too.)

To 86.158.184.158: Brangifer and Llwrch are correct when they say using a pseudonym makes it harder (though not impossible) to track you down than if you disclose your IP address. 69.228.171.150 (talk) 08:18, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

??? I never said it was forbidden, and I'm well aware that multiple accounts are allowed when it's done properly and openly. It's the hopping and disruptive use of multiple IPs/accounts that's the problem. That's why I wrote the "basic rule" is... That principle still stands, even though there are exceptions that are allowed. -- Brangifer (talk) 22:24, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suppose you opened an ccount and did most of your editing from it, but some anonymously. Even if checks confirmed it was you, how could they tell a computer glitch hadn't logged you off without your noticing? This happens quite often. It's happened to me a number of times. In other words, an order to edit logged on might be very difficult to enforce. Question: is it a good idea to have unenforceable rules & orders (e.g. NPOV &c.)? Peter jackson (talk) 16:19, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You misread policy. Nothing forbids editors from having multiple accounts - indeed, there are some very valid reasons to do so. Nothing forbids an editor from editing from an IP address. It does become disruptive when being used to circumvent policy (ie if your account was blocked, and you went on editing as an IP), vote multiple times in AfD's etc, play good hand/bad hand, and other similar issues. Using an account and IP address disruptively is enforceable quite readily. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:16, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What I said was that it could be difficult to tell whether anonymous contributions had been made deliberately or accidentally. Peter jackson (talk) 17:24, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's usually solved by going back and signing your accidental IP edit. If one has malicious cyberstalkers who make your real life miserable, you might not choose to do so because you'd be outing yourself, but if you have your PC settings right, it should be a rare occurrence. I've had it happen when visiting friends and using their PCs, and forgetting I wasn't logged in. -- Brangifer (talk) 22:24, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

IMHO, anon-editors who don't hop from IP account to IP account, should encourage those who do hop, to stop. It's the hoppers who are causing problems. GoodDay (talk) 17:31, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

At the substantial risk of yet another false accusation, I'll respond to that invitation, GD. The previous WP:ANI report about this problem editor and this article revolved around accusations of sockpuppetry and assumptions of bad faith, which only intensified when LotLE was reported here. In the flurry of accusations against well-intentioned IP editors, LotLE got away with his misconduct. All users need to stop assuming that every IP editor is a sock, or editing in bad faith. Many of us have been here several years and have racked up thousands of edits. We have no control over the frequency with which our IP addresses are changed by our service providers; but usually that happens about once a year. Wikipedia was founded on the principle of individual freedom. We are free to edit under an IP address, or choose to create an account. That personal freedom is fundamental.

When an editor edits from a dynamic IP address, however, it creates opportunities for mischief. In my opinion, that pushes the situation over the line. The community requires some form of accountability for past editing history. If you can walk away from that history every 24 hours, you aren't submitting to that accountability. I suggest a voluntary change in service providers to a more static IP address, if the user insists on continuing to edit as an IP address. Then there will be an editing history (and other histories) for review, which should satisfy everyone. I hope that helps, and best regards all around. 71.57.8.103 (talk) 12:26, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am rasing the concern that User mcjakeqcool's block was unfair and disproportionate, and it should be investigated by Wikipedia Administrators noticeboard/Incidents. In my opinion the biggest flaw was not letting User mcjakeqcool have his/her say at Wikipedia Administrators noticeboard/Incidents, I have other concerns but I am not certain they are appropriate for Wikipedia Administrators noticeboard/Incidents. Also may I state that I have taken on board the unsolicited comments User Guyinblack25 has made on User mcjakeqcool's talk page, and I have taken on board what he/she has said or typed to be more acuate and I will work from NOW on with User Guyinblack25 and other users & may I state I have already worked with him. As I said above, the block was unfair & disproportionate, User mcjakeqcool should have had his/her say & finally I am working with user User Guyinblack25 other users, aswell as already doing so. mcjakeqcool Mcjakeqcool (talk) 17:37, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are you seriously referring to yourself in the third person? Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 17:42, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The block has expired. Learn from it and move on. Under Preferences > Editing there is a box marked "mark all edits minor by default". Make sure it is unchecked, that way you will have to fill in the check box to mark an edit as minor. If you forget to do that when making a minor edit no harm will be done. Mjroots (talk) 17:47, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And yet, every edit, including this complaint is still being marked as minor. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 18:06, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jauerback - yes, he pretty much always refers to himself in the third person. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:11, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

McJ - as far as I can see you've never 'worked with' GuyinBlack, or me, or Tim Song, or anyone else who has offered to help you. Could you define what you mean by 'work with'?--Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:14, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

IIRC there was substantial support for indef at the last thread, but I was of the view that Tan's one-week block might have some effect so as to avoid the need for indef. I think it is now apparent that he has no intention to follow WP norms, even after Guyinblack's detailed explanation on his talk page, and after Tan's warning that continuing his behavior may result in an indef block. As such, per Tan et al. and my comments on his talk page here, I'd support an indef block. Four ANI threads later, his presence is still not a net positive. Tim Song (talk) 20:04, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, Mcj, it was the folks at WP:AN/I who imposed this ban on you. Any reasonable person would assume that any investigation by WP:AN/I will simply confirm that decision -- especially with the lack of evidence you have supplied to show that this decision was "unfair and disproportionate". (see this archived thread for further details.) -- llywrch (talk) 20:11, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I said on his talk page, McJackqcool has obviously learned nothing and refuses to edit according to how the community wishes, as such he's left us little choice. I support an indef.--Crossmr (talk) 21:36, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would have to agree with those above who find Mcjakeqcool's actions bothersome. They have received multiple warnings and comments on his talk page to not mark non-minor edits as such and even received a one week block of editing privileges for it. What is the first thing Mcjakeqcool does when the block is lifted? Create a new section here at ANI and marks it minor. This is the fourth ANI discussion about this editor (admittedly, they opened it on themselves this time.) Mcjakeqcool does not get it, does not listen, does not cooperate. This has gone on too long. I'd support an indef block of editing privileges. --TreyGeek (talk) 12:09, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The only reason I haven't opened a thread to discuss a community ban about this user is that maybe he is actually working with Guyinblack. (It's what Mcj claims on his talk page.) So the moment Guyinblack reports here that mentoring Mcjakeqcool failed -- or he has not even heard from this alleged Brit rapper -- we should take that step. -- llywrch (talk) 16:48, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've asked Guyinblack if he cares to comment. Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:27, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I must admit, I'm a bit confused by Mcjakeqcool's comments. My communication with them has been very minimal. Though I've posted comments to their talk page, I have only gotten two responses back: first to "deny" adoption, and second to enlist my help. However, Mcjakeqcool have never come to me after that for help on articles or discussions.

So I can't say that we've ever worked together. Not like how I regularly do with WP:VG members. I would welcome a collaboration with Mcjakeqcool, but no such discussion has occurred on or off the Wiki to lead to that.

The only conclusions that come to mind are:

1. This user is not a fluent English speaker and has a limited and different understanding of many English words used here.
2. This user is just trying see what havoc they can cause and attention they can get.

I hope it's the first one. Either way, not being able to communicate with someone because they are unable to or unwilling to gives us few options. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 19:51, 30 October 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Agreed. But I'd rather exhaust all reasonable options before we resort to a community ban. The grounds for one would be, to put it bluntly, he's too stupid to edit Wikipedia. We should use that rationale as rarely as possible due to endless opportunities for misuse. -- llywrch (talk) 21:36, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't use the term "stupid" but WP:COMPETENCE is sometimes cited with certain editors. A person who is absolutely brilliant but can't type well enough to be understood, or a person whose poor grasp of the English language precludes any positive contributions to the project are examples of people who aren't stupid at all but are still incapable of properly editing the encyclopedia. It's seems cruel but just because anyone can edit the encyclopedia, that doesn't mean everyone should. -- Atama頭 23:20, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We've exhausted all reasonable options at this point. He's been blocked twice, he's had several editors reach out to him, his behaviour is evident elsewhere on the internet as I pointed out before and goes well beyond wikipedia. Wikipedia isn't reform school. The only willingness he's shown to "work" with the community is when facing an indefinite ban and so far that has proven rather fruitless. I cannot see any compelling reason to keep beating our head against the wall here.--Crossmr (talk) 00:30, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) According to off-wiki sources, McJ is born and raised in the UK. Now we do have a few communities where children are raised in a native language and start school without a full grasp of English, but McJ doesn't appear to belong to one of these communities. This is what McJ says himself about his grasp of english: I can speak in english, however I can only speak politically correct jargon, think of a MP and the houses of parlament, medical communication, police delacet etc. And also I do have poor english skills, and I am not reluctant to admit my english teacher gave me a F- in english. Also this is wikipeida, so we are MEANT to speak in jargon! This was in response to Chocobogamer and myself both asking him what this meant: I have seen proof that it exists with my own eyes, however I still it's existence and it is therefore orignal research In reply, he copied the text, and reposted it below our queries, as if we hadn't heard him. If you try saying his comments, and imagine a dub beat of some kind behind them, you can almost hear him speaking, so I think it's fair to say that his problems aren't just because he is being asked to use written English -he may be hard to follow when he is talking as well.

For me, he is more a nuisance than disruptive. Even the thing about the minor edits is just a nuisance - he never actually says anything on talk pages that make much sense. As I said before, he made a mistake a year ago about minor edits [23] and promised at that point to do it properly [24], but for some reason when he made the error more recently, he decided that he was right and Wikipedia was wrong. Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:15, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Which is the rub. There have been a few people who make good faith edits, yet just not capable of contributing to Wikipedia. We shouldn't ban them unless we are sure we are doing the right thing. -- llywrch (talk) 05:46, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But once again, wikipedia is not reform school. If he is incapable of editing and yet persists, then there is little choice. He shouldn't be banned, he should be blocked. If at some future point he can demonstrate that he can write an article or contribute positively, then he can be unblocked. Beyond his nonsensical talk comments, he has had issues with article creation and other main space problems. So long as that is an issue and he fails to recognize what is wrong, we can't force him to edit properly. I don't think anyone expects Elen to go to his house and stand behind him and watch him edit and barring that, I can't see how we're going to make a change here.--Crossmr (talk) 06:40, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I think I'll pass on that. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:24, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

I've read the discussion above and the recent contributions of Mcjakeqcool (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), and agree that the lack of quality in his contributions, which mostly create cleanup work for others or are meaningless talk page comments, is a serious concern. I'm blocking the user indefinitely until he can prove to an administrator's satisfaction that he is competent enough to contribute productively to Wikipedia.  Sandstein  07:29, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He has requested an unblock[25], but added the request to that interminable blog of his at the top of the page, instead of using the unblock template - which he previously used correctly (ie he managed to add it to it to the page with the words he wanted to say in the proper place) but unsuccessfully (because he never gave a reason why he should be unblocked). --Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:39, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Which is, of course, part of the problem. I've never liked WP:COMPETENCE for a number of reasons, but Mcjakeqcool is practically a walking advertisement for it. NYScholar (talk · contribs) was indef blocked for being systematically incapable of following the norms of interaction here IIRC and he was a far more productive contributor. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:52, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good block. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 13:54, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To the best of my knowledge, Sandstein has not been involved in this matter previously, & his block is the judgment of a disinterested party. In other words, a decision has been made & the matter resolved. If Mcjakeqcool wants to be an accepted member of Wikipedia, he's got some larnin' to do. -- llywrch (talk) 20:27, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am of the opinion that User mcjakeqcool, should be unblocked, ONLY if he can follow wikipeida guidelines. 86.21.66.162 (talk) 12:52, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He has posted another unblock request [26] It is addressed to me, and in that wretched blog. This is what it says

I have decided that if I am to be unblocked, to some exstent I have to change my tactics, I will seldem argue against wikipedia and when I do it will be in a professional manner, I am going to create a restraint order, which will NEVER allow me to mark any wikipedia edit as minor, article space or talk page and I will take a english course of some kind, however I can not promise good english as my english is very poor, I can speak english fluently but my gramma is not far off abysmal. mcjakeqcool Mcjakeqcool (talk) 17:24, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Would an admin like to look at it? Should I post it into an unblock template for him (I have a feeling that will bugger the template up and the admins will think it is me making the request). Should I take up Crossmr's suggestion and stand over him until he gets it right? I feel involved because it's addressed directly to me. Advice would be appreciated. Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:23, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He's been told what he needs to do. He's not a child. If he cannot (or will not) follow simple directions, nobody else should help him and we should just leave him be. He's not the first and won't be the last editor who demands that we change the entire encyclopedia for their ego, so I say ignore him and move on. He's not worth the energy and in my mind, further help just tells him he doesn't have to follow any rules to get what he wants because someone will always be there to follow him around. Besides, he's acting like it's some sort of negotiation where if he promises to do one thing, we'll get the benefit of his help here, not that he'll do what's needed to continue the privilege of editing here. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:25, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, while he's amazingly not marked those two edits as minor, he has continued his ability to create more work for other editors as it necessitated elen posting here, or creating the unblock request for him. Unless he can demonstrate, completely on his own that he is a competent editor, I can't see the point of spending any further time here.--Crossmr (talk) 01:22, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I feel because User mcjakeqcool has changed his tactics in a postaive way, he should be unblocked. 217.204.11.196 (talk) 16:22, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jake. HalfShadow (talk) 16:24, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WHAT?! 217.204.11.196 (talk) 16:25, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A geolocate lookup assigns the IP address 217.204.11.196 to the National Autistic Society in London, England. If this actually Mcjakeqcool, that would explain a lot. Doesn't excuse his behavior, though. -- llywrch (talk) 17:00, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Various articles in Category:Technocracy movement have gone to AfD recently. Pro-technocracy editor User:Skipsievert has attacked many of those who have initiated the AfDs or have spoken against the articles; these editors include myself, User:Lawrencekhoo, User:John Quiggin, and User:Beagel. I am concerned that Beagel in particular has today been drawn into this, see [27] and [28], as he is a very hard-working editor who is always civil and considerate to others. I am also concerned that the situation is escalating and that SS is discouraging editors from airing their views at the AfDs, and that a distorted outcome may result. The AfDs in question are:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Technate (2nd nomination)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Urbanate (2nd nomination)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Energy Survey of North America
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Technocracy Study Course (2nd nomination) -- Johnfos (talk) 22:55, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There was an aborted mediation attempt between many of these users. I recommend a conduct RfC. Xavexgoem (talk) 23:16, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've not been involved in any aborted mediation attempt; could you provide details please. Johnfos (talk) 23:44, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

here's the abortive mediation attempt, with some context for why it ended here. I don't really recommend spending much time on it if you weren't involved. CRETOG8(t/c) 23:54, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks. My main concern here is that many editors are being subjected to repeated personal attacks at Technocracy AfDs and so are being warned off registering their views and comments at AfD. Johnfos (talk) 23:59, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I also received attacks from Skipsievert accusing me of tandem editing and have already set up a discussion at WQA.[29] The Four Deuces (talk) 00:19, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Skipsievert causes grief with other groups as well, but Wikipedia seems to have no procedures for countering an editor like this. Some administrators enable him. For example, this admin offers him protection and tutors him on how to play the system, while this admin blocked an attempt to seek community redress. Apparently all is well, and we should just let him get on with it. --Geronimo20 (talk) 01:22, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Inform me on my talk page for future violations of conduct. I'll see what I can do... before this hits arbitration, which seems otherwise likely. I hope this sounds OK. Xavexgoem (talk) 01:33, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Skipsievert's conduct is a frustrating problem for numerous groups. Regarding Geronimo20's problem with User:Protonk, I couldn't follow the dispute in detail, but I'm confident Protonk was acting in a good faith attempt to make the procedures work. JQ (talk) 06:23, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly something needs to be done. There is also this very recent ANI discussion regarding this editor: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive571#Incorrigibly disruptive editor. Rd232 ^talk 08:32, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this has been dragging on, and obviously there are bigger issues about SSs behaviour to be considered here. But what are we to do with the AfDs where SSs intimidation has derailed the process? What about the hard-working editors who are getting innocently caught up in all of this nonsense? Johnfos (talk) 19:43, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But that is the whole point John, that probably nothing will be done. Wikipedia processes seem broken, and without oversight, when it comes to an editor like this. Yet another thread on Skipsievert has been started at Wikiquette alerts, but I doubt anything will come of it. We bluster impotently on various noticeboards while Skipsievert marches happily on, leaving behind an ever enlarging trail of discouraged editors. --Geronimo20 (talk) 22:08, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I mentioned on my talk page, Skip has consistently refused to compromise and listen to other people, and he's spinning out of control into paranoia, wasting a lot of people's time. I'm one of the very few people who was able to work with him in a few times, but even I can't handle it anymore. He's using Wikipedia to preach Technocracy and thermoeconomics, and when people call him out on he says they're all in a conspiracy. Harassing people who disagree with you is disruptive and shouldn't be allowed. II | (t - c) 22:31, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I ran into Skip in Representative money and you can read my complaints in sections 5-8 of Talk:Representative_money, total POV misuse of sources, deleting WP:RS info in favor of WP:OR, etc. I haven't been involved in the AfD issues mentioned above, but have seen the accusatory pattern. Skip is the first editor I ran into who got me so frustrated that he alone made me want to quit editing - and I'm someone who constantly has been drawn into various Israel-Palestine related disputes over the years. At least one knows the opponent's motivation for policy violations in those cases! Wikipedia can't have credibility if this sort of chronic violation of Wikipolicies is allowed to continue. It just drives editors away. CarolMooreDC (talk) 04:24, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In my view, the only workable remedy for Skip's conduct is a ban from editing Wikipedia, for a period long enough to discourage him, and with the prospect of a permanent ban if he does not reform. Is there an admin willing to implement this?JQ (talk) 07:31, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See also Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Encyclopedia_of_Earth_.28eoearth.org.29 where editors who don't agree w/ Skip are lumped into a collection of "mainstream economists" with a COI who can be treated as "one voice". This appears to be the default mode of disagreement for Skip. Anyone against him is a solitary POV pusher until more than one person is against him, then it is a conspiracy. Protonk (talk) 22:53, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There has been another personal attack reported here. But apparently nothing can be done because WP processes are broken? Certainly Wikiquette alerts, ANI, User conduct RfC, and Mediation have so far failed as far as Skipsievert is concerned, although they have provided some opportunity for editors to share their views. Johnfos (talk) 08:20, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is the next step an RFC/U??

