A casualty of the user:Ryoung122 wars (which now includes an attack [1] on the notability of Stephen Coles by the same editors), has been the indefinite blocking of user:StanPrimmer as a sockpuppet, when actually he is at most a meatpuppet. For those of you who've not lately reviewed the difference, see WP:MEAT. Specifically: "As opposed to sock puppets, meatpuppets are actual newbies, and it is important to not bite the newbies." The obvious reason being that newbies do not know what meatpuppets are, either (far less than administrators seem to).

Now, Stanley R. Primmer is a newbie and real person (for photo of him and talk he gave while founding the Supercentinarian Research Foundation, see [2]), and this inconvenient fact was pointed out by to editor user:BrownHairedGirl, who had specifically acccused [3] Primmer of being a sockpuppet for Robert Young. Apparently on no other basis but supporting comments Primmer gave in defence of Young and Coles [4] [5]. Apparently, if you disagree with an administrator and have a new account, that makes you a sockpuppet until proven otherwise, and perhaps without anybody bothering to look one way or the other (as in this case). In any case, user:BrownHairedGirl went to administrator user:Maxim's webpage and asked for a range of Young IP sockpuppet blocks, and included Primmer as a meatpuppet [6]. Whereupon Maxim blocked Primmer as a sock, indefinitely, giving sockpuppetry as the reason [7] [8] without adequate checking of ISP locations. Wups. The two men (Young and Primmer) are on opposite sides of the country, as their ISP's show. A mistake, and not a good one for an admin (who is supposed to be careful about permanent blocks of nameusers) but perhaps honest.

From here on, however, is where things go beyond honest mistake.

Editor NealRC and I pointed out that Primmer was not a sock, but a newbie. At this point BrownHairedGirl thanked us, simply characterized him as indeed a meatpuppet, and went so far as to reference WP:SOCK [9]. Apparently not reading WP:MEAT. When I pointed out the obvious difference [10], I got no response from BrownHairedGirl.

My next action was to notify administrator user:Maxim on his TALK page that Primmer was not a sock, but rather, as a newbie, had been blocked by mistake at somebody else's request, and that this was pretty ironic action for people who were afraid of "meatpuppets" (people recruited into an argument!) At least meatpuppets only give unwanted opinions and don't do administrative damage! [11]. Maxim's response was simply to erase my comment from his talkpage [12], not reply, AND do nothing about Primmer. After the initial block for being a sockpuppet, Primmer had previously been both unblocked and then RE-blocked indefinitely by Maxim, both without stated editorial reason [13]. So it's not as though Maxim didn't think about it. This newbie remains blocked, due to his opinions (which he gave, by the way, in a case involving public notability of a wiki-BIO figure, so it's not as though outside opinion wasn't appropriate).

In summary, both editors know what they are doing, and they know it is against policy, having been notified. Neither deign to answer ME. But they did it anyway, because they wanted to, and it got rid of a "disruptive" opinion in two debates (one on Young, the other on Coles) which didn't agree with theirs. I suppose they figure they can let it stand so long as nobody brings it to ANI

Now, I've been editing Wikipedia for a while (in fact, a lot longer than either Maxim or BrownHairedGirl !), and I've seen how administrative abuse works. If you leave more than one message on a TALK page you open yourself up to charges of harrassment, and if you're too good at argument someplace else, you find that you're accused of being that nebulous thing which nobody wants to be: "disruptive." The last being a little difficult to use against me, with my rather wide range of constructive and still existant edits, but I know when it's time to leave the matter in the hands of people who can't get stomped on for their views. I've personally done all I can. You have two badly-performing administrators. So, your dead fish. SBHarris 04:46, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sbharris has omitted the crucial point here: that Ryoung122 has already used several socks, and is using his Worlds Oldest People yahoogroup to campaign for as many meatpuppets as possible to come and swamp AfDs. I will paste one example below (there are several others)

Also, Harris has alleged that other editors (apparently including me) have been "recruiting associates and friends to echo you from among people who are already here". I have asked for the diffs, without success, and if Harris is acting in good faith, I hope that they will now be produced. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:38, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing "crucial" about the point. Meatpuppetry is not a blockable offense. What part of this don't you understand? Second, I'm making an assumption that you're communicating with the group of editors you have going around with you examining geriatrics-related subjects and authors. But it could be mental telepathy, or it could be like a school of fish. I admit it. The difference, however, between this and other kinds of recruiting, is that you're doing it as administrators, and doing joint administrative power-tricks with it, like labeling articles as non-notable and unreferenced, and blocking newbies from fixing their references so they are. That makes it an entirely different thing. Basically, you're using software, not persuasion, to enforce your point of view. SBHarris 04:22, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Harris, you really seem to have great difficulty with assuming good faith. I have told you umpteen times that I have not been canvassing or recruiting people, and even though you have no evidence you have assumed maliciously that there must be unseen canvassing: wrong. Wrong, because it's not happening and because it won't happen, because I despise that way of work (WP:CANVASS is particularly stern about "stealth canvassing").