Haven't we already tried that? JQ (talk) 11:41, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes, RfC. Isn't that the board especially designed so nothing happens, and people just vent? Perhaps you are right, John, and the admin boards are broken for cases like this. Surely SS is the most intransigent and destructive editor on WP at the moment, wreaking havoc among many content editors across several different topic areas. Please, anyone, correct me if that is not the case. The recent An/I called for a topic ban in one of those areas, with 13 agreeing (mainly the affected content editors) and one opposing admin. Now you would think that was a fairly strong consensus, yet nothing happened. The An/I was left to drift off into oblivion, with no action taken by an admin, and worse, no concluding comment by an admin that could have allowed us miserable content editors to make any sense of it.

Later, I discovered SS had asked an admin for guidance, and was advised thus. Apparently a consensus among affected editors is called a "tag team" by admins, and that is something that "most admins should see through". So now we know, there is a tacit rule, understood by admins, that nothing will happen in a case like this if there is consensus. When I tried to ask another admin for some guidance on how to best proceed, I just got the bums rush.

With the failure of this An/I, the sustainability project has attempted to regroup. There are nine committed editors (plus skip). However, the project seems bogged in a somewhat stunned state. This is the end result of a year of aggravation and attempts at mediation. And still nothing. SS is effectively still in control, with what is, in effect, the blessing of the admin community.

My impression is that there are a relatively small number of admins who patrol a given board, and effectively control what happens on it. Over time , they build tacit agreements among themselves about how and when they will proceed. So they operate background rules, not always made explicit, and which you can be privy to only by following the activity on a given board for some time. Now that is precisely what dedicated content editors do not do, and do not want to do. Their interest is in contributing to WP, and they should not be expected to be privy to every quirk on the various admin boards. But I know for myself, that lately I've stopped adding serious content to WP, and instead scan the often strange stuff that goes on at the various admin boards, trying to understand their failure to protect content editors. I wonder how many other editors have recently become unproductive as a result of our inability to reign in SS, and what the collective cost is to WP.

Is there a graph that shows the content added to WP over time, comparing it with the volume of text added to the various admin boards. Are we nearing the crossover point, when wiki dramatising on admin boards exceeds content contributions? I started out with the idea that the role of administrators was to provide a workable environment for content editors. Now I'm not so sure what they are about. It seems, often, that content editors just get in the way, and at times like the one in this thread, content editors are just left to wither on the vine. Anyway, I charge the admin community with a failure to address situations like this one, and invite them to consider whether a better approach can be found. --Geronimo20 (talk) 14:00, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Skip Sievert is the most disruptive editor I have ever had the mis-fortune to encounter. I've taken a partial wikibreak from editing because he gives me stomach cramps. I've seen him drive other editors away as well, something which his style of passive-aggressive comments and 'warnings' seem designed to do. If any admin is reading, can you advise on how this large group (I would guess more than 20) should proceed with this complaint? LK (talk) 14:39, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like this large group, which I could consider a faction that edits together toward mainstream views, in my opinion is using the thread here as mostly an attack post blog/forum. I see no diffs that back up points given, and I think a large point of what this may be about is related to editors that prefer a certain viewpoint as being weightier in regard to editing practice on Wikipedia. Mostly this chain of events with LK above leading it, started here, when I thought he was being unfair to another editor on the Wiki econo project page here. Then a group of these editors that edit articles in a similar way, in the sense of mainstream presentation having weight started organizing and making a series of personal attacks such as this by Cretog8 that edits with Lawrence Khoo and John Quiggin often on economics articles, both of whom have gone from page to page inciting people such as this which points out related problems. Also Lawrence Khoo was warned to not remove cited information for various reasons on the main economics article which he and Cretog8 and John Quiggin were doing as noted here.

I am a neutral pov editor. And try to stick with r.s. and generally do not bring personalities into things, but the general un-diffed attack stuff above is not really appropriate, and there probably is a larger issue of a faction with a pov... being a desire to consider some things fringe or not mainstream enough and a desire to make some sources more weighty connected with so called mainstream, that may motivate negative comments on another editor, rather than actual conduct. No, I am not a conspiracy person, mostly it seems that conflicts of interest toward a certain viewpoint regardless of reliable sourcing to other viewpoints is at issue, and possibly some people that are uninformed as to some related viable information. Mostly I have tried to explain and defuse aspects of this, but have been met with a lot of negative commentary. More information on this issue here :::here's the abortive mediation attempt, with some context for why it ended here -

So, this may point out larger issues connected with factions editing to a pov... maybe equaling conflicts of interests in some cases, in my opinion, on some article topics, mostly related to energy and economics by people regarding themselves as expert editors that seem to be editing toward weight being determined by in their view mainstream. as expert editors expert editors which seems problematic in regard to issues here now. Both L.K. and J.Q. are known economists and appear also to be on a tangent to edit to a pov in regard to conflicted in regard to other information that is viable and reliably sourced. Also the person that started this thread has a long history of following me around and making negative commentary such as this, which are just the older ones. - Sorry about the length of this. - skip sievert (talk) 15:53, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As requested, here are some diffs:

• [30] Skip posts elsewhere about a possible topic ban for LK, in spite of it being an informal discussion with no support beside Skip.
• [31] Skip again posts that LK "is currently under consideration for being topic banned". Accusations of "tandem editing" and wikihounding.
• [32] Skip responds to editors weighing in on the "topic ban" by implying those editors are part of the problem.
• [33] One of several places Skip refuses to accept consensus on the reliable sources discussion, at the same time accusing several editors of being so compromised that they should be judged a single entity.
• Talk:Economics_and_energy#eoearth.org This discussion at Talk:Economics and energy, where I had gone through several additional hoops to get Skip to recognize the consensus.
• [34], [35] Skip accuses me of wikistalking and tells me to "Go elsewhere".
• [36] Weighing in on a user talk page notification which was on a completely different topic with accusations involving the posting editor and others who were not involved.
• [37] another accusation of wikistalking.

• After I had attempted a rancor-free discussion of the substance of some material causing conflict [38], one editor responded productively, and then Skip responded with an attack [39]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cretog8 (talk • contribs) 16:44, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Good lord I have no specialist knowledge in economics, but focusing on this guy skips behavior it's just... godawful. Topic ban him from economics articles, broadly construed and be done. Until a firm line is taken on stuff like this, tendentious game players have the upper hand over well-meaning editors.Bali ultimate (talk) 17:07, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I am not a tendentious game player. You probably ought to do some research, and not add to disinformation for an editing faction here without knowing some background. Notice the way the editor above has treated me in the past. You want to ignore that Bali ultimate,? and disregard others opinions? Think about the bigger picture here and how a group of people, with an ax to grind can use an attack mode on others here. skip sievert (talk) 17:24, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, everyone's out of step but Johnny. I get it. That people get fed up with this kind of endless BS is natural, and I don't blame them. Hopefully you'll be dealt with appropriately soon.Bali ultimate (talk) 17:28, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• No, but coming here to make an attack is pointless, you maybe should comment about the actual issues here, comment on content, not on contributors. Maybe you should read the related material instead of pontificating. skip sievert (talk) 17:33, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think this speaks louder than my words here as to your approach toward me Cretog8 making an extreme personal attack. It seems to me that an effort to confuse normal editing and, and trying to bring out issues in regard to actual Wikipedia policies and guidelines is happening. - skip sievert (talk) 17:27, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As someone who has attempted to work with Skipsievert on the Sustainability pages without success, it is distressing to see that this pattern of personal attacks not only continues, but intensifies. A block would be in order, IMO. Sunray (talk) 17:11, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sunray and L.K. edit together in a group and Sunray has gone from article to article with an accusation that I am a sock puppet. among other things. This proved false. Sunray edits with Lawrence Khoo here and is part of other efforts in regard to attacking me in general. Mostly this thread is a poor excuse for an attack. This editing team to faction aspect is now piling people here again. The person that started this thread also edits there user Johnphos. - skip sievert (talk) 17:24, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is one of those conflicts that leads people to avoid -- for good reason. It's hard to tell whether the problem is Skip Sievert's behavior itself, or he's behaving this way because he's championing an opinion the folks at this WikiProject disagree with. (I say this as someone who has little exposure to contemporary currents in economic thought, & was surprised at some of the answers in the mediation over what is "mainstream" vs. "heterodox" & "fringe" theories.) The simplest solution here, IMHO, would be for Skip Sievert to concede some ground here in order to show good faith to those who aren't experts on economics. Stay away from economics-related topics, & edit other articles & show us that you are capable of working with other people. (Free clue: people often start resorting to name-calling when they are frustrated & see no way towards working out a compromise or understanding.) The alternative would be for an uninvolved party to perform a thorough study of this conflict & state her/his findings -- as Bali ultimate has. And a second investigation might just confirm B's opinion -- although perhaps with different words. -- llywrch (talk) 18:00, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Moreschi with the help of User:Grandmaster tries to merge the article of Radical Islamism in Azerbaijan while no any consensus (3v3) at the talk [40] and no admin made any decision on merge. Using his admin privileges, Moreschi is supporting one-side actions at the Armenia-Azerbaijan enforcement area which is quite dubious and a neutral view on these actions could be very helpful! Gazifikator (talk) 10:29, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

it does look to me that he is abusing his privileges. maybe his administrator status should be challenged. 212.200.205.163 (talk) 10:36, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gazifikator, if you want this to be able to stand on its own, you need to expand Islam in Azerbaijan to the point where summary style article is warranted if that article is not to become grossly swollen. Please read that guideline and abide by it, otherwise you are just disruptively content forking. Moreschi (talk) 10:42, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

so should we merge Fundamentalist_Christianity and Christianity or are those two separate things? 212.200.205.163 (talk) 10:46, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you could read Wikipedia:Summary style as well, and stop sticking your nose into areas where you patently have no clue just to piss me off. Shoo. Moreschi (talk) 10:47, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

man, are you unpleasant type. i'm going to "stick my nose" where ever i want. piss your self off as much as you want, i don't give a damn. Shoo you. 212.200.205.163 (talk) 10:51, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Moreschi, the policies regarding civility and no personal attacks apply to administrators even more than to other editors. Please observe them in the future.  Sandstein  10:52, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sandstein, since when is "shoo" incivil? As to the rest, it was a factual description of what this IP is doing. He's pissed off because I blocked his friend Ludvikus, posted in this thread, not because he knows anything about the long-running armenia-azeri wars, but just to annoy me. Moreschi (talk) 11:01, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I know what it's like to do admin work in a highly contentious ethno-political subject area. Just keep your cool and try not to sink to the level of discourse preferred by the various ethno-warriors, is my advice.  Sandstein  11:06, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

i really don't need to have a harvard education to be able to make a distinction between radical islam and islam. it is quite obvious to me. no need to look into talk page archives for the "reasoning" behind their merge. (ps. i saw this thread only because it was right above my thread below -- i didn't "chase" you through this page to find you and "piss you off") 212.200.205.163 (talk) 11:07, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

p.s. Ludvikus is NOT my friend, nor do i know him/her. I simply don't like seeing unjustice, and i see it quite a bit here on wikipedia. 212.200.205.163 (talk) 11:10, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Harvard education or no, you have clearly not read Wikipedia:Summary style, or, for that matter Wikipedia:Content forking. If you had, you might understand why it is the correct style to treat "radical islam in X" as apart of "islam in X" until the "radical" section becomes too big and has to be spun off into its own child article. Which it probably will do in most cases, but clearly not here. Moreschi (talk) 11:12, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

you're right, 212.200.205.163! That's what we discussed with other users, while Moreschi preferred to merge the article with no explanation and in the same 'civil' manner he/she has. Admins with such a 'civil' language and no interest to discuss or even explain his views do not add any honor to Wikipedia! Like in our post-soviet semi-democratic countries where the government is less civil than the citizens. That's sad... Gazifikator (talk) 11:16, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are being highly disingenuous. I quick glance at the talk page shows 5 users supporting a merge with 3 opposing, one of whom just said "per Gazifikator". Looks like ample consensus for a merge to me, particularly as all the actual content is retained at (you guessed it) [[Islam in Azerbaijan, without, it seems, overburdening that article. Wikipedia guidelines take precedence over your desire to create your own content fork. Moreschi (talk) 11:22, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

your mention of Wikipedia:Content forking shows that you don't understand the distinction between radical islam and islam. they are not POV's, they are different things. 212.200.205.163 (talk) 11:23, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• To address the original point made by Gazifikator, after looking at the history of Radical Islamism in Azerbaijan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) it does appear that Moreschi has misused his admin tools to win a content dispute. After having revert-warred over the merger of the page to Islam in Azerbaijan previously ([41], [42], [43]), he protected the page in his preferred (merged) version ([44]). That is a very serious matter. I do hope there is a good explanation for this, because otherwise a request for arbitral removal of tools will be unavoidable.  Sandstein  11:20, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, please. Have you bothered to have a look at the history? 5 users support the merge, 3 oppose, all the content is retained at the target article, I do the merge as uninvolved admin. This is how consensus works, no? A couple of SPAS and IPs (presumably socks/meatpuppets of Gazifikator) revert, they are in turn reverted and the redirect semiprotected. Locked out because of the autoconfirm requirement, Gazikikator immediately logs back in to revert himself. The original consensus stands, so he is reverted and the redirect locked. This is in no way violation of tools, just administrative enforcement of legitimate talkpage consensus. The fact that I happen to agree with the merge is irrelevant, as I did not participate in the original talkpage discussion. Moreschi (talk) 11:26, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• (ec) I assume you refer to Talk:Islam in Azerbaijan#Merge. It is not common practice to enforce a merger consensus with page protection, since consensus can change (and 5 to 3 doesn't look like a consensus for merging to me). Should there be edit warring about a contested merger, your duty as an uninvolved admin would be to sanction the edit warriors or protect the m:WRONG version, not revert to your preferred version first. It is also not clear from the history that you acted as an uninvolved administrator in this merger discussion, and contrary to what you say I can't see where you made the merger. Your contributions to Radical Islamism in Azerbaijan are limited to repeatedly reverting the unmergers of others, without discussion, and finally protecting the page in the merged version.  Sandstein  11:37, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please bother to review the history? The merge was made (can't remember who by) Gazifikator reverted, I reverted back. By doing so I was signalling my approval as uninvolved admin that the merge should go ahead. Which it did with no dissent, apart from IPs, SPAs, and Gazifikator, who seems to have reverted to meatpuppetry. Gazifikator does not get to ignore a perfectly valid talkpage consensus (and, frankly, not only did the mergists not only have better numbers but also better arguments by far, and yes, we are supposed to evaluate that) simply by reverting back to his content fork. Edit warring, ignoring consensus, content forking, and apparently meatpuppetry. This is disruption. Moreschi (talk) 11:50, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You may be right that there's disruption going on, Moreschi, but (a) admins have no special authority in content issues, and (b) one can either act as an editor or as an administrator in a content dispute, not both. At no time during your reverts of the unmerger did you indicate that you were acting as an administrator to enforce a consensus (even if "enforcing consensus" was an admin job, which it is not). This means you acted as an ordinary editor, and can't later put on your admin hat to stop an edit war that you were a part of. I'm sorry, but I am very disappointed.  Sandstein  11:58, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? I'm sorry: it is generally accepted practice that admins close contested merge discussions. We have a whole page for it. The only valid criticism to be made here is that, yes, I arguably should have explicitly stated on the talkpage "I am closing this merge discussion". Calling for an arbcom case just because I didn't fill out all the form is just bizarre. Why not just AGF that was I not trying to edit war, and was instead trying to close the merge discussion? Clearly it seems I should have posted on the talkpage, although no one seemed to complain at the time. FFS, I think dealing with disruption is far more important than making sure each microscopic step of process is followed to the letter, in triplicate. This is process wanksterism, and it's highly unconstructive. Moreschi (talk) 12:05, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The page you link to is WP:RM, which is about moves, not mergers. Maybe you meant WP:PM, but that page does not mention the intervention of admins anywhere. I am sorry, but I do not see you acting as an administrator trying to close a merge discussion. Had you wanted to, you would have actually closed it. Rather, you simply reverted to a redirect multiple times without any discussion whatsoever. That would be bad editing practice for any normal editor, let alone an administrator.  Sandstein  12:32, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sandstein, why not AGF? Why are you assuming I am lying? The discussion had been done on the talkpage, and IPs, SPAs, and the article creator were trying to ignore it. Since we can assume the IPs and SPAs to be meatpuppets of the article creator, this is disruption in the form of ignoring consensus. While the vast majority of merge discussions need no admin intervention, it is common practice in nationalist disputes to get an uninvolved admin to help out (my talkpage archives are chockfull of such requests) as the parties realise any attempt to deal with a contested merge themselves will simply lead to a vast bout of revert-warring. Moreschi (talk) 12:42, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd very much like to see it your way, because I appreciate your work in these topic areas, and fully agree with your essay, User:Moreschi/The Plague. But what I see in the article history simply does not match your explanation. All I see are three reverts (1, 2, 3), with no useful edit summary or talk page explanation or anything. That is typical edit-warring behaviour, but more importantly, by repeatedly reverting to your preferred version (whether or not it has consensus behind it), you became an involved editor in the content dispute. That was why it was completely out of order for you to suddenly put on your admin hat after the last revert and protect your preferred version.

I would like to have a committment from you that you will not use admin tools again to enforce what you perceive to be consensus in content issues, and that you will more generally not use admin tools again while involved in a content dispute. If that's fine with you, the matter is resolved as far as I am concerned, and we can go ban a few nationalist trolls together.  Sandstein  12:58, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting a single-purpose account, or a random one-edit IP address, is not edit-warring. It is responsible use of the revert button in accordance with maintaining encyclopedicity and consensuality. Yes, I should have posted on the talkpage, but since everybody concerned knew who I was and what I do, they understood perfectly well what was going on. You are wikilawyering, enabling trolls and forum-shoppers, and seem totally unable to understand that banning or blocking nationalist trolls is only a means to an end, not an end in itself. That end is encyclopedicity. You can either take this to arbcom or quit this thread. I am not going to change my methodology. I have used admin status and tools to nudge the nationalists towards WP:ENC for 2 years now. It has worked well, far better than any robotic enforcement of the rules, and is not going to be altered. Moreschi (talk) 13:21, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh. I'll drop it here, if only because I have no intention of supporting whatever assortment of POV-pushers are on either side of this dispute, but I do believe your approach of involving yourself in content disputes with admin tools is profoundly mistaken, and very likely counterproductive.  Sandstein  13:53, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Unfortunately, if admins have no authority in content issues, Wikipedia effectively has no way to enforce consensus. There's a highly mistaken notion out there that consensus will enforce itself just by the continued editing of the community. In areas like this one that are classic nationalist hotspots, this is more or less guaranteed not to happen due to the truth crusaders who will stop at nothing. This leaves us with a need for occasional bending of the rules (which, may I point out, is entirely accepted within policy). Also, Sandstein, your patronizing attitude is not helping anything. If you cannot see that Moreschi is trying to enforce Wikipedia's content policies, you're missing the point completely, and being patronizing toward someone like that is also missing the point completely. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 12:13, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do not mean to be patronizing, but please show me the policy that says that admins have the authority to enforce consensus with administrator tools. The proper way to deal with truth crusaders is to ban or block them, not to take sides in their content disputes, as Moreschi did here.  Sandstein  12:33, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, lord. You just don't get it, do you? Our job is the maintence of encyclopedicity. Everything is secondary to that - everything. The nationalists actually understand that, which is why, by and large, my role as a neutral voice settling their disputes is largely accepted. The encyclopedia is the patient suffering from plague. Our role as admins in curing the plague consists largely of minimizing disruption, yes, but this dependent upon establishing which side of the dispute is most in accord with encyclopedicity. If we don't do that, we're doing more harm than good. Acting out of ignorance is worse than not acting at all. Encyclopedicity here means Wikipedia:Summary style, incidentally. Moreschi (talk) 12:42, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds good, but of course it assumes that we administrators are the judges of encyclopedicity. Wikipedia just does not work that way. Content is determined by consensus, not by decree, and we were elected as administrators, not as content moderators.  Sandstein  13:02, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Heimstern's post is correct, of course, but doesn't actually go far enough. People like Gazifikator are always going to revert as much as they can even when consensus is against them. They'll use up their 3rr allowance, and the other editors (Grandmaster, etc), if they are to "enforce consensus", have to revert as well. Of course, to people like Sandstein, this will look like nationalist gang warfare (as indeed it would be, to a certain extent). So everyone gets blocked and heaven knows what happens to the article.

This is clearly not sustainable, hence we have admins (that's me) dealing with disruption, closing merge discussions, and enforcing consensus. Yes, this may be skating on thin ice as far as WP:ADMIN is concerned, but the alternative is far worse. At the price of (arguably inflated, yes) sysop power, we get a massive reduction in disruption and drama (or we would do were it not for Sandstein stirring the pot here). A price worth paying? You decide. Moreschi (talk) 12:26, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"..At the price of (arguably inflated, yes) sysop power.." You said it all with that statement. 212.200.205.163 (talk) 12:32, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shrug. The disruption that caused 2 massive arbcom cases has not revisited arbcom since - and that's only in this topic-area, let alone the other areas I monitor. I'd say it works fairly well, given the passion of the editors at hand. Moreschi (talk) 12:42, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• • • While I accept Moreschi's explanation in principle, I agree it looks a little bit borderline; however, I too find that in light of relevant guidelines and on the basis of strength of policy-based arguments there was a valid consensus to merge, so I have removed Moreschi's protection and replaced it with my own, as an entirely uninvolved administrator. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:32, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The article was a clear POV fork littered with weasel words and original research, and note that at least four editors including Moreschi were redirecting, versus Gazifikator, an IP and a clear sock. Whilst in a perfect world Moreschi should've asked someone else to protect it, There's certainly no need to get all dramatic and start asking for an ArbCom case. There's nothing here that demands that. Black Kite 11:35, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just an example of OR from the article, please! And could you explain, why the only 2 uninvolved users are supporting that "weasel worded OR"? Gazifikator (talk) 11:52, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• In fact the far more serious issue appears to be that Gazifikator has either been sockpuppeting or soliciting meatpuppets. It is certainly highly suspicious that the minute my semiprotection locks out the IPs and SPAs he reappears with his main account to revert again. This suggests either a highly improper degree of coordination or just plain socking. Moreschi (talk) 11:38, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Quite possibly, but that is a matter for a WP:SPI investigation. Though I am frankly tired of seeing Gazifikator and Grandmaster (talk · contribs) repeatedly involved in every one of these A-A wars; maybe both need a long topic ban.  Sandstein  11:42, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, yes, this is a tempting way to look at it. Unfortunately if I banned every single one of these people, they'd be replaced by a new crowd of nationalists within about six months (including some reincarnations). And we wouldn't get anywhere. We just have to deal with the disruption as it comes and keep things at a low leve, periodically blocking those who sock, edit war or violate WP:BATTLEGROUND too blatantly. It's a perennial problem that has to be solved by constant supervision. There is no way around this. Moreschi (talk) 11:55, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Once again we have this [45], so I prefer to not be called a SPA-user by Moreschi. He can't attack me using non-confirmed accusations! Gazifikator (talk) 11:50, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, I didn't call you a SPA. Stop being silly. That comment was for the one-edit account who did a revert. Moreschi (talk) 11:55, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• • • The only 2 uninvolved users voted 'oppose', and what's wrong if one of them preferred just to support my view. While you failed to express your views on support of under AA2 users (you know, I mean the Azerbaijani users who obviously dislike the existence of such an article: one of them vandalized the article previously and another was noticed for non-civil comment). And about "SPA"'s and IP's - they have no relation with me [46] (I wasn't the only active editor), others also just see injustice in your unexplained actions! And FYI: there is still no admin's decision in your "5/3" Gazifikator (talk) 11:39, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

•  Note: I have blocked the 212.200.205.163 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) for disruptive editing. It also appears to be a duck test sock puppet of, or else somebody with an identical agenda as, Ludvikus (talk · contribs), who is indef blocked. Jehochman ^Talk 13:01, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

IMHO, the IP's use of English was better than Ludvikus. Then again, I appear to have already made an blunder by WP:AGFing on Ludvikus for so long. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:28, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Involved admin in topic areas shouldn't be using ops in any kind of regard. Ryulong was desysopped not too long ago with ArbCom making very clear statements to this effect. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:26, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blocking of “A” “nationalists” [47] – looks like support of “B” "nationalists" [48]. May be such definitely not easy issues better to be handled not by opera prolific editor with a big admin guns?94.179.181.178 (talk) 09:17, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm late for the party, but if you read the entire talkpage, there is 5v3, not 3v3 as indicated above. Hope, that says it all. Moreschi's actions are entirely justified, no need for a storm in a teacup. Brand[t] 21:22, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The blocking policy makes it clear that involved admins are not justified. By making such a claim as you do above, you do not benefit to Moreschi, but you undermine your future credibility in responses. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:29, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ottava Rima, the majority of your response is quite counterproductive, and I think you appear to have troubles accepting that anyones opinion can be different to yours. This is highlighted by your choice to focus on Brand's last sentence which is his opinion on the merits of this, rather than on his first sentence which notes a useful fact that there were clear issues with the filing complaint to begin with. This is further problematic when you bring up a user's credibility - neither is it needed at this discussion (or by policy), nor is it appropriate. By contrast, your first sentence would have been both appropriate and sufficient, on its own. You really need to start taking on the advice you were given during your previous block (or when it was lifted): to change your approach in responding to others, particularly those you disagree with. Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:52, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really understand why Moreschi is being criticized here. Let's have a look at the history of the article. The article was merged after the discussion at talk by User:NickPenguin [49], an editor, who has previously never been involved in AA issues. Gazifikator reverted the merge, [50] and started an edit war, despite the fact that he was placed on 1 rv per week parole. Gazifikator got blocked twice for edit warring on this article, trying to undo the merge. First time he was blocked by Sandstein, [51] and second time by Moreschi: [52] When edit warring on Radical Islamism became problematic for Gazifikator, it was suspiciously picked up by SPAs and anon IPs. First it was reverted by an obvious SPA Ptrustct (talk · contribs): [53], and then twice by 91.210.40.251 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). [54] [55] This pretty much looks like meatpuppeting, as the sock and the anon were continuing the edit war led by Gazifikator. Note that once the article got semiprotected, and edit warring using anon IPs became impossible, Gazifikator resumed the edit war on that article: [56] To me this looks like an off-wiki coordinated effort. And then when the redirect got permanently protected, Gazifikator took it here, complaining about the admin who protected it. I'm surprised that no one takes any notice of disruption by Gazifikator, of the off wiki coordinated edit warring with the use of SPAs, but the admin who tried to stop the disruption became a target of criticism. If someone is not happy with the merge, there are procedures for contesting it, but edit warring should not be tolerated and encouraged, especially when it involves violation of editing restrictions and apparent meatpuppeting. Grandmaster 06:36, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure that 7107delicious (talk · contribs) has nothing but the best intentions leaving unwarranted username warnings, "clerk" notes, and now oversighted messages on Jimbo's talk page, but perhaps they could use a mentor? They are apparently the same user as "retired" RuleOfThe9th (talk · contribs). Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 12:08, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The user name warning appears to be a good faith edit - possible suggestion of paedophilic tendencies. Agree re the clerk note though. That template should not be used by anyone except clerks. Mjroots (talk) 12:16, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(interjecting) No, what 7107delicious said is that "Kidshare" "matches the name 'Rapidshare', which is a promotional username". Given that "share" is a common word, this comment doesn't make sense. —Finell (Talk) 17:56, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I took off the bad use of template from User talk:Kidshare (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:40, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another unusual behavior of User:7107delicious is that this user's displayed signature does not in any way resemble the actual user name and this user changes the displayed signature frequently. This, in effect, disguises who is posting and also makes it appear that the posts with different signatures are by different users. However, I have not seen this user use different signatures in the same discussion, which would be a new form of socking. —Finell (Talk) 17:56, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have never read the username change request page. On there, it specifically recommends changing one's signature in lieu of changing a username: "As an alternative, please consider changing your signature. This will change your "public appearance" on talk pages and other places where you sign your username with ~~~~." In situations such as votes in an AfD, an Admin would look carefully at the sig links. Pretending to garner consensus through multiple sigs (making it look like more people) would be bad. Some links to where this might have happened would be beneficial. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 18:03, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But to change it so often? Why? Also, I specifically said above, "I have not seen this user use different signatures in the same discussion", so I don't understand your request for diffs. —Finell (Talk) 18:31, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to WP:AGF, so let them "personalize", as long as they don't disrupt. My comment about posting diff's refers to "if you ever actually see a violation in the future". Sorry if it was not clear. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 18:40, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I asked 7107 recently [57] about this and he did say he thought he'd settled on something he liked. Kidshare could potentially be a promotional username [58] [59] [60] [61], so a little more AGF wouldn't go amiss. Also 7107 reported here Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive573#It.27s_User:Mikhailov_Kusserow_up_to_the_case_again. that he was having problems with a user who appears to be definitely bad faith templating editors (sticking on half a dozen vandalism templates without any vandalism reverts......what's going on there then?) Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:45, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I did not say that 7107 did anything in bad faith. Again, I explicitly said in my first post here, "I have not seen this user use different signatures in the same discussion". Nevertheless, I'm satisfied, and I'm done with this issue. —Finell (Talk) 19:07, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, my mistake. You certainly didn't. Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:20, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's OK, thanks. —Finell (Talk) 19:27, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The user changed their name, and deleted the userpage at the old name, because they wanted to move away from a warning template on their page. (See their edit history for the conversation. ) I don't think they'll accept mentoring, but someone could try. Remember Civility (talk) 22:24, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, I was only changing due to the fact that I can't seem to change my username. Again, the username is less frequently changed. And would you explain why your thoughts are thinking of incivility and WP:SOCK? I have never stated that I expected this account for any disruptive contributions, or for any incivilitized activities. Do you guys mean that I am following the bad faith duites of Mikhailov Kusserow?--One moment, Reciever | Thank you for your instructions. 12:30, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Ok, ok, ok, so I see that this all began with WP:CHU, the Kidshare issue, and my signature. First off, what's a clerk? If anyone joins a CHU discussion, other than a 'crat, who could that be? Next off, I just took a look at the link, and I see that this username (Kidshare) is something from an educational link. Thank you for the help, but why should the template be removed? I am concerned of the username given. And, to finish today's "script", I liked unique signatures. Then what signatures should I use? 7107delicious|Spricht mit mir?--One moment, Reciever | Thank you for your instructions. 12:46, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the angry-expressed posting, BTW.--One moment, Reciever | Thank you for your instructions. 12:50, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CHU is not a discussion - unlike say ... where we are now. CHU is the technical process. A Clerk is someone (usually an admin) who understands the related policies and has volunteered/been assigned the task of pre-vetting the requests for completeness, etc. A Bureaucrat then performs the actions. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:59, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. --One moment, Reciever | Thank you for your instructions. 14:17, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just picked a few recent examples, but there are plenty more where those came from. They have now declared Das Sicherheit (talk · contribs) as an alternate account but it has no contributions yet. They also appear to be connected to 202.47.69.212 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) which is a school IP. If I wasn't brimming over with good faith, I'd suggest blocking the IP for persistent vandalism with account creation disabled and being done with it. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:27, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, I am not using Das Sicherheit (in which I am currently logged on) for sockpuppetry activities. I have never used this IP for a single month. And I am not committing to sockpuppetry.--Das Sicherheit ^{SPRICHT MIT MIR, ODER...} 02:34, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW user 7107delicious has been above board with his changing of accounts, and his asking permission for a new account. Hopefully he will stick with his latest signature, as it is getting a tad confusing... LOL! Anyway, I have had a fair few interactions with the user over the past couple of months (both old account and new), and my general opinion is of someone who is very keen to support Wikipedia, but a bit too keen to respond to others on someone elses talk page (which is why I think Mikhailov Kusserow responded the way he did). With a bit of nudging in the right direction when required, he will make for a fine editor. Stephen! ^Coming...

After posting a notice that they are on "wikibreak" until 15 December, they subsequently left some a note for a newly banned user which doesn't seem very helpful. When does the "nudging" begin? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:22, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've just looked back over the edits of the user since he went on this wikibreak. It looks very much like he is still adding comments to people's talk pages which might not be adding value. I did talk to him about it a while ago, but I suspect that a bit of reigning in on his edits on peoples talk pages wouldn't go amiss. I am not sure of the motivation behind some of his edits are, in particular this one. At a guess, I would say that he is trying to behave like an admin, to prove that he is ready for the mop (his recent application did not succeed). Unfortunately, he appears to be stepping on toes rather than getting on with the job of proving himself. Also, the disparity with the notices on his user page and what he is actually doing does appear to be causing concern.