So far as I can see, what has happened is simply that my talk page is on the watchlists of a lot of editors, and some of those watching it an/or my contribs list decide to join in the discussions which are referred to there. I have no control over who these people are, or what views they take, and have often found that people who I know to be watching my talkpage join in to disagree with me, which they are quite properly entitled to do. Any communication is taking place on wikipedia talk pages, apart from the emails from those editors who decided (without being approached from me) to forward copies of Young's campaigning emails. Watch my talk page and my contribs list, and you will miss nothing.

The semi-protections were applied to articles simply because Young's confirmed sockpuppets were busy editing them. But all these are details; I'm curious that you are full of fury at anyone who does anything to restrain people who abuse wikipedia to promote themselves of their friends and colleagues. That's an interesting arrangement of priorities. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:22, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maggie_Barnes

 I am reminded of the saying by Martin Niemoller:

 First They Came for the Jews
 First they came for the Jews
 and I did not speak out
 because I was not a Jew.
 Then they came for the Communists
 and I did not speak out
 because I was not a Communist.
 Then they came for the trade unionists
 and I did not speak out
 because I was not a trade unionist.
 Then they came for me
 and there was no one left
 to speak out for me.

 Pastor Martin Niemöller

 So, group members: do we really care, or not? If someone 115 years
 old is not immune to this, then who is? Again, one man is no army. I
 cannot be the only one standing up for these articles. If you think
 that supercentenarians are notable, then you all (800+ members) had
 better make your voices heard, lest it be too late.

 Moderator

• I find it ironic that you assume bad faith in alleging the assumption of bad faith. Are you helping User:StanPrimmer to help us to rectify this mistake? I don't see any actual evidence of that. I have left a message on his Talk page to try and straighten things out. Looks like he's being a bit more sanguine about this than you are. Guy (Help!) 12:29, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Say what? Are you addressing me?? Your questions have been more than answered by now on Primmer's talk page, but for the record, he and I have not communicated. Part of the reason for which is that it is frowned upon for a blocked editor to make their case here on AN/I by proxy, so I was keeping it pure. Are you asking me why I haven't done that? Help Stan to help YOU rectify this mistake? Why in the wrold would I, or should I, need to do that? I showed it was a mistake; there was no question it was a mistake; and you didn't need Stan's input to figure out that it was a mistake! Do you mean to imply that unfairly-blocked newbies should be helping to fix their own problems on Wikipedia?

Guess what-- that's not going to work. The specialty at Wikipedia for stiffling dissent, is to stiffle the dissenters. And it usually works.

Robert Young, above, is a pretty good example: not a newbie-- enough experience to put up a good fight. In fact, too good-- good enough that they had to tape his mouth. Not a vandal, not an edit-warrior (until somebody tried to wipe out his presense), but good at lengthy self-defense. So, he obviously must be banned indefinitely, just like somebody trying to destroy Wikipedia. Why, how dare he, after being blocked, use other ISP addresses and sign his name (wups), in order to be heard? Isn't that pretending to be somebody else-- see sockpuppetry? Well, no. It's evading authority, certainly; always a crime.

Robert Young's apparently wasting administrative time with his long diatribes, when the administrator is fixated on really *important* editorial subjects, like 2007 Siberian orange snow and the Stanley Cup. While gerontologists and their ilk and their fans --humor :)-- are interested in yucky stuff like why you are getting older, and are closing in on the Grim Reaper. Don't think about it! Administrator user:BrownHairedGirl, for example, as part of what appears to be a crucade against the field, has recently called into question the notoriety of James Birren, one of the founders of geriatric psychiatry (see the page history), and added proscriptions for new editors from editing the Birren page, which still stand. Notwithstanding that she gives no evidence of knowing anything about the subject or the person, and apparently did not bother to read the references the article had, which were entirely sufficient (I recently added a lot more, for the benefit of the lazy, but the information was already there, for anybody).

And why the proscription against new editors? Now, consider: what about the practice of adding tags about problems in a Wiki, along with blocks against new editors doing anything to fix the tagged problem? Does that not amount to prosecution of a biased agenda by an administrator who uses administrative powers to block any avenue of academic disagreement? BrownHairedGirl seems to be doing this in connection with any article she can find, on gerontology or gerontologists. Alas, her problem now is that there's a gerontologist who was here before her-- namely me.