If anyone has any ideas as to how he can be nudged in the right direction, please suggest it! Stephen! ^Coming... 17:20, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kmweber (talk · contribs) has begun editing again, and asked on GlassCobra's talk page for his user and user talk pages to be unprotected. I have done so, and have also undeleted the histories of both those pages. I vaguely remember some drama around the time that Kurt left the community, so I would appreciate it if someone could look over my actions. Thanks, NW (Talk) 18:05, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, the user vanished. Vanished means vanished; it's not the same as a wikibreak. Majorly talk 18:07, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This was the state of the ban proposal during which Kurt retired. I don't think there was consensus to ban then and he seemed to acknowledge that his behaviour had been disruptive in a way that he had not intended, so unless there have been developments between then and now, I don't see why he does not deserve a wait and see approach.  Skomorokh, barbarian  18:17, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the consensus to ban was pretty apparent, but was made moot by the retirement of Kurt. If Kurt wants to edit again, then the obvious thing to do is to make a new account; if he stays away from the type of interaction that got people so exasperated then there will be no reason for the accounts to be linked. I don't know why Kurt is so keen to reactivate the old account, and am afraid that is indicates that Kurt still does not "get it" why people previously complained about him. That said, I would not be adverse to the content editor that previously edited as Kmweber returning. LessHeard vanU (talk) 18:30, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand why you would want him to create a new account. We should encourage him to stick to the old account if anything. Whether or not he should be allowed to edit is another matter altogether. And he did not vanish, he left. That's not the same thing at all. He left, he can come back, if he wasn't banned, he can edit; if he was banned (or would have been) then he can edit only if we let him. BTW, protecting his talk page was out of process.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 18:53, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Doug is right. Creating a new account would make it look as if he tried to trick the community into thinking he was a new user. Just let him edit from the old account, if he does exhibit a problematic editing pattern again, we can act upon it when it happens. It's not as if he does not know that. Regards SoWhy 19:09, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And looking back at the discussion, I do not see a consensus for an outright ban. A topic ban restricting him to article and article talk space does appear to have been getting solid support but I concur that we should let him edit and wait and see what he does. Has anybody talked to him about his choice to come back?--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 19:15, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just notified him of this thread on his talk page. I note that he returned on the 9th with four edits in the article/talk space and two edits yesterday, one in article space and one requesting assistance from an admin with a deleted page. That plus the request for unprotection don't give me a whole lot of concern yet. I think we can close this thread as resolved in that no one has suggested that NW's unprotection was improper.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 19:27, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I unprotected the talk page to let him do what he needs and so the tabs look right for other editors.Mitch32^{(The Password is... See here!)} 20:19, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about the community ban part, but it's certainly clear that there are a lot of people who would be happy if he refrains from posting in WP:RFA indefinitely. If he wants to prove to his detractors that he is interested in making good faith contributions to Wikipedia, I strongly advise him to stay far away from there. -- llywrch (talk) 20:50, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The rfa stuff is fine; there's a fucking huge slab of text there now about ignoring some votes. anyone running for admin who doesn't even read the rfa rules doesn't deserve to pass. anyone who thinks he's trolling shouldn't be feeding his. anyone who thinks his point needs rebuttal can e pointed to the fucking huge slab of text, and reminded that closing vote counters ignore his votes. He's a lot less disruptive than many other editors. (eg most frequent poster here) Remember Civility (talk) 22:30, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

With a name like that & all of those f-bombs in your post, I figure you live under a bridge yourself & have nothing to contribute here. -- llywrch (talk) 07:13, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A general comment. Please stop recommending that past banned users should start up new accounts. Apart from the fact that such an action is technically possible (thought see Durova for an argument that evasion is eventually futile), it does us no good to suggest that obscuring account history is valuable. We have this bizarre community hallucination about the ideal banned editor who starts up a new account and edits productively outside a narrow topic area that got them banned. That either describes an exceptionally narrow band of editors or stems from rampant wishful thinking on the part of a community known for wishful thinking. I'm not disputing that some bans are de facto topic bans and that circumventing those bans may actually result in a net-good, just arguing that the track record is pretty shitty. The blanket suggestion should look like this: for bans imposed hastily or unilaterally, some unblock or unban without conditions should be considered (or with a topic ban as a sole condition). For bans imposed after some time (as KM's was), the standard offer should be extended. Not this garbage about starting a new account. Protonk (talk) 08:38, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Also a specific comment. Linking to the most recent ban for KMW obscures the fact that prior bans and topic bans had been enacted. Full disclosure, I supported one of the ban proposals after he left a particularly nasty comment to a new user on AN. But if he is back and wants to act like an adult, then welcome back. Protonk (talk) 08:41, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to make a rather snarky addition to this discussion, but re-wrote my comment here because Protonk is 100% correct. The Wikipedia community has an amazing capacity for giving people second chances and AGF in the rehabilitation of formerly-former editors. If Kurt is willing to stop doing the things that nearly got him banned last time, then welcome back. — Kralizec! (talk) 15:23, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

 – Checkuser completed, all known socks indeffed.

Durova³⁵² 00:49, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mario1987 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is not new to wikipedia. Originally blocked for using sockpuppets and only allowed back with the message "last chance" (see his block log). He was afterward the subject of this AN/I thread, where I brought up cases (acknowledged by Mario himself) where he had been disrupting wikipedia by providing false or misleading info in articles or DYK hooks, and that he had responded to my concerns with racist attacks. He was ultimately blocked for one month for the racist comments.
No sooner had he returned that, having started an FL application where I evidenced some problems (note: without even voting on the matter), he produced all sorts of renewed accusations and claims that I'm out to get him. I would have not especially minded were it not for the follow-up on my talk page: 1) this message in Romanian, where, among several subtle threats, he proceeds to ask me how old I am; 2) this message in English, after I deleted his original post, where he poses the question yet again; 3) after I tell him no, this post where he repeats the claims that I have an agenda against him, and again persists in making this look like a personal problem; 4) after I answered (trying to let him know yet again that he is walking down the path that got him blocked, and urging him t stop and reassess his position), this most disturbing post. I would like to administrators to assess the nature of this statement: "Keep in mind that i know some things from where one can find many more information about another." And: "I told you before and i tell you again that i know you have friends that tend to follow your oppinions and i know that i don't have any chances but i'm willing to fight to the last man just like this guy." Dahn (talk) 19:24, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• You're a real joke aren't you. I mearly reacted to ironical and demeaning comments like your loose interpretation of norms, and the irresponsible "devil may care" editing style that you posted at the same FL project, where you further threatened me. Regarding the FLC you should read what issues this user raised and than you should read the post of User:Geraldk who incidentally supported my claims. Regarding the supposed threat i don't know what to say, if he understands "Keep in mind that i know some things from where one can find many more information about another." as a threat that i willingly request to be blocked forever. Mario1987 19:49, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Beginning your defense with a personal attack is not the best of strategies. Chillum 19:53, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I know but this has lasted as long as it can and i am tired of it. Mario1987 19:58, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Whoa, Using this diff as an important example, I think this needs to either a) be oversighted, or b) be taken really seriously. Comments like that should not, and I repeat not happen. It is not a smart decision to ask people their age, as this can be taken in WP:STALK, which may or may not constitute other problems.Mitch32^{(The Password is... See here!)} 20:28, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Gimme a B! Gimme a L! Gimme an O! Gimme a .. so on, so forth. You were up here before for similar problems, obviously haven't learnt your lesson and as the cherry on the cake added some lovely extra threats into that "most disturbing post". "miss, miss, but he started it" is not a valid excuse; if you are tired of it, just walk away. If you refuse to do so, my suggested remedy will make it mandatory. Ironholds (talk) 20:33, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ugh. Anyone who would allude to that travesty of a movie deserves what's coming. (Alluding to the actual incident is a far different matter.) -- llywrch (talk) 20:55, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's not all, folks

Mario1987 was previously sitebanned for running a vote stacking sockfarm at featured picture candidates and for dozens of copyvio uploads--one of which was even promoted to featured picture (until his scheme unraveled). See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive131#Votestacking_at_WP:FPC. He was unblocked by a single admin without discussion. Time to reinstate the community ban. Durova³⁵⁰ 20:31, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And would anyone please explain how the copyright mark on the lower left corner of one of Mario1987's uploads from yesterday is anything other than resumption of the copyvios that contributed to his ban in the first place? Proposing that the admin who unblocked him be personally tasked with the cleanup. Durova³⁵⁰ 20:39, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this fellow not indefinitely blocked already? He basically said he has "people" who could track down and bring harm to an editor he doesn't like? (I mean, you'd think the serial copyvios would be enought, but this? What on earth is there to discuss?)Bali ultimate (talk) 20:44, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It mystifies me that he was allowed back, considering the seriousness of what he did before. Durova³⁵⁰ 20:46, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've just been reviewing his uploads, and 9/10 of them are without doubt copyvios. Sadly only a few can be directly proved though. ninety:one 20:51, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The burden is on the uploader to demonstrate legitimacy, not vice versa. Durova³⁵⁰ 20:52, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• "We're sorry, Mario, but your copyvio uploads are in another castle."? HalfShadow (talk) 20:56, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've deleted several of the images that Ninetyone tagged and pulled Mario1987's autoreviewer status. --Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 21:01, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Hm, yes, a random example: The "own work" File:Lotus Market Oradea.jpg, allegedly made yesterday (like about a dozen other photos from very dispersed locations) but with no camera metadata, is found on the Web at [62], on the website [63]. We do not accept serial copyright violations. I have indefinitely blocked the user.  Sandstein  21:02, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He was never unbanned at Commons (thank goodness) so my ops have limited value to fix this. A couple of copyvios got bot-transferred and I've deleted them. Basically, everything that doesn't come with full camera metadata (as opposed to Photoshop data and scanner DPI notes) should go. He's trying to claim that Romanian Government material is under CC license, trying to claim that anything which looks 'old' (of ambiguous age) is under copyleft, and sourcing material to copyrighted websites with false attributions of GFDL license. Even the nonfree rationales need examination: they're supposed to be low res, but one was nearly half a gigamegabyte. Durova³⁵⁰ 21:09, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How the hell can you have an almost half-gigabyte photo? HalfShadow (talk) 21:13, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about the typo. Am working with a composite offline which will be in the 1 gigabyte range when it's finished. Thinking of the wrong figures. ;) Durova³⁵⁰ 21:15, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank god for that; you scared the christ out of me for a minute there. HalfShadow (talk) 21:18, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Durova, being a good manager, always keeps an eye on the Big Picture. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:58, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know, the Phase One P65+ medium format digital back ([64]) produces files which are 340 Mb or so - I wouldn't breathe that sigh of relief quite yet... :) --Xdamr^talk 00:01, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: TinEye is a helpful tool to identify image copyvios (but it will only find byte-identical copies).  Sandstein  21:16, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support block / reinstation of ban. Found immediately two blatant copyvios, one with camera data. The one above (ec) and File:Plaza-romania.jpg deleted by another admin. Not to mention the other stuff above.--Tikiwont (talk) 21:11, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support indef block/de facto ban. There were a total of 14 images so far tagged as F9s. Every one of them he claimed was his own work. All but one had a good link to a commercial website where they'd come from. The other one had a great big copyright tag on it.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 21:19, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Agree with Sandsteins' block - if the editor has a problem with it, they can provide the rationale (like they are supposed to with the images...) for it to be overturned. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:28, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Heading out for a bit. If any other probable copyvios turn out to have been bot-transferred to Commons, please leave links at my user talk and I'll check in on them. Thanks all for resolving this swiftly. Durova³⁵¹ 21:39, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support indef, generally per LessHeard vanU. Ironholds (talk) 22:21, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mario, Wikipedia is a free content encyclopedia. That is, "free" meaning "free content" and not "free beer". MuZemike 22:34, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support ban per above. Infrogmation (talk) 22:53, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• A little late as the block has already happened, but I support an indef block in this case. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 00:18, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Per that second diff Dahn provided, I'm not only endorsing reinstating the community ban, but I'm readding his listing at WP:LOBU as well. Even without the copyvios, it's not likely anyone who wants to keep his or her bit will unblock someone who makes that kind of veiled threat. Blueboy96 00:21, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• My only question is this: are we sure File:Hotel-Astoria-Satu-Mare-1.jpg, File:Nisco City Center final.jpg, File:Calvaria Satu Mare.jpg, File:Palatul administrativ sm.JPG, File:Prestij.jpg, File:Ikarusbus.jpg, File:Irisbus vechi.jpg, File:Irisbusnou.jpg, File:Traian Plaza 01.jpg, File:04 - Hotel Aurora.jpg and File:Palatul administrativ sm.JPG are all copyvios? The reason I ask is because, yes, he did have a persistent tendency to violate copyright, but those pictures are all from his home city of Satu Mare, so there's at least a greater chance some of them may be his. I suggest an administrator double-check with this in mind. - Biruitorul ^Talk 00:25, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Even in the unlikely event they aren't copyvios (it would be difficult to assume otherwise, given his history), this is beyond unacceptable, and would be an indefable offense by itself in my book. Blueboy96 00:29, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Biruitorul's comment reverses the actual responsibilities here: it's the uploader's obligation to demonstrate beyond reasonable doubt that the uploads are legitimate. When an editor has an exceptional history of copyright violations, all uploads may come into doubt. Our obligation is to comply with the law, and it's best to err on the side of caution. Remember, if this fellow hadn't been caught the last time he would have gotten a copyright violation onto Wikipedia's main page as Picture of the Day. We have no reason to trust him. Durova³⁵¹ 00:50, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I also support the formal community ban, just in case the user ever tries to obtain another chance and someone counts !votes. Even without the copyvios and the "last chance" the threats would be sufficient reason. Hans Adler 00:30, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Most obvious ban ever. PhGustaf (talk) 00:39, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Pile-on support for this ban. Good call. --Jayron32 03:44, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Briefly returning from a wikibreak to endorse ban (as original ban proposer). MER-C 04:13, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• I deleted all of his remaining uploads; those can be replaced. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 04:25, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Not quite - Special:Nuke kills only the stuff in the recentchanges table (about 1 month). There are some left from June-August this year (e.g. File:Kolcsei.jpg). See User:Mario1987/Images. MER-C 04:51, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Duly noted, snagged the rest using the same edit summary. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 05:13, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• One more (related) things, ladies and gentlemen. Here is Mario's probable sockuppet. It's inactive, but one is never too sure; plus, no matter its uses, it was created to evade an earlier block. Also note the upload of images under that name, some of which are on commons! Dahn (talk) 06:45, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• What makes you believe it is a sock of Mario1987?  Sandstein  08:49, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Both have an innate interest in Romanian power plants, buildings, football teams and Satu Mare (see latest deleted uploads). Images on Commons that need to be dealt with: File:Calinestihydro.JPG, File:Manastire certeze.JPG and File:Calinestilake.JPG. I also remember that some of (the first batch of) Mario's deleted photos were taken with a HP Photosmart (537?). MER-C 09:01, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• (edit conflict) Well, for one he comes from the same geographical region, in the narrowest of senses (his name, "Terra Awas", is the quasi-Latin rendition of Oaş Country, right near Satu Mare). Terra Awas emerged out nowhere very shortly after Mario's second block, and was able to push a DYK entry within for this article that interval (when Mario had developed an obsession with DYK, and when it matched and matches his editing style). The moment I shared with the world my belief that he was a block-evasion sockpuppet, Terra Awas more or less vanished. This is harder to provide diffs for T:TDYK, where I mentioned it, doesn't keep an archive; I did discuss something on the issue with another editor, who seems to have shared my suspicion, and actually brought it up (see here). Of the other edits he made, 100% are in Mario's fields of interest: Romanian football and List of wind farm projects in Romania (for which he created a new spin-off article exactly where Mario had left of). Of the four images on his user page, two were Mario-made. I would keep going, but I don't want to give out all the clues and risk having him come back more subtly. Dahn (talk) 09:08, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Sounds quite plausible, plus he has a history of socking. I've indef-blocked the Terra Awas (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) account, but am reluctant to nuke the Commons images that do appear self-made (judging by camera metadata and lack of photographical sophistication).  Sandstein  09:25, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be worth filing SPI? Last time around, CU found more socks than had been suspected. Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Mario1987 Durova³⁵¹ 14:49, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi all, I apparently unblocked him after his last community ban with a last chance warning. I don't remember that situation at all, but obviously his actions here call for a ban reinstatement, and this certainly would qualify as a "last chance" violation. You'll find no objections from me over anything here. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 15:34, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'll go ahead and file SPI before deleting the Commons uploads. Best to make sure. Durova³⁵¹ 16:17, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Mario1987 if anyone wants to comment. Durova³⁵¹ 16:56, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Checkuser has turned up an additional account: Player bio. So far Player bio remains unblocked. Durova³⁵¹ 23:18, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Crotchety Old Man (talk · contribs) engaged in repeated deletion of an IP user comments on the Richard Gere talk page (diffs: [65] [66] [67] [68] [69] [70]) with different reasons, sometimes claiming BLP violations while the comment -even if about a BLP-sensitive issue- was absolutely fair and by far not libelous or problematic in any way other than trying to constructively reopening a previous discussion.

When notified and/or approached on talk pages to discuss the issue by several users, he regularly deletes notifications and attempts at communication -which in itself is not a problem- but does it with edit summaries which are either insulting (diffs: [71], [72],[73]) vandalism accusation -even to editors sympathetic with his point of view (diffs: [74],[75]) or at best condescending (diffs: [76], [77] , [78]). Just for the sake of completeness, the user has a habit at condescending remarks also in unrelated discussions (example diffs: [79] , [80]).

Given that the user seems to dismiss any civil attempt at communication with him, I think some admin action could help. Thanks.--Cyclopia^talk 10:36, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Further comment: I forgot to include that the issue has been previously brought at the edit warring noticeboard by the IP editor; the 3RR issue was deemed "stale", and given the kind of violations the admin suggested to bring it here. --Cyclopia^talk 10:58, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User notified about this thread. The repeated removal of viable (IMO) talk-page material is a serious problem. Discussion of an article's (non-)inclusion of BLP content on talk-page, even if it comes to consensus to exclude, sounds like exactly what a talk-page is for, and this talk section does not even make the specific BLP-concerning statements. The repeated incivility in edit-summaries is a problem too. Makes it hard to WP:AGF that he is working collaboratively if he's that antagonistic towards everyone. DMacks (talk) 10:49, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just a comment: I had notified the user too -it seems we did it at the same time. Thanks! --Cyclopia^talk 10:51, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of blatant BLP-violating material is well within the guidelines here. The consensus on Richard Gere is clear, plus an admin CSD'ed the separate gerbil page when WebHamster skirted consensus and created it on his own. Plus, an admin has my back. I'm all for drama and witch hunts here on Wikipedia, but it looks like some people need to grow up. Crotchety Old Man (talk) 12:32, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A couple other issues. First, 3RR on the talk page was never violated. Any accusations of such will require an immediate apology. Second, there should probably be a CU instigated for the IP in question. A bit too convenient that they jump into the Richard Gere debate with his/her first edit, magically knowing all this Wiki-policy. Crotchety Old Man (talk) 12:50, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The point is, the talk page comment was not blatant BLP-violating material. The fact that there is consensus, incidents with another editor months ago etc., are completely irrelevant. You cannot erase civil and constructive comments on a talk page, even if they resurrect a long gone discussion and you disagree with their content. If the IP is a sock, this is also not really relevant -two wrongs don't make one right, at least until there is certainity of such sockpuppetry. I am also curious to know how you justify your edit summaries with which you rebuke any attempt at a civil conversation. --Cyclopia^talk 13:37, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The gerbil stuff IS a BLP violation and theoretically should ALL be deleted. The dilemma with doing that is that it makes it appear no one has brought it up. What doesn't make sense is that Crotchety removed the recent comments while leaving all the other gerbil stuff intact. Consensus is not forever. If the one section is allowed to stay visible, then other editors can surely revisit the issue. However, if it's PROVEN that the IP is a sock of a blocked user, then the comments could be removed on those grounds, as blocked users are not allowed to edit. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:54, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Crotchety: First I'm "vandalizing" the page, next I'm violating BLP, now I'm a sock puppet. This is getting to the point of being downright libelous. Please take your own advice and realize that you are wrong here and just walk away. As an aside, I think it's funny that you've asked for apologies from people about 10 times, all while insulting them and maintaining the same mocking tone. Also, if you want to debate the gerbil thing, please do so on the talkpage, that is the appropriate forum. This discussion isn't about that, it's about your inappropriate behavior. 98.251.117.125 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:12, 1 November 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Oh, there's no more gerbil debate. Don't worry about that. It stays out of the article. Crotchety Old Man (talk) 16:14, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another snarky comment. Thanks. I've taken the liberty of going through this user's history and he seems to be a serial offender of incivility: [81] " you probably destroyed any chance you had at being admin. good work!" [82] "idiotic discussion" [83] "I have no idea why you think i care about your opinion." [84] "don't be dense!" [85] "this article is about the film, not any other crap". That's just from his edit summaries and just from the last 3 days. Looking at it I'm surprised this was the first time he's been reported. 98.251.117.125 (talk) 16:41, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh my. I don't know how I missed it for so long, but just checked and saw that you were on the wrong side of the gerbil debate. I was dumb enough to think you were an uninvolved editor. That explains a lot. Commence the witch hunt. Maybe then you'll be able to add the gerbil crap to the article. LOL. Crotchety Old Man (talk) 14:03, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am just following the talk page since the discussion. I have no intention to get such stuff into the article -consensus is against, and that's fine. But I cannot accept user's comments on talk pages being repeatedly deleted with preposterous reasons, nor I can accept incivility, no matter which side comes from. --Cyclopia^talk 14:42, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No. You're being petty and vindictive. Like I said, I wish I had realized who I was dealing with just a bit sooner. Wouldn't have wasted my time replying to this absurd report. You're wrong about the gerbil debate. Accept it, and move on. For everyone's sake. Crotchety Old Man (talk) 14:48, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would have done the same report if you agreed with me about the debate. The "gerbil debate" is irrelevant now. Your behaviour is not. --Cyclopia^talk 14:56, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BLP does not prevent discussing this issue on the talk page or else almost the whole talk page would need to be deleted. This is not about 'sides' of an argument. Simply thinking that another editor is flogging a dead horse or is potentially a sockpuppet is not an excuse for repeatedly edit warring to remove their comments. Crotchety Old Man has gone on to mischaracterise the edits of people including myself who have commented on his talk page as vandalism and has used abusive or mocking comments in his edit summaries. He's refusing to listen to reason or to discuss his editing in a mature manner. Fences&Windows 16:30, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If there's any actual, useful discussion that takes place here, someone be sure to let me know. I've had enough of the playground bullying for now, so I'm removing this from my watchlist. Crotchety Old Man (talk) 16:36, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've tried my best throughout this whole ordeal to remain as cordial as possible, but I can't help but point out that "I've had enough of the playground bullying for now" could be read in one of two possible ways and given his repeated attacks and bad attitude I find it hilarious. 98.251.117.125 (talk) 16:54, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This keeps getting weirder. Not only has he not stopped with the abusive edit summaries since his actions were brought under scrutiny here: [86], but now he seems to be picking a fight with admin Master of Puppets by reporting him for a name violation [87]. I can only imagine that he either wants to get his account banned, or this is some kind of crazy preemptive defense, whereby he biases admins against himself, thinking they won't then be able to ban him because of a conflict of interest. 98.251.117.125 (talk) 16:05, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

University of Texas at Dallas has set an assignment (EMAC 2321) that involves editing wikipedia. Unfortunately some students have interpreted this as a suggestion that they vandalise wikipedia (eg http://aisharin.wordpress.com/2009/10/31/wikipedia-experiment/ ). An email has been sent to the person behind the course and the cases I've been able to trace have been reverted but something people should probably know about.©Geni 11:04, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It certainly looks like a deliberate attempt to disrupt for the sake of an exercise. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 11:21, 1 November 2009 (UTC).[reply]

It isn't. Other edits from the assignment have been productive.©Geni 11:27, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whether it is the vagueness of the wording of the assignment, or the malicious interpretation of it as an invitation to vandalise the site, the fact that this originates from a place of higher education makes me fear for the future. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:10, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This week, our assignment for EMAC was to make a substantial edit to a Wikipedia article and see how long our changes last. Beats watching paint drying! If that's what passes for university education, what about junior high school? Anyway, the course description (hereabouts) doesn't seem to mention it; has it been expunged, or have the kids just got it totally wrong? -- Hoary (talk) 13:19, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

http://emac2321.pbworks.com/Student-Blogs has a list of all the student's blogs, several seem to mention this Wikipedia assignment in terms of making a sneaky change. Prodego ^talk 16:26, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a sample from that page: "The key to this step is making a change that will be subtle enough to pass under the well-trained eyes of Wikipedia editors, but big enough to ensure that some poor Middle Schooler’s research project will be ruined." Nice. What's the name of this college course, "Furthering Stupidity For Future Generations?" Dayewalker (talk) 18:24, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also shows mis-understanding of WP. Even wikipedia says don't use wikipedia for school, read the article and then read the sources. But that doesn't change the seriousness of the allegations. Remember Civility (talk) 21:38, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Meh. Wikipedia is used for school. Let me assure you of this. It is used (as the Medicine wikiproject will tell you and as they told the NIH) for self-diagnosis. It is used by incompetent airport cops to detain subjects based on a vandalized article. It is used in academic papers (yes, it is). We have no idea what level of credulity is present in the average reader, but we can't subscribe to the fiction that no one uses wikipedia as a resource of first resort. Protonk (talk) 23:40, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mon dieu, I've been mentioned in a blog! I should have known that WP would make me famous if only I included enough pages on my watchlist. Deor (talk) 03:07, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Geni, I would like copies of the correspondence you have with the person running the course, if you can arrange that. Prodego ^talk 16:40, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The twitter hash-tag link for the discussion is: here. I'm somewhat bothered by this quote "Do we get bonus points if our entries got our IP's banned, the edit revised, & deleted from history?". Maybe someone wants to tweet to this group to let them know this is not the best of all possible ideas? Best, --Bfigura ^(talk) 22:02, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm it appears some people are sending hostile emails to the students. There is no need for that.©Geni 22:45, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• It appears that someone has started a school project whose intent is to fuck with wikipedia. Arguably there is no need for that either. The students shouldn't be getting emails, the professor should be. Protonk (talk) 23:26, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Send them to the students, too. By that age, students should have the ability of questioning whether assignments are correct. It's like giving them paint cans and sending them out to do graffiti. Mature students should put the paint cans down and say "I'm not doing this."--Wehwalt (talk) 23:32, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is just some subject that students can investigate. Wikipedia may not like this, but then there are also students who have to do experiments with animals. Such experiments are subject to ethics rules. The question is if perturbing Wikipedia is such a big deal. Count Iblis (talk) 23:43, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. But us wishing they didn't do it is part of "wikipedia not liking it". I mean, if their intent (I dunno if this is a minor part of the section of wikipedia) is to disturb wikipedia then they shouldn't be too shocked to see accounts and IPs blocked and emails sent off. It is how we respond to disruption. Protonk (talk) 00:04, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and this is then similar to how a animal that is not properly sedated would react when a needle goes into its body. Perhaps Wikipedia is itself a conscious entity and the ethic rules regulating animal experiments should also apply to complex data systems? Count Iblis (talk) 00:16, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A lab rat is under no obligation to cooperate with its experiment, and thus it is caged, killed, or sedated. Wikipedia is not under the jurisdiction of UTD, and cannot easily be killed, caged or sedated by it. Accordingly, students there should not be surprised if their experimental animal is uncooperative.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:20, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Who contacted a student? That is completely out of line. How dare we call their actions unprofessional when we can't even appropriately respond ourselves? Geni was handling this situation, there was absolutely no need for anyone else (myself included) to be involved. That is why I asked for the emails Geni sent, and did not contact anyone myself. Geni: you however, have done a good job, in the future, I'd suggest not commenting here, and instead using a place inhabited by more reasonable people. Prodego ^talk 00:24, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Has the professor been referred to Wikipedia:School and university projects? —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 00:25, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Geni has emailed me and asked that I clarify a few things here on the admin discussion. Yes, it is true that students in my class were required as an assignment to edit a Wikipedia page, but no it is not true that it was done as an experiment to vandalize or "fuck with" Wikipedia. While it is true that some students took the assignment this way, this was not the explicit language of the assignment. As Geni indicates in one of the first posts here many of the edits were productive. Indeed by my estimate roughly 80% of the changes were productive and remain as part of current pages.

There were a minority of students, who after several classes on Wikipedia decided that they would like to see how long a false edit would stand. This was not however a coordinated attack, or a deliberate attempt to disrupt. Indeed my assignment was to make a substantial edit to an existing entry, and to try and make one that would "stick." Thus the easiest way to do the assignment was to make a productive edit, which was sourced, the best way to guarantee ones edit remains. However some took a different route trying to edit pages that would not get noticed. It is true that I didn't explicitly say not to do this. Indeed I suspected some would. Both types of edits and people experiences editing became part of the class and our discussion. As you can see from the class syllabus the class is about Emerging Media, so wikis are both one of our means of inquiry and methods of inquiry. One of the only ways to understand Wikipedia is to engage in editing, and often defending ones edits. So to borrow one of the analogies here, I gave students paint, taught them how to paint, how painting works and told them to use it. True some chose to graffiti, but many also chose to paint in a different way.

Let me say that I have been doing this assignment for three years now, and this is the first time it has gotten any attention of this sort. I think perhaps because a higher percentage of the students chose to vandalize the pages, but also because this time I had students blog about their experiences in editing, and thus students opinions become grist for this discussion. It seems that many are interpreting their observations about Wikipedia as what the assignment was. "The key to this step is making a change that will be subtle . . ." was not a line form the assignment but rather a student's observation after and edit was made.

Additionally the tweet sent about being banned and having edit deleted was post assignment, a snarky response to the students experience. In this case said student actually made a legitimate edit, sourced in fact, to a politically charged article. Despite said edit conforming to the NPOV not only was the page reverted, but the edit was deleted from the history, without any discussion. Given this experience I think the tweet makes complete sense. Indeed this edit helped frame our discussion my revealing the ways that power and ideology influence Wikipedia despite the NPOV.

With regards to emailing students. True as Protonk and Wehwalt observe, if students chose to nefariously edit Wikipedia they should perhaps not be surprised that they receive emails. It is how Wikipedia defends itself. But, I would also suggest that angry and hateful emails do not paint a positive picture of the Wikipedia admin community. Let's be clear about who has more power here, the admins not the students, and how this power is exercised speaks volumes about the community.

I am well aware of the Schools and University projects section. Many of the guidelines I use/used in my classes. However creating an artificial class project to contribute in a way that I chose seems less productive. I want students to contribute in a way they see as appropriate and for us to then discuss that in class, not for me to exercise my power and demand that they act as I see fit.

As proof that I take Wikipedia seriously, and that this was not intended as an experiment on/thru Wikipedia I offer the following to links, both of which I wrote defending Wikipedia and its place an institution of knowledge. I think Wikipedia is tremendously valuable and important. I do not however believe that it is sacred and should not be questioned. So, I encourage my students to question it (as we do with every object we study) some of their questioning came in a form that the admins viewed as less than productive, but I am not sure that warrants the level of response that has been produced. -http://www.scienceprogress.org/2008/02/wikipedia-and-the-new-curriculum/ -http://academhack.outsidethetext.com/home/2009/seriously-can-we-end-this-debate-already/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.186.126.229 (talk • contribs)

• Cmt WP:TLDR. Could you summarize in 50 words or less?Bali ultimate (talk) 03:01, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To reply, I'd first like to mention that it's probably unfair to paint 'admins' as the cruel and bitey ones here -- plenty of editors take exception to vandalism. It's not as if your students are getting responses solely from some small section of the community, I'd wager that plenty of regular editors responded as well. After all, "make a change and see how long it lasts" seems awfully close to being POINT-y. And to be honest, I'm surprised you didn't ask students to be constructive rather than vandals. Or at least give them some grounding in Wiki rules. It just seems somewhat silly to waste both the time of your students and that of other editors with unproductive edits. -- Bfigura ^(talk) 03:00, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mean to paint all admins as cruel here. Indeed I totally respect many of the responses here, and especially Geni and her email, only to suggest that there was more to this situation and that how one responds (in the same way that how I phrased the assignment) affected the tone of the discussion. But the emails a few students received came from admins, or at least people who identified themselves as such. It wasn't "make a change and see how long it lasts" (although some probably heard it this way) it was try and make a change that will last. They had extensive grounding in wiki rules I assure you. Which it seemed some chose to exploit and some chose to be productive with. I think "constructive" edits might be a useful frame I could employ in future iterations of the assignment, but I am also sure that some would chose to constructively edit in a way that some editors would see as vandalism and they would see as constructive. Honestly one of the hardest things to do as an instructor is to craft an assignment broad enough that you don't ask students to merely "perform" for the instructor, but rather practice knowledge for themselves. Thus the rather broad phrasing of my assignment. I don't consider this assignment a waste of my students time, anything but. Again consider that a much higher percentage of the edits were "constructive" and now part of Wikipedia pages. -Dave 03:30, 2 November 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.186.126.229 (talk) [reply]

While I can understand what you are trying to do, and I have also run courses where I have asked students to participate in Wikipedia so that they would understand the processes involved, your statement that you expected some students to vandalise little seen pages in order to meet the requirements of the assignment is more than a little worrying. Generally, the best way of studying the effect of vandalism on Wikipedia, while still respecting the project and what it is trying to do, is to find examples of vandalism and see how long they have survived, rather than performing the vandalism yourself. It would be much better, and cause much less drama, if projects like this worded in such a way as to be clear than vandalising Wikipedia is not an accepted part of the assignment, especially as Wikipedia is a live public project. - Bilby (talk) 03:05, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We actually did do this. But I can no more ban "vandalism" than you can. I wasn't going to make it ban it as part of the assignment. I think perhaps though as Bfigura suggests there were other words that could have been used to define more narrowly. But I would have to think about what these words some more. -Dave 03:15, 2 November 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.186.126.229 (talk) [reply]

Rewording would suffice. My advantage was working with postgrads, but nevertheless it was clear to them that I would need to see the edits and that the edits had to be constructive. If a student then vandalises then it is clearly against both the spirit and the rules of the assignment. I agree that we can't prevent it from happening, but steps to make it clearer to the students in all courses that it isn't acceptable would help make everyone happier. :) - Bilby (talk) 03:20, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

mr.Professor i would politely ask you that the next you suspect some of your students would take a "different" route you explicitly told them not to do it. We wikipedia editors put a lot of effort and work plus use a lot of our free time to build a reliable encyclopedia and these "test" vandalisms don't help us at all and in fact can be damaging to Wikipedia's reputation as a reliable encyclopedia. Loosmark (talk) 03:08, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(e/c) I'm glad to hear that you did give them a background in the policies, but given some of the comments about deliberate attempts to insert misinformation, I'm sure you can understand the reaction they got. And since the community had no broader background on your class or project, again, I'm sure you can understand why people might fear the worst. After all, as you allude to, one doesn't notice the constructive edits nearly so much as the bad. (One of the advantages of the Schools and Universities Wikiproject is that it can give the community an idea of what is intended). And while I understand the need to ensure they have intellectual freedom (something I grapple with for classes I've taught), I think in this case a slightly firmer set of guidelines might result in a better experience for all. Best, --Bfigura ^(talk) 03:24, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since when does Wikipedia have a reputation as a reliable encyclopedia? --NE2 03:50, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Expressing thanks to the instructor for coming to this board and addressing the matter promptly. There is an angle of this matter which I hope you will take into consideration in future versions of this assignment. Today my contribution to Wikipedia was to digitally restore a self-portrait of William Blake from the 1794 edition of Songs of Innocence and Experience. This high resolution work required approximately 30 adjustment layers in Photoshop--work which became the subject of a blog post[88] because I coach other volunteers in digital image restoration. Today that work was interrupted repeatedly by fellow volunteers who contacted me requesting feedback because they were alarmed by the appearance that your assignment had asked students to make destructive edits. When questions first arose I read the matter carefully and assured them that their worries sprang from miscommunication, but queries from different people interrupted the William Blake restoration three separate times. Another editor has requested restoration on a 1938 military parade in Lithuania and that work is a bit behind schedule due to the interruptions, even though I did not post to this thread until now. Please bear in mind that the site's most active editors would prefer to spend our time improving content: occasionally it has happened before that a university instructor assigns students to conduct breaching experiments. So it's something of a sore point when a new situation takes on a similar appearance. Better communication does help to avoid problems. Best regards, Durova³⁵² 03:47, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Whadaheck decided to change a color box (dark green) on a call-out order table (casting week) in America's Next Top Model, Cycle 13 page. It did change many times thus the color is unrelated to earlier cycles of that show. You can check the article's talk page that one user gave a warning on Whadaheck's talk page. ASAP. Thanks. ApprenticeFan ^{talk contribs} 10:59, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I moved it to Incidents discussion to discuss on his bad faith edits in America's Next Top Model. ApprenticeFan ^{talk contribs} 15:03, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not an admin issue. See Dispute Resolution. 99.166.95.142 (talk) 17:46, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have notified Whadaheck of this thread. Basket of Puppies 17:48, 30 October 2009 (UTC) [reply]