I suppose from what she posts, the badness is that that many newbies will come into wikipedia from a gerontology mailing list (there are roiling hoards of us-- we outnumber scientologists or even Mormons ;)), and begin editing. Goodness, the Idea that Anybody Could (Potentially) Edit! And (even worse) start Editing For a Specific Reason! Out of interest! See BrownHairedGirl's hair-raising post about this, above. Use of electronic mailing lists in an attempt to undermine Wikipedia, by influencing its content. Great Merciful God, then what? Next time, it might be the English Dept faculty, discussing some screwup or stupid bias in Wikipedia during a luncheon, and joining up as editors, in order to take care of the problem. And then…? Well, then, instead of fighting and ignoring Wikipedia, perhaps the academics will join it en mass. Then, control it. Which may be the real fear, who knows?

Meanwhile, the stink about "notoriety" goes on, with biased admins blocking any discussion originating from people who join Wikipedia in order to have a voice in a specific matter!

And, you know, Wiki admins function as cops, but unfortunately nobody guards the guards. They're cops without an Internal Affairs Department; one where only volunteer cops look into allegations of bad policing-- if they feel like it. Which has just the result you might imagine (yup, enjoy the TASER). If it weren't for the sunlight which shines on the process every so often in AN/I (sunlight is a good disinfectant), it would stink even worse. SBHarris 04:07, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sbharris, if you want to rip up WP:COI, WP:SOCK, WP:CANVASS, WP:TPG, and all the other guidelines which Robert Young repeatedly ignored despite countless warnings, then you are entitled to your view. But rather than heatedly posting here about the wickedness of those who have upheld these guidelines, why not see if you find a consensus to delete them? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:33, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think what Sbharris is looking for is WP:RFC. The users section. Carcharoth 02:06, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • An update to this. User:StanPrimmer has now been unblocked by Maxim. I am concerned that Maxim failed to leave a note in the log when performing the unblock, and I've said so on Maxim's talk page. I also fail to see any sign that Maxim has bothered to talk to User:StanPrimmer at all. User:BrownHairedGirl has apologised (she initially alerted Maxim here), but I'd like to clear a few things up here: (1) administrators must use the logs to give reasons for blocks and unblocks; (2) even if someone else alerts an administrator to a potential problem, that administrator must take responsibility for their own actions, and not leave others to apologise instead if it later turns out that apologies are needed. Carcharoth 03:02, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if this is the right place to add, but while we're on the topic of R. Young's sockpuppets, user:Cjeales has also been accused of being Robert Young (user:RYoung122). Claiming Stan Primmer of Florida is Robert Young of Georgia (both from U.S.A.) is more understandable in the sense the 2 areas (states) are geographically bordered, but user Cjeales is from United Kingdom, and I don't suspect Robert Young flew a plane to impersonate. Neal 21:48, 14 November 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Doesn't this remind you a bit of Arthur Miller's The Crucible? Each person in turn who shows up in defense, is accused of being a witch themselves. Lordy. SBHarris 23:58, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully the people involved in this case will in the future (a) be less prone to making accusations of sockpuppetry; (b) learn the difference between sockpuppetry and meatpuppetry; and (c) learn that sockpuppetry and meatpuppetry need to be handled in different ways. Carcharoth 02:06, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The distinction between a sockpuppet and a meatpuppet is something which may only become clear after investigation, and it seems that these cases are now being sorted out. However, Carcharoth should remember that there was a clear history of sockpuppetry by Ryoung122, and that he was known to be canvassing for meatpuppets to join. Indeed, I have certainly learnt that some care needs to be taken in differentiating the two, but it remains disappointing that some editors display apparently limitless concern for the feelings of editors who ignore COI and canvass repeatedly and for those who consequently join up with a clear agenda of tipping the balance in discussions, but are very quick to point the finger at the actions of admins who try to deal with the mess created by people who use wikipedia as a vehicle for self-promotion. This is a strange set of priorities, and it's an issue which most real-life organisations deal with rather firmly. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:19, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was the one who blocked Cjeales (talk · contribs) per the duck test. Having received an e-mail where he (more or less) admits to being a meatpuppet, but not a sockpuppet, I'm inclined to trust it, and will unblock (heh, we were specially asked not to WP:BITE recently). That being said, Houston, we have at least one problem at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marie-Rose Mueller, which should either be speedily closed as "moot" for canvassing, or carefully analysed by the closer. The Young's off-wiki canvassing is real ugly, and I'm really stunned by how the AfD looks like. Duja► 07:52, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• While I am grateful that Duja unblocked me promptly, and I was more than glad to take on board his comments to me regarding the situation leading to the block and so on, I refute the above assertion that I admitted being a "meatpuppet". I looked at the Wikipedia definition of this term and it is defined as "a user solely for the purposes of influencing the community on a given issue or issues acting essentially as a puppet of the first user without having independent views and actual or potential contributions". In no way does this decribe me or my actions, nor did I indicate that to Duja in my email to him. I have contributed to only two AFD discussions. The first was about the article on Robert Young, and centred around notability. I commented that I would like to see the article kept, as I felt he is notable in an emerging field, and indicated I was dissapointed to see the tone of the AFD as it seemed to be getting personal (in hindsight I wish I'd kept my thoughts to myself on that occasion, but hey, live and learn!). The second was an AFD on a supercentenarian, and again centered around notability. I commented that I would like to see it kept as I felt that supercentenarians are notable as they are so rare. If my arguments were weak, or not relevant to wikipedia policy and guidelines, then so be it. But that does not mean I was echoing someone else's opinions, nor doing them a favour by expressing them. That was an assumption on Duja's part (albeit an understandable one I suppose, looking at the big picture). Sorry to have written such a long comment this time, but I find it insulting and belittling to have someone imply that have no "independent views and actual or potential contributions" as this is patently not true. Nor did I enjoy Duja's comments that I admitted to being such a thing. I did not, and there was no need for me to do so. This has been one hell of a tough ride this week, I hope my troubles are over. One thing is certain, I will be taking Duja's advice in future and being a lot more cautious. Cjeales 16:46, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I moved this discussion from the Help Desk--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 14:19, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I saw a banner on Wikipedia that said this. I don't care if Wikipedia has articles on sex-related stuff, because children won't see them unless they want to. But they will see this banner even if they don't want to. I'm not going to donate, and I'm going to tell children not to read Wikipedia in case they see this banner. And where do I complain about such banners? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.189.57.203 (talk) 14:02, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This banner was on someone's user page, as I recall. Whose page was it (I can't remember)? I thought it was a fairly harmless joke, but understand how some might be offended. Also, this question might receive prompter attention on WP:AN/I.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 14:11, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming the above recollection is correct, I agree with the anon. Wikipedia isn't censored of course, but that sounds unnecessarily crude, even in user space. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:29, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the harm, in user space. I curse in my user space pretty regularly. Parents who don't want their children exposed to the word 'fuck' probably should monitor their internet usage very, very closely. I sympathize with this user, but- well, since we don't know where the banner is, we can't even go and look at it for ourselves and see whether it's appropriate or not. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 14:34, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is of course a quote from Bob Geldof, from the original Live Aid tv broadcast. Is it possible somebody has typed this in with a donation, and it's got into the rotation of quotes on the official banner ad? Jheald 14:36, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A paraphrase of a quote, I think; I have a vague recollection that either Rory Bremner or Spitting Image started that meme. Guy (Help!) 00:06, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(EC) I think the IP may be referring to the Bob Geldof article... Or not? pedro gonnet - talk - 09.11.2007 14:38