Whadaheck has a history of making unilateral changes, that go contrary to the majority consensus on the talk pages. When those edit's are reverted, he again makes them. In the past couple of days, I've given him warnings, but he's done this kind of thing several times before. At what point does that become an admin issue? ... Misty Willows ^talk 01:13, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When it gets reported to WP:3RRN. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 19:50, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

 – both editors blocked, Balkan sanction imposed on Ceha (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) Toddst1 (talk) 20:18, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User ceha has been causing problems on this page, Demographic history of Bosnia and Herzegovina, could the topic be locked for the time being, so that there can be some discussion? He just does not care. (LAz17 (talk) 16:56, 1 November 2009 (UTC)).[reply]

Resolved

 – Change was reverted by User:Protonk and endorsed by User:Philip Baird Shearer. Discussion is ongoing at Template talk:Hidden archive top.  Frank  |  talk  11:44, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Philip Baird Shearer (talk · contribs) altered protected template {{hat}} from stating that the template "archived" the contents to stating that it "refactored" it. Given that there was no discussion, and no indication that WP:REFACTOR is meant to cover the use of such a template (where the contained text is neither removed nor altered, merely hidden), I would seek a review of this unilateral use of administrative powers. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 17:43, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this is suitable for AN/I, considering that no attempt appears to have been made to contact the editor and ask about the change. Further, while I agree the change should probably be reverted at least until some consensus is reached, I see the reasoning behind it. Archiving is generally understood to mean moving the content to a separate page and providing a link to it. However, many discussions are rolled up such that they are effectively archived through collapsing or enclosing in a box of a different color (see WP:DRV, WP:RFD, and completed WP:RFAs, for example), so it's definitely a gray area, but I don't think this rises to the level of an incident. Let's try a discussion elsewhere.  Frank  |  talk  18:01, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PBS is in an ongoing dispute about the use of this template, so this does appear to be an abuse of admin tools to gain the upper hand in a dispute. Verbal chat 18:03, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't see anything recent on PBS's talk page; can you provide link(s) to ongoing dispute?  Frank  |  talk  18:07, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[89], also see WP:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive571#Refactoring or archiving. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 18:14, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could an admin at least undo this change as it is unsupported on the template talk page, where two editors (myself and Hrafn) have disputed the change. I have asked PBS, but I'm not sure he's online. Verbal chat 18:17, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since I have commented above, I'm now "involved" and won't make such an edit myself. However, I do support the edit being undone. I prefer if PBS would do so after a request for same so as to avoid a potential wheel-war, but I definitely don't think "refactor" is a better term than "archive".  Frank  |  talk  18:26, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Where is this dispute that Verbal is alluding to taking place? Unomi (talk) 18:49, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Unomi, thanks for dropping by. The dispute over the template use doesn't involve me, you'll be pleased to hear - I was just aware of it. Verbal chat 19:08, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this is a matter for AN/I. I reverted the change (loosely citing BRD). Should it get restored or some other problem erupt, then we can worry, but at the moment "no blood no foul" Protonk (talk) 18:58, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Hopefully that will end this particular matter. Verbal chat 19:08, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, so it seems that hrafn and verbal are defending a neologism by unilaterally 'archiving' discussions regarding it and then accusing PBS of being disruptive for another editor bringing up the same point? Or am I missing something? In the current context it seems clear that the previous discussion was not 'archived' in the traditional sense, it was refactored so as to be contained in a hat along with instructions to not bring up WP:NEO lines of argument. Clever. In either case PBS clearly objected to having the discussion cut short, if you want to call it impromptu archiving or refactoring does not really matter, hrafn and verbal should likely undo it. Unomi (talk) 19:10, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Huh? I don't know what all the disputes are, but if PBS was in some argument over whether or not archiving was refactoring then he went over and edited an archive template to read "refactor", that's not too cool. Protonk (talk) 19:12, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not involved with the use of this template at denialism, it's a shame Unomi is trying to make this personal again. This does show that PBS acted inappropriately, but he's willing to justify his edits now. Verbal chat 20:06, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't really understand how you can claim that you are not involved with it when you are the one utilizing it here? I would also ask you to refrain from deviating from WP:AGF, the fact that I read and summarized what I saw from the link that hrafn posted above does not make it personal. Yes, apparently hrafn added the hat (along with a rather unfriendly description) here, but verbal clearly supported and expanded its use. Being bold and changing the template text to reflect actual use is not 'inappropriate', but rather what we should all do. Bringing this issue to ANI, seemingly 8 (eight) minutes after before attempting to contact the user is, however, likely inappropriate. Unomi (talk) 20:26, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • The dispute I was referring to followed that, which is stale by now. The current dispute was to a pointer, which I had said I was ambivalent about. As you say, the renaming of the template was done during a dispute and therefore inappropriately. Also, the change in no way reflects "actual use", but that shouldn't be debated here. I think ANI is an appropriate place request administrators undo the change, as it could only be undone by admins and PBS wasn't around at the time. If a page is protected you should have a good reason to change it, leave a note, and not do so while you are involved in a dispute. Verbal chat 20:59, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have just seen the comment on my talk page. I would have reverted the change that only an admin can make to the template, but I see it has already been done. Now that I know there are objections to my bold change, I will discuss it on the talk page of the template. -- PBS (talk) 19:18, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Today, Koalorka added File:W+F Maschinenpistole E21.JPG to an article on my watchlist. I looked at the image and noticed that it was labeled as CC-BY-SA, but cited an author's permission (in German) that said, in relevant part, "I allow you to use this image on Wikipedia". That is, of course, not a sufficient CC release. I asked Koalorka about this at User talk:Koalorka#File:W+F Maschinenpistole E21.JPG, and found out that (see the discussion there):

• Koalorka did in fact not mention anything about the CC licence in his request to the author, but believes nonetheless that he may upload the image and label it as CC-BY-SA.
• Koalorka was and remains indef-blocked at Commons for "uploading unfree files after warnings".
• Koalorka has since uploaded many images to Wikipedia that are also of a questionable copyright status, including many Finnish army images (e.g. File:FDF BMP-1 IFV.jpeg) that he has labeled as "all rights waived", but that in fact are only released for free reproduction. For this reason, all such images were deleted at Commons, see Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/Template:FinnishDefenceForces.
• Koalaorka has a persistent problem with following or understanding copyright policy, and his Commons talk page and his talk page here attest to this; in particular, after being confronted with all of the above on this talk page, he believes that he has done nothing wrong.

To prevent continued copyright violations, I have indefinitely blocked Koalorka. I invite community review of this block. If it is upheld, I also propose to Special:Nuke all his image uploads because their licencing is unreliable, except those clearly sourced to a US military website (and hence properly PD).  Sandstein  19:50, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just a notice, I have to be offline for a while now.  Sandstein  19:56, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support User doesn't seem to give a damn about or want to comply with copyright policy, repeated violations, followed by blocks followed by repeated violations. Off2riorob (talk) 19:59, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All images on US military sites are not necessarily public domain. Most are, but some have more restrictive copyrights if they're uploaded by certain contractors. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 20:17, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Everything that is not attached with a US-PDGov template, I have deleted. For those who want to check to see if there are still some more bogus images, contact me and they will be deleted. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 20:29, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• User seems to have been a productive editor in other areas. I'm a bit hesitant on whether an indefinite block is warranted - perhaps a editing restriction in which the user may not upload any images would work? Then again, User:Koalorka seems to have a few other issues and a long block log. henrik•talk 20:32, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I have no objection to an unblock if the user agrees to such a restriction, though the admin unblocking him should be willing to check regularly whether it is obeyed. I'm not very familiar with his other issues, but his ANI record indicates that he does have some.  Sandstein  21:57, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here is another issue from June 2008 [90]. Mathsci (talk) 05:28, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If I'm not in the right place, or did something wrong in filing this, let me know and I'll fix it...this is kind of a combination of edit warring, BLP violations, and sock-puppetry, so I figured AN/I was my best shot.

There are several users (Bogram (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Jessey09 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Jamessoar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Sams20091010 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), and 24.188.59.164 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)) who have been attempting to add the same unreliable sources and unsourced facts to Ezra Friedlander over the past couple of days. None of these users has any contributions outside of this article (except 24.188.59.164, who had one edit to Marty Markowitz, another Brooklyn politician). All are adding the same unreliable source to the article ([91], [92], and the same material added without the source [93]). What really leads me to suspect sockpuppetry is the tendency to put internal wiki links inside <ref> tags ([94] [95])...I cleaned these up when I still thought the article had potential.

I've nominated the article for deletion and so far nobody has !voted to keep. The article's subject is interesting, and he'd be notable if there were any good sources on him, but there aren't. The AfD notification template has been removed a couple of times, but as the level of disruption is fairly low I didn't think it was worth the effort to do an SPI. I just didn't want to keep reverting and get into 3RR trouble. What to do? MirrorLockup (talk) 20:28, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(I started a BLP/N thread about this on Friday, as well: [96]) MirrorLockup (talk) 20:29, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It'd be useful if an uninvolved admin could close this report before it becomes messy. I can't (well I probably could, but no doubt someone would whine about it) because I commented in the AfD which was the subject of the original report. Thanks, Black Kite 23:07, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I second this request. I noticed 4 reverts on an AfD (1st revert: [97]; 2nd revert: [98]; 3rd revert: [99]; 4th revert: [100]) I have watchlisted and reported it. The dispute behind those reverts of which I have no opinion and which is why I am not going to revert either standpoint in the discussion seems to have spilled over onto that page now instead of it being focused on the four reverts, including one after a warning. The user I reported has reverted 4 times whereas those he reverted are a couple different editors rather than one other editor, i.e. why I did not report them as well. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 23:45, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I closed it. We'll see if that sticks. Protonk (talk) 00:02, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone deal with the first template on File:Trans-Canada Highway shield.svg, claiming that it's "a logo owned by the Government of Canada for List of numbered roads in Kawartha Lakes, Ontario"? Thank you. --NE2 00:04, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted; hopefully it sticks. --Rschen7754 (T C) 00:11, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I added it a while ago, per discussion here, verified it with my reviewer, User:Jafeluv, who made an edit to it.[101] It is a logo owned by the government of canada, for use on the List of numbered roads in Kawartha Lakes, Ontario article. Both these users are involved in a bunch of debates with me right now. I myself have questioned the validity of it, but would like it discussed by editors who aren't involved in debates elsewhere with me. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 00:21, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"New" user IP69.226.103.13 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) seems to be singlemindedly Wikihounding me at my AfD nominations (and only my AfD nominations). I find this behavior harrassing to me, and disruptive to the AfD process. Can anything be done? Abductive (reasoning) 00:54, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have also noted the curious behaviour of this IP and I endorse the concern of the complainant. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:50, 2 November 2009 (UTC).[reply]

I must also agree that the behavior of this user concerns me. They have been very aggressive and almost disruptive when relating to bots and bot policy, the user in question is also threatening to go to arbcom over comments that I made regarding the fact that they needed to read specific information. they claimed that I had said that they could not read, making my informative comment into a personal attack. This behavior is on going and log term. I suggest something be done in order to address the issue now, before it has a chance to get out of hand and become a larger issue in the future. β^_command 02:27, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just as a point, the user in question is NOT apparently interested in discussing his own disruptive behavior: see [102]. I think that there is also a very good chance this is not his only account. He showed up, fully knowledgable in Wikipedia editing, less than 2 weeks ago. --Jayron32 02:36, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would concur in the conclusion that IP69.226.103.13 is not her with forthright purposes, having seen his behavior at WT:BRFA and WP:BN. Given that he is opposed to discussing his behavior, any objections to an indef block? MBisanz ^talk 02:40, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

would recommend a CU then indef of all related accounts too. β^_command 02:42, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I first became aware of this user (as an actual IP editor) during the cleanup of the anybot mess; it may be that people involved in the relevant WikiProjects know more about him. This person's IP seems to change frequently (I've seen edits from 69.225.5.4, 69.225.5.183, 69.226.111.130, 69.226.106.109, and 69.226.103.13 apparently from this same user on WT:BRFA in the past 5 or so months), and I guess he eventually created this "IP69.226.103.13" account to answer concerns over that; at times he still neglects to log in. I have no indication as to whether he has other accounts or just extensive experience as an IP user. I know of at least one short civility block for this user, although I don't recall the specific IP. In general, I've found the user helpful when not overreacting to various issues, which unfortunately does occur rather often. I'm not sure whether an indef would be a net positive for the project or not. You'd have to identify and examine his contributions under his various IP addresses to get a full picture. Anomie⚔ 04:44, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To Jayron's point, it appears that something else is going on here. Clearly not a newby and the behaviors appear to be disruptive. If another admin disagrees then feel free to reverse this block, but to me it quacks fairly loudly. Toddst1 (talk) 05:07, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whoa, hold on a second... I'm not 100% certain that a block is fully justified here. Anomie notes a perfectly reasonable explanation for the sockpuppet issue; I think encouraging this user to keep a single account is MUCH preferrable to using multiple IPs, which hinder communication. The hounding behavior is a seperate issue, but I have not been personally convinced that rehabilitation is not possible here... --Jayron32 05:09, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alright then. I've unblocked. Can we get a CU please? Toddst1 (talk) 05:16, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't you file a SPI request and lay out the formal grounds for an investigation with CU? Crafty (talk) 05:27, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Probably not required to file a formal SPI case here; we only need a checkuser to verify Anomie's explanation that this is a former IP editor who has recently created an account, which as I note above is actually an event we wish to encourage. All a checkuser needs to do is confirm this; and we don't really need a formal SPI case to do that. Also see WP:BURO; no formal process is required here or anywhere, especially for a simple case like this. --Jayron32 05:37, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(←) Makes sense. I do remember this editor from some months back when he edited as an anon. Trying to fix up science (biology?) articles, an area in which he has expertise. If memory serves Fisher Queen was trying to help him. I think he's on the level as far as sockpuppetry goes, but CU will resolve that. As for the other stuff, well greater minds than mine will have to judge. Crafty (talk) 05:47, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The user is almost certainly not a sock. While editing as 69.226.103.13, the user revealed an enormous blunder whereby a bot had created thousands of error-filled articles in a highly technical area (the user is one of the few available who could recognize the errors). Most of the background can be seen here. The two barnstars on User:IP69.226.103.13 are genuine. The user took a tremendous amount of flak while trying to alert people about the damage performed by the bot. Unfortunately, the user has shown signs of damage from those skirmishes and is highly critical when potentially dubious statements are made at WT:Bots/Requests for approval. I have no idea what the current dispute is about, but some firm counselling may be all that is required. Johnuniq (talk) 09:40, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by apparent newbie block permanently without diffs without warning

Most of my most recent IP addresses are simply listed on the mistaken register-user name I thought of using for a while. Other ones are in the Anybot clean-up. And still more are in the User:Kurt Shaped Box anybot clean up pages, where I went through a couple of thousand bad redirects to save some of them from a love of eating seaweed.

1. I sure won't be editing as a registered user anymore.

A user puts a notice on my page saying an AN/I post may be about something I was involved in. The user accuses me of stalking her for disagreeing with half a dozen of the many AfDs she has posted with bad justifications for deletion. All articles about academics. Certainly not about minor fictional characters. She offers no proof.

A user who has been before arbcom twice, is sanctioned from editing, gets his rights back, calls me names and stalks me at bots supports the unsupported initial accusations. I get permanently blocked on no evidence whatsoever. No diffs required to kick me. Betacommand gets to continue his personal attacks on me. One of his mentors who allows him, while supposedly mentoring him, to call me a 13 year old and say I can't follow instructions, in other words allows personal attacks by a user who is supposed to be on probation comes by and supports his buddy.

So, 0% proof by anyone. But, the damning evidence is there in my edit history, the exact reason, by the way, that Betacommand assumed rightly that personally attacking me would be a freebie: I appear to be a newly registered editor, and I can go to hell without the least bit of consideration.

Don't bite the newbies, just permanently block them based on nothing, allow Betacommand to stalk and personally attack them freely, then be done with them. That will teach new editors to think they can edit wikipedia.

Let's see, if I wasn't a newly registered user what would you have done, asked for evidence? Required a notice that says I AM the subject of a post? Require diffs? Give me a warning? Any of that?

Well, it doesn't matter, does it, because I appear to be a newbie, so you can just shoot me. --69.225.9.98 (talk) 06:26, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The block and the like have been questioned; please don't let this take you off WP, at least as a registered user. You've done some damn good work, and I'd hate to see you go. Can we all just start from a clean slate here? You edit, Betacommand edits and everyone stays the hell away from one another? Ironholds (talk) 13:12, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I note that the actions above were immediately questioned by other, more reasonable members of the community. Registering an account would get rid of future issues such as this one. Ironholds (talk) 13:14, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think Ironholds raises some darned good points here; upon more further review, I concur that this user has done nothing at all wrong. The biggest problem appears to be the lax attitude towards using his registerred account. It highlights the problem with editing for a long time with anonymous IP addresses, and/or being lax about logging in. This is no way excuses anyone from failing to follow WP:AGF and WP:BITE; a problem I have been guilty of as well here. We all should work towards taking a little more time to investigate allegations of sockpuppetry and the like, especially for situations like this, myself included. IP69... should still work towards using his registerred account exclusively to edit. This does not absolve those of us who overreacted to this situation, but by doing so it would be an intelligent move towards avoiding the overreaction of others. My hope is that all sides of this issue can learn from it, and that everyone, the accusers and the accused, will learn a bit about how to avoid situations like this in the future. I know that I have. --Jayron32 16:22, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The opening sentence above, which started this discussion, is discussing the User's behavior, not sockpuppetry. 99.166.95.142 (talk) 16:34, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's only because my account was newly registered that everyone felt it was fine for an admin to indef block me, even to request an indef block, with no supporting diffs, and no warnings on my user page. I have learned that lesson about being a registered user. It's not worth it. The hostility, especially from admins, toward newly registered users on wikipedia is rampant.

No admin would have fallen for this set-up if I had been a long time user on wikipedia. Abductive would have had to provide diffs and would have had to notify me that I was being discussed, not notify me that there was a discussion about "an issue with which you may have been involved."

Betacommand's comment would have been discredited for what it is, since he is stalking and attacking me, or he would have been asked to provide diffs, and his mentor MBisanz might have thought twice about asking for an immediate indef block in support of Betacommand, considering MBisanz's personal antagonism toward me, or maybe would have been asked to provide diffs. Talk about appearance of impropriety. IMO this was clearly abuse of power on MBisanz's part.

But none of this happened. No diffs, no evidence, no benefit of the doubt for the accused, no assumption of anything but the absolute worst bad faith without any supporting evidence, simply get out here, and attack me without diffs, a community sanctioned user with 2 arbcoms and dozens and dozens of complaints against him suggests something be done, his mentor suggests without diffs or evidence, just unsupported accusation, that I be indef blocked, and almost immediately an administrator jumps in and does just that.

It's stupid to edit as a newly registered user. You are treated worse than shit on wikipedia. Certainly you are treated worse than an IP as I have always contended.

Yes, I've learned something: don't edit as a newly registered user. Don't piss of MBisanz. And post the request for enforcement the first time Betacommand personally attacks you. --69.225.3.198 (talk) 16:41, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

 – IP blocked. Edit deleted. Abecedare (talk) 05:12, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Probably just stupid stuff, but just in case, could someone expunge this and its followup comment from the history? [103] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:08, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Bugs - I just saw it, and was looking for what to do. For the record, what is appropriate procedure to follow in a case like this (involving a death threat, however improbable)? Ray^Talk 01:10, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Typically, an admin would render the entry invisible in the history, or show it as being hidden. Likewise with the Sinebot followup, since it blindly redisplays the verbiage. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:20, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked... please do not add a template to his talk page for this. Xavexgoem (talk) 01:22, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On this issue, I did a bad thing. I deleted the page to restore it sans edit summary vandalism, but now my browser can't open the undelete page. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:27, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:32, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

 – New editor hopefully got the clue. Abecedare (talk) 05:11, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have an interesting situation that has arisen as a result of an editor's article being deleted. The editor has stated that because he has had an article he created deleted he has been physically attacked and been threated with death. See [104]. What is the course of action that needs to be taken in this situation? ttonyb (talk) 01:56, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Highly unlikely. Delete, salt, and indef block. Who goes to school on Sunday? Grsz¹¹ 01:58, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Current article baleeted. Tony Fox (arf!) 02:03, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All threats of harm should be taken seriously. General practices can be found at Wikipedia:Responding to threats of harm. I will contact checkuser to locate the user so that the local authorities can be notified.--Unionhawk ^{Talk E-mail Review} 02:06, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for moving quickly on this. I agree that all threats need to be taken seriously and cannot be discounted. ttonyb (talk) 02:13, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Right. Better to find out he was kidding, and slap him on the wrists for that, than to assume he was kidding, and find out he really wasn't...--Unionhawk ^{Talk E-mail Review} 02:17, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He was kidding. Grsz¹¹ 02:20, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Should this editor be banned indefinitely for this tasteless joke? ttonyb (talk) 02:26, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nah. Just make sure he knows that stuff like that is not funny.--Unionhawk ^{Talk E-mail Review} 02:28, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He should be blocked as a vandalism-only account. Grsz¹¹ 02:33, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(←) Hmm... the vandalism only part is a valid point. Let's let the admins make the call on this one.--Unionhawk ^{Talk E-mail Review} 02:36, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The whole threat issue was a piece of foolishness, now thankfully resolved. Having taken a look at the account contributions, while I wouldn't by any stretch of the imagination say that the account had (so far) edited productively, I don't really see blatant attempts at vandalism yet. I'd be inclined to give User:Lodman a stern warning for wasting everyone's time, keep him under supervision, and see how things go from here.

Xdamr^talk 03:13, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

---

Resolved

There isn't any use of continuing this discussion, Ottava has been warned to stop the continuing discussion of Chillum's possible use of drugs. --Coffee // have a cup // ark // 07:49, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen a few bizarre personal attacks lately, but User:Ottava Rima is taking it to a whole new level with his behaviour towards User:Chillum. He's presently going from door to door after initially starting this ridiculous thread at User talk:Jimbo Wales. This would be amusing if there wasn't an actual person on the receiving end of his attacks. Unfortunately, there is. user:J aka justen (talk) 05:26, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've notified User:Ottava Rima. user:J aka justen (talk) 05:30, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Iridescents thread was there long before I posted there. Furthermore, those statements do not violate WP:NPA, but your statements do since false accusations are against WP:NPA. And Chillum has admitted to using drugs and I have emails from him with attacks confirming his use of drugs. He has posted already that I can post them:

"Take a hint, nobody gives a shit what drugs I do. The more you harp on about it the more you are going to look foolish. Wikipedia is not the place for people to wage drug wars."

The above thread is just more people trying to disrupt in order to protect Chillum from being asked -questions- about his posting that he was on acid and his admittance that he regularly takes Class A drugs. Ottava Rima (talk) 05:38, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I rest my case. user:J aka justen (talk) 05:41, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, User J was involved in disputes with me over at the David Shankbone DRV. Him and another user have been involving themselves in the above dispute while over there and their actions on both are highly suspicious per WP:WIKISTALK. I have defended Jake Wartenberg and this user has made it very obvious that they want Jake to be desysopped. Ottava Rima (talk) 05:44, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

this diff shows Ottava Rima's standard MO. He starts an entirely inappropriate discussion, and as soon as other editors call him on it, he starts to give "official warnings" and all sorts of other inappropriate responses. He has been blocked on numerous occasions, and occasionally conditionally unblocked that he would behave in a civil manner. I don't see where he has ever, in the long term, shown the slightest interest in maintaining civility, and I think that his behavior has stretched the limit of community patience to the breaking point. I would support any and all sanctions anyone else would deem necessary to curb this sort of behavior. --Jayron32 05:43, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If my discussion was inappropriate why did Jimbo respond to it in a very serious manner? And Jayron, please don't make false statements about my block log. All of the recent blocks have been overturned as being inappropriate and lacking consensus. The only one seeing incivility are those like you who are acting inappropriately. Ottava Rima (talk) 05:46, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He, in fact, effectively told you to drop it. Instead, you've proceeded to escalate your attacks and harassment. user:J aka justen (talk) 06:05, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"I would prefer that all users, not just admins, conduct themselves with dignity and professionalism at all times. Certain kinds of references to illegal drug use would not be appropriate in any normal workplace, and are therefore similarly are not appropriate for Wikipedia." That negates your claims about the topic being inappropriate. Ottava Rima (talk) 06:11, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Ottava's take on Jimbo's comments is a matter of some disagreement. Frankly Jimmy really didn't say a lot about this and his comments certainly don't offer the clear cut position Ottava claims. More generally, Ottava responds to any criticism of his position with shrieks of "uncivil!!" and "personal attack!!", whilst doing precisely those things to those he sees as his detractors. I believe this is his standard operating procedure in a dispute. I cannot see what objective good will come of Ottava persuing this. More ominous is Ottava's accusation of sockpuppetry against Chillum. He is yet to make good on that and lodge an WP:SPI. Crafty (talk) 06:07, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have never claimed there was a clear cut position. I claimed that he answered in an honest and straight forward manner, which verified that -I- was not the one disrupting. Those, like yourself, that turned to hyperbolic statements, cried about witch hunting and the rest, were completely inappropriate and highly disruptive. Ottava Rima (talk) 06:11, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The remainder of Jimmy's post, does not seem to verify that take of his serious comments either: "If there's an ongoing pattern of behavior which appears to be disruptive or which would tend to reflect negatively on the project, then it could be addressed - preferably with a minimum of drama and hand-wringing. But based on my experience with hundreds of Wikipedians all around the world, we are in no danger of being overrun by drug fiends or anything. :-)"Synchronism (talk) 06:27, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You must realize that Jimbo was stating that he believed that it could have been a joke or a minor issue. This was before it was made clear by Chillum through email confirming that he is a regular user and sees no problem with drugs interfering with his wiki state. Ottava Rima (talk) 06:35, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that Ottava is still arguing despite stirring up essentially no vocal distrust of Chillium (at least in everyone else's view) can be taken as an implication that nothing will come of his further posting on the issue. If we all stop feeding the fire, I'm sure he'll just burn himself out. And I'm going to pre-emptively respond to Ottava, since I don't wish to forsake my own advice: I'm not saying that you were wrong to be concerned, and I don't mean to make any disagreement with Jimbo's sentiments. However, you must realize that you have been the only one beating the horse for quite some time, so you can take it as a good indicator that no consensus will ever appear to censure Chillum in any way, shape or form because of this. Someguy1221 (talk) 06:10, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Prodego, Malleus, Moni3, and Iridescent have all expressed blatant and open disagreement. Your claim that there was no vocal distrust is absolutely false. I was not the first one to bring up the topic. I merely posted on Jimbo's talk page about it per Chillum's recall standards which are quoted above in a link. Ottava Rima (talk) 06:14, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is very easy to find comments taken out of context that reflect badly on an editor. However, many editors have been upset by the high standards that Ottava Rima has insisted upon. Can anyone provide an example where Ottava Rima has hindered the improvement of any article or where his actions have damaged any article? The Four Deuces (talk) 06:19, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When was he accused of doing so? I'm not sure what harming articles has to do with an issue of what largely amounts to harassment. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:23, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nearly sixty edits in the past day leading a respected administrator to temporarily leave the project is harassment, plain and simple. That does not improve the project, and it's unacceptable. user:J aka justen (talk) 06:25, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Harassment, by definition, is following someone to multiple arguments you werent involved with in order to create a battleground state. You are doing that by entering this other argument in retaliation for me defending Jake Wartenberg, who you have tried unsuccessfully to have desysopped because you disagree with his judgment. J, what you state applies to you and only to you. Ottava Rima (talk) 06:33, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I will respond to this once and only once: I've found your commentary at that deletion review to be most interesting (and sometimes even entertaining) reading, and I don't consider you to be my "enemy" in that discussion. The talk page you originally posted this to is on my watchlist; I only took notice of it due to the frequency with which you have edited that talk page today. What I found when looking into your edits there, and that alone, led me to bring this here. Not your username, not your edits elsewhere. If you wish to believe otherwise, that's fine, but your conspiracy theories don't wash away the fact that your edits here are the issue, not your belief that I'm your "enemy." user:J aka justen (talk) 06:37, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"is on my watchlist" amusing coincidence, because Seraphimblade said the same thing when he was questioned as to posting on one discussion, not getting the outcome he wanted, and starting to intervene with the Jimbo page in a highly aggressive manner which this thread also shows. Ottava Rima (talk) 06:42, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Might you post the diff in which I was aggressive, please? Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:47, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[105] There are your diffs. Your tone up and down that DRV has been highly aggressive. Your following people to other discussions is further sign that the aggression boils into harassment. Ottava Rima (talk) 06:51, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What, precisely, is aggressive or harassing about those edits? Crafty (talk) 06:54, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[106] "Wiki-hounding is the singling out of one or more editors, and joining discussions on pages or topics they may edit or debates where they contribute, in order to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work, with an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance or distress to the other editor" Two users who were disagreed with on one page who were together in the argument have one go to the page and talk about impropriety while the other starts an ANI thread, each with the same explanation is problematic editing behavior. It is revenge editing and wikistalking. Ottava Rima (talk) 06:58, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I anticipated that response, and that's why I implied that you haven't stirred up any vocal distrust. They acted independently of you. Someguy1221 (talk) 06:22, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Um, what? So, the last person to come to an issue should be blocked because they are the last? Is that the next logic? Furthermore, Prodego followed my posting. That is one person that definitely came after me, so your own new logic doesn't work. Ottava Rima (talk) 06:24, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I never said you should be blocked - only ignored (and here I go immediately ignoring my own advice, for the second time). My point is that except for the first four people who looked at what Chillum wrote and voiced a concern, no one else has hopped in, desipte that aforementioned 60+ edits you've made pressing your case. And Prodego never supported you, unless I missed an edit he made; he voiced his belief that Chillum was, in fact, on drugs, but did not judge it in any capacity. Someguy1221 (talk) 06:30, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The argument boiled down to people claiming that there wasn't an issue because it was a joke. Prodego stating that there was drug use verifies that it was not a false and disruptive concern. Ottava Rima (talk) 06:33, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The trouble with disruptive users like this is that although everyone agrees they are best ignored, most of the time they are not – they cannot be, because sometimes they make such an outrageous attack that the person attacked feels compelled to respond. Thus continues the cycle. This just wastes the time of everyone involved. LK (talk) 06:36, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are times when Ottava cannot be ignored. His recall proceedings against SarekofVulcan spring to mind. How well has that sideshow progressed? Crafty (talk) 06:38, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Crafty, you would do best if you recognized that using processes and following standards is not disruptive. Ottava Rima (talk) 06:43, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can an admin on drugs be trusted?

This is the true topic of the thread, as many of the people here mostly want to push the claim that an admin on drugs as self admitted can still be trusted, and they do not like the idea that they cannot. Chillum has already declared that I am operating a "drug war" in claiming that a drug like acid impairs the judgment and admin judgments should be made only in a clear and objective manner. He admitted to using drugs, and, though people claim it was a joke, he was asked many times and not once said it was a joke. Now, Acid has the effective range of 12 hours. There is only a 7 hour gap. We know he edited to post the original statement about being on acid and he has a secret secondary account which cannot be verified as to having edits or not. His talk page also made it clear that he is a regular drug user and it cannot be known which of his administrative actions may or may not have been altered or affected by drug use. When questioned, he refused to make any answers regarding the matter. Very simple questions brought a very harsh response. Of course, many people who are sympathetic to Chillum or to drug use in general (as many have admitted on Jimbo's talk page) will probably soon declare that questioning such use is disruptive. Such aggressiveness and hostility to question is strong evidence as to how there is a problem with allowing such conduct to happen. Ottava Rima (talk) 07:05, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And the response is "we aren't seeing evidence of on-wiki actions that raises concern", and on-wiki behavior is the standard by which wiki editors gain trust of other wiki editors. DMacks (talk) 07:10, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• No - an admin on Class A drugs cannot be trusted if they admittedly use drugs while working on Wikipedia. Drug use should not be made public, nor should an admin operate Wikipedia while impaired in any condition. Such conduct is unsuitable and does not reflect properly on Wikipedia as a whole. Ottava Rima (talk) 07:09, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So if he didn't make it public, we wouldn't be here because nobody would know? At worst, stating it was the only mistake (if indeed it's true). DMacks (talk) 07:12, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are you experienced? Jehochman ^Talk 07:11, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think admins and everyone else should be allowed to self-deprecate as much as they want without fear of it being taken literally. There's no evidence of actual drug use. This is straw-grasping. Equazcion (talk) 07:13, 2 Nov 2009 (UTC)

This whole discussion is harshing my mellow. Toddst1 (talk) 07:15, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He admitted to drug use and was asked multiple times directly if he was joking. He refused to. He also has a prominent blog in which he broadcasts his constant drug use. Ottava Rima (talk) 07:17, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Ottava, you're supposed to be extra civil, man. Like, everybody has told you to drop this. You're giving me a bad trip. Please, won't you drop it. Jehochman ^Talk 07:16, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't it an oft-repeated credo that we're supposed to be commenting on EDITS, and not editors? Where's the diffs of questionable edits? Dayewalker (talk) 07:19, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Adminship is about trust, and admin who admit to editing while impaired have interfered with this trust. There are many, many people who believe that Chillum has crossed the line and acted inappropriately. Ottava Rima (talk) 07:35, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mohito anyone? Crafty (talk) 07:20, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ottava, people have asked you to drop this matter. You made your report to Jimbo, you made your report here. Leave this be, or you might be facing a block for harassing this user. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 07:23, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I have pointed out, there is nothing harassing about this. Even Wikipedia Review, who hates me, has stated that there is nothing appropriate in his action. Notice some of the respected Wikipedians who responded there. You need to correct your tone immediately. You wont be protecting Chillum's complete abuse of adminship through intimidation and harassment. Ottava Rima (talk) 07:31, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I've left Ottava a final warning, and am now heading offline. Any administrator is welcome to enforce my warning if it is ignored. Earnestly, Jehochman ^Talk 07:25, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jehochman has been told by the community he has no such authority and his long history of harassment and proven abuse of tools against me only verifies that he is being disruptive. Ottava Rima (talk) 07:31, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I've ever seen a more nauseating display of self-righteous obnoxiousness on Wikipedia. I don't know if that's a blockable offence by itself, but you should be ashamed of yourself. Just drop it, OK? -- ChrisO (talk) 07:36, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

Possible community ban

I dunno if this should be closed just yet. I think a community ban is in order here. Jtrainor (talk) 09:13, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say start a new section if you want, but given his history here, I doubt it'll stick. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:34, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There has apparently never been a WP:Request for Comment/Ottava Rima. Or so I'm told --Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:28, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We seem to always mention that and one never starts. If indeed that's a necessary step, I suggest starting on it now. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 13:50, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If doing so, I suggest including his astonishing behaviour at Talk:George Gordon Byron, 6th Baron Byron and the WQA that followed (I can provide diffs if you didn't see that circus go by), plus this, but not go back months and months. I will sign off on the basis of the Byron/WQA incident as I was directly involved (and contrary to Ottava's apparent opinion, you actually have to be involved to certify one of these things). Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:58, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify: I will not be initiating any such thing as I've no personal dispute here; someone involved needs to take the initiative if this is to happen. I'd probably participate if it happened, though. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 14:31, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Now that I have walked away from Wikipedia for 14 hours or so I can come back with renewed patience. While I will not object to the idea of a community ban, I will also not support it as Ottava has on multiple occasions accused me of conspiring to get others to go against him. I will say that if he stops now then it may not be needed. If he continues then I will leave it up to you folk. Chillum 14:43, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Review even defends me, the people who hate me. If I get banned because I followed every single guideline and questioned an Admin making such a post on his talk page, then every single person involved in this has really proven that they don't care about our policies. The fact that Jtrainor repoened this and no one has blocked him even though he has clearly crossed the line, as with many people here, is so incredibly disturbing there aren't even words to encapsulate these events. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:48, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you just make everyone else wrong, Ottava, and continue with your pattern of behaviour you aren't going to last very long anyway; I would have thought a week long block and then civility probation would suffice. Thanks, SqueakBox talk contribs 14:51, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing as how Jtrrainor is retaliating against me for posting an RfC against Bishonen, and that Elen and others were involved, there is a very clear reason why the maker of this section made this section. SqueakBox, if anyone should be blocked it should be you for your countless personal attacks and your making of statements with unwillingness to provide diffs to back them up, even though you were asked four times to provide them and not providing them was a direct violation of WP:NPA because you were making claims about impropriety. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:54, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can somebody remind me please: Jehochman mentioned an existing civility restriction on O.R.'s talk page, which O.R. promptly denied existed. When and where was such a restriction formally installed? Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:50, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There was never a restriction. Jehochman, who has a long history with me and was involved in an incident, tried to claim that he placed me on a permanent civility restriction and would block me if I ever said anything incivil. The community said that not only did he not have any authority in the matter, but that his own statements were highly inappropriate. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:52, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I found the discussion. It doesn't really matter: a "civility restriction" is nothing else than a formal warning connected with a suggestion to other administrators to enforce usual policies on you with a lowered blocking threshold. Every administrator can make such a warning, and that warning was certainly appropriate. Many other people have warned you again today; I'll be the next. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:59, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Warnings without proof of incivility are violations of WP:NPA. Not one has linked a diff that showed any incivil comment. Furthermore, Jehochman was an involved user so his "adminship" does not apply. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:06, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I repeat my comment from below: Ottava, I'm not going to give anything more than pure, honest advice. Get off the computer, go get yourself a drink, and sit down and read a good book for a while. I find that it works wonders when I'm feeling stressed over a situation. At the very least, go take a walk or watch some tv. It'll do some good. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 15:25, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not feeling stressed, nor do I know why I would. The attacks upon me by the same people who have been attacking me for a month, combined with the issue of merely asking a question without any diffs (after being asked for quite a long time now) to prove that I made any incivil comment, only verifies that I am not the one causing a problem. If anything, that is a rather good thing as it only proves that the same people are constantly disrupting and its not me. It is only inevitable that the community ships them out. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:31, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Still, getting off the computer for a while and visiting some coffeeshop in Amsterdam will do wonders. You'll see things in a different perspective and not bother to engage in these sorts of silly disputes. Count Iblis (talk) 15:42, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing the circumstances, isn't this a bit of an bad time to refer to drugs again? Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 15:44, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, since the main problem here is not so much "incivility" in the classic sense, but perennial drama-stirring and vendettas, how about a different form of community sanction: the drama plug? I hereby propose the following: Ottava Rima is to be restricted, by community consensus, in the following way: Whenever O.R. feels he needs to raise an objection against the conduct of some other party, he is allowed to make exactly one single post about it to a forum of his choice, and no more. From that point, he is required to leave the discussion of the issue to others. If the complaint has merit, somebody will adopt it. Note: Complaints arising as follow-ups from such a situation, i.e. complaints about somebody's reaction to his complaint, do not count as legitimising another post. How about that? Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:18, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's not fair. Ottava should have the right to defend himself. Just because he's got a tendency to attract commotion doesn't mean he should be rendered helpless by the community. And just because commotion annoys some people doesn't mean they should get rid of the source because it's causing them stress. In my eyes, everybody's doing wrong here. I'd sincerely appreciate it if this could stop here. Master of Puppets 15:28, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Master of Puppets here, any user has the right to defend his or her statement; If we would limit O.R to a single post he or she would never have the chance to defend his or her opinion. Personally i'm more concerned with what i perceive as the constant lack of good faith which results in issuing warnings and threats, alongside with the in my eyes aggressive way of communication. One of the problems is that O.R denies even the remote possibility of him or her being wrong, which makes this subject harder to address. Yet it has to be addressed less this will keep going out of hand. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 15:42, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Warnings don't imply a belief that another is editing in bad faith. Most of my warnings were asking people to stop with certain comments or stop making comments without diffs. People refuse to post diffs to what they claim about my comments. I have checked each and every one of my comments before posting and I am very guarded on what I say or don't say. I have been for a very long time, so when people claim I post incivil comments, they better show it. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:46, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regrettably, your actions appear to not always be in line with your stated standards: above, after accusing an administrator of stalking and attacking you, you were asked for diffs to back up or back off your claims. You responded with a link to the history of a page and with: "There are your diffs." The bad faith assumptions on your part are, frankly, becoming increasingly disruptive, and every time someone responds with a valid criticism of your behaviour, you obfuscate or begin attacking them as well. user:J aka justen (talk) 15:55, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See the topic i started below, i quoted plenty, yet you immediately discarded them as "Not true" with yet another warning towards of me being in violation of WP:NPA. Similary there have been several other editors cautioning you for being uncivil. If you believe that several editors are all talking nonsense, how can anyone "Show you" that they deem something uncivil, if you immediately discard those concerns as baseless? In other words, if you aren't open for criticism in any way, how can you expect people to show you may be wrong? Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 16:04, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anybody recall the kids fairy story about the mice voting to put a bell on the cat? That's what we have here. The responses of Ottava to anything that Ottava disagrees with are so aggressive that people simply give up rather than start that RfC/U and put up with the attacks that will follow. A mere suggestion to change the name of an article produces an outpouring of invective, accusations of bad faith, accusations of untruthfulness, and accusations of disruption and general mendacious conduct. Any attempt to calm the situation results in another outpouring, this time usually accusations of working with others one has never heard of to do Ottava down, being involved in things one has never heard of, being a sockpuppet, meatpuppet, or generally not being yourself. It's not worth it to the individual.

But this state of affairs really cannot be allowed to continue. I agree with the statements above that restricting Ottava to one post at ANI or whatever is not workable - also it does not address the fact that these dramas are usually only the last act. Conduct on talk pages in content disputes concerns me far more, because of the effect Ottava can have on a debate when he goes off on one. If he could present his arguments without it sounding like a rant he would put forward a more persuasive suggestion a lot of the time, and retain good working relations with other editors. Can a way be found to achieve this? Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:01, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you on the points you make elen. Simply sounding less hostile and vindicative could have prevented the absolute majority of this issue, as it would less likely have turned into a shouting match. Im against using strong arm tactics such as strait out blocking as this is simply a stopgap measure - it will only set bad blood between Ottava and other people, and it won't have any positive effect in the long run. Likewise ottava has demonstrated (s)he is an excellent editor who actually does excellent work most of the time. A community block would therefor also benefit noone.

The major problem, however, is that Ottava seems convinced (s)he did absolutely nothing whatsoever, reinforced by the idea that people are out to get him\her. It is so hard to change a man who made up his mind that i am at a bit of a loss on how to solve this without causing any unneeded damage. Any suggestions? Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 16:14, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"The responses of Ottava to anything that Ottava disagrees" - I have worked with User:Haiduc on Nicolo Giraud while having 100% opposite views of him and got the article to FA. I have worked with Malleus on two FAs and we do not agree on anything personable, disputed quite a bit over grammar and weight issues and the such. I have worked with Ironholds and we have 100% opposite views and dispute often, yet have an FA there. I have worked with Ceoil and got through a lengthy page. Each of these times, there has been heavy compromise, working together, and dealing with people directly. I have no featured credits with anyone who is my "friend" and agrees with me on issues. Most people come from very conflicted backgrounds and have majorly different views from me. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:57, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support drama plug for this user per Fut.Perf. We have wasted a ridiculous amount of time catering for this user's eccentricity across several forums over the past 36 hours. I would be loath to see any repetition of this. It may be that a block or the threat of one is needed to let this user know how inappropriate their behavior has been. --John (talk) 16:35, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment This is just another of Ottava Rima's vendettas against anyone who has ever crossed him (see the recent recall proceedings against User:SarekofVulcan). Chillum's mistake was to refuse a request for unblock from OR on October 27:[107]. Ottava was obviously too busy with the WikiCup competition to pursue the grudge at the time but right after it finished (October 31) he was back drama-mongering. Funnily enough, Chillum was the admin who unblocked Ottava early back in September:[108]. Maybe he was "under the influence" when he made that decision.--Folantin (talk) 16:43, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I object to a community ban at this time. WP:RFC/U might be a next step if people have lingering concerns. Jehochman ^Talk 16:52, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ottava's "Seeing as how Jtrainor is retaliating against me for posting an RfC against Bishonen.." posted above is kind of silly. Jtrainor seems to be a very sensible chap/chapess, but I don't actually know him/her. Also, noone should take the trouble of retaliating for RfC Bishonen 4, seeing as I enjoyed it, especially the cupcakes. Pity it was deleted so soon! Bishonen | talk 17:43, 2 November 2009 (UTC).[reply]

The user repeatedly claimed at the connected AfD that I put up the RfC because "I hate Bishonen" and was asked multiple times to provide diffs or refrain from making such comments and refused. I do not hate you Bishonen, nor have I ever hated you. Do I trust you as an admin? No, but that has nothing to do with you. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:58, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:J disruptive behavior

Something needs to be said regarding the conduct of the editor who began this thread. During the past week J has altered or blanked three different editors' talk page posts without their consent, and responded aggressively to feedback. In fact, it is possible that this thread ostensibly about Ottava Rima may have been an outgrowth of that problem.

On October 30 I attempted to play peacemaker at Jake Wartenberg's user talk. Jake had made a mistake that had gotten a few people rankled, and complaints had continued even after Jake had admitted the mistake. Another editor had already archived the discussion and I had taken no part in the dispute. So I collapsed the discussion and announced that Jake had undertaken a new featured content drive.[109] J completely blanked my post.[110] J had been active in the dispute. To the best of my knowledge I had never interacted with J before.

Both Jennavecia and I arrived at J's talk page at roughly the same time to ask him to discuss our posts with us if he disagrees with what we write, rather than reverting us unilaterally.[111] J had recently blanked one of her posts from David Shankbone's user talk page.[112] J's response, basically, was to point fingers at everyone other than himself.[113] After three different attempts to communicate I informed him that if the problem continued I would seek outside opinions. His response in edit summaries appears to be angry.[114][115]

J's very next post after telling me off was to start this noticeboard thread about Ottava Rima.[116] J appears to have had no prior interaction with Ottava Rima (at least no recent interaction), but it wouldn't be very hard to get to Ottava Rima by checking my recent edit history: it was the only other user talk page where I had been active yesterday. I had posted to Ottava's user page in the attempt to defuse another conflict--suggesting a joint featured picture/DYK drive about the poetry of William Blake.[117] Without taking sides in the Chillum/Ottava Rima scuffle, anyone can agree that the site would be better off putting our energies there. Well, nearly anyone--because half an hour after J expressed resentment of my media contributions, he began this ANI thread.

J's behavior related to this thread was also disruptive. He attempted to unclose the discussion,[118] which drew a complaint from Toddst1.[119] J's reaction to Toddst1 was worse than his reaction to Jennavecia or myself: J attempted to strikethrough Toddst1's posts.[120] Toddst1 rightly pointed out that striking through is not okay because it implies retraction.[121]

I've seen people get blocked for less than this. We really don't need someone turning olive branches into whipping sticks at the David Shankbone article deletion debate and Ottava Rima's disputes. Durova³⁵² 16:27, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You can't honestly believe that I brought my concerns with User:Ottava Rima's recent conduct here because of you, can you? His conduct has nothing to do with the David Shankbone article, and the assumption that it does is just about as bad faith as it gets. I see the tit for tat strategy you are pursuing here, but it's just remarkable to me the extent to which you apparently plan to pursue it. user:J aka justen (talk) 16:34, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tits? WHERE?! HalfShadow (talk) 16:37, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fava beans and a nice Chianti, Clarice. Master of Puppets 16:45, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nonetheless, habitually blanking and altering other editors' talk page posts is blockable. Three separate people have attempted to communicate this to J this week. His reaction has been defiant and disruptive. Durova³⁵² 16:40, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Habitually"? Refactoring personal attacks or (intentionally or otherwise) disruptive edits, which unfortunately applied to the edits you and Lara made, is not "habitually," it's two edits. I note that other editors concurred with both changes: Lara's comments have since been collapsed, yours were since refactored by the owner of the talk page. I struck Todd's poorly considered comments on my talk page and noted that I had done so; he objected and later struck his most inaccurate comment himself (after three administrators agreed his close here was inappropriate). You, madame, are making a mountain out of a mole hill, and I'm afraid your motives speak for themselves. user:J aka justen (talk) 16:47, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deruva, before i comment on anything else, i would like to point out that i started an identical section below regarding the same topic. I believe we are in no way related par the venture of previous contact to any degree (at least recently) so wouldn't it be more appropriate to move this section to a separate topic as the relation between these two topics in only flimsy?

Also, Im not exactly sure what kind of situation i suddenly wandered into; I keep seeing users blaming each other for attempting to ban each other for past interactions. I remember Ottava saying something about "Editors out to get me for something of the past, and we all know why". I also remember chillem voicing the opinion that Ottava may be after him for some kind of block, and now i see you pointing to J for being after ottava because of past interaction with you? Glad my main line of work is vandalism \ new page patrol. At the very least i don't have to deal with these kind of intrigues. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 16:42, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I beg your pardon if this duplicates a thread you started; feel free to move if you think that's appropriate. The sequence here doesn't rise to such eloquent terms as intrigue: problem, three attempts to communicate and solve the problem; problem recurs three times with three different people in short time frame. Manifestation of problem is already at ANI, so articulate the problem with diffs. The rest is spin. Durova³⁵² 16:49, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry - that statement i just made was horrible on the grammar part. What i intended to say was that i started a section below as well regarding Ottava - Since it doesn't seem that there is any form of interaction between us in the past i think this means that more editors signal this issue as ANI related. Therefor i would think that J's conduct is more of a separate issue rather then being a sub header towards the current discussion. Since i do not know the magnitude of the situation i leave it to you to decide if these are related or seperate. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 16:56, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't wish to diminish anything said in the long thread; but it should be noted that it is possible for two editors to both be behaving poorly, even if they are on the opposite sides of an issue. I am not stating that J. has misbehaved here, but even if he has, it does not absolve Ottava Rima's long history, which was being discussed above. It's entirely possible that everyone is in the wrong here. I am not saying that is what happened, but I also think we need to avoid letting that possibility cause one set of problems be swept under the rug merely because we are faced with a different set of problems. I have no idea what the interaction history between Durova and J. is; but it should be emphasized that there was apparently no interaction history between J. and Ottava Rima; we often complain that "involved" people bringing complaints about other users or acting to sanction them. However, we seem to have had a genuine case of a complaint being brought forward by an uninvolved user. If J and Durova has issues to work out, it would be best not to let such a situation cloud the initial set of problems involved Ottava Rima. --Jayron32 17:43, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

The image File:Doug Hoffman promo photo.JPG is under a disputed fair use claim, but the subject is a living person, which should be replaceable under Wikipedia:Non-free content. Could a sysop review the situation and determine the appropriate action? This will be a touchy situation, because Doug Hoffman is currently running in the New York's 23rd congressional district special election, 2009--Blargh29 (talk) 05:54, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• The same goes for File:Dede Scozzafava promo photo.jpg--Blargh29 (talk) 05:58, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Both are replaceable and should be deleted and replaced with File:Replace this image male.svg/File:Replace this image female.svg. This will hopefully motivate their campaigns to donate free images. If not, their loss.  Sandstein  06:29, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• • They are both tagged as such, but awaiting a sysop to delete them. I am not one, which is why I made this note here.--Blargh29 (talk) 06:40, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is a Colombia-based IP (dynamic IP, can't be blocked without using a range) who has a long history of editing pages on subjects related to euthanasia disruptively. At one stage, he reduced the entire talk page at Action T4 to a shambles see what it looked like. On Talk, notice how he repetitively added the text:

PEOPLE ARE BEING MASSIVELY AND COERCIVELY KILLED UNDER THE GUISE OF EUTHANASIA, THE CURRENT WIKIPEDIA VERSION IS PROPAGANDA PRO EUTHANASIA, therefore [Wikipedia's page is a] CRIME APOLOGY

Currently, he is targeting Involuntary euthanasia, and now has started in on Euthanasia in the Netherlands.

The problems with this person are

1. He is not natively English-speaking and most of his edits are garbled.
2. He does not really understand how wikipedia works and puts off-topic details into articles.
3. He edit wars everything and doesn't know or care about 3RR or any other rules.
4. He has an obsessive religious objection to euthanasia and is determined to edit hostile and sometimes incoherent comments onto pages.
5. He is immune to arguments. Admin TeaDrinker (talk · contribs) tried long and hard to reason with him at Talk:Action T4 to no avail. Only page protection stopped him at Aktion T4, but my recent request for page protection of Involuntary euthanasia failed because (apparently) there is only one person involved.

Small selection of his IPs:
190.25.97.110 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
190.27.152.60 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
190.25.192.2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
190.25.104.148 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
190.27.99.85 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
201.244.200.44 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)