No, i saw the banner myself, it was intended to be a harmless joke i think. I can't remember where i saw it though. Woodym555 14:39, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In any event, Wikipedia is not censored. Dppowell 14:40, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(copied reply from help desk)Woodym555 14:41, 9 November 2007 (UTC):[reply]

Image:Giveit.jpg and Image:Giveit.png was a little joke as the author Neil says at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Donation Banner. It is apparently only displayed on User talk:Addhoc, User:Jeffpw, User talk:Jeffpw and User talk:Dynaflow. They are just three of a huge number of Wikipedia editors and they personally chose to add this (see [14] for Addhoc) to their own user or talk pages. User space like this is not a part of the encyclopedia and I hope you don't advice people against Wikipedia based on something in user space. PrimeHunter 14:37, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to copy it myself but got edit conflict twice. The second time was with Woodym555 copying it! PrimeHunter 14:43, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, you've got to be quick at this game. ;) Woodym555 14:44, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I took it off my talk page in case it offended anyone. I still think it's awesome, though. Neil ☎ 14:54, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree that there is no need for admin action here. The banner, while somewhat offensive, is displayed only on a handful of individual user pages that are virtually impossible to stumble upon accidentally. And it is obviously a parody of the famous Geldof quote. No policy has been violated. -- Satori Son 14:56, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It says "Give us your fucking money" with a link to the official fundraising page http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Fundraising, and it's displayed above the page name like other donation banners. Many people don't know users can edit there and readers (like the original poster) are likely to think it's an official banner. This is unfortunate. I think that if it stays then it should be made more clear to readers that individual editors are choosing to display this in their own space. PrimeHunter 15:04, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, PrimeHunter is absolutely right. In addition, the same policies apply to userspace that apply to any other part of Wikipedia. WP:Profanity, although a guideline not a policy, is fairly clear:

Words and images that would be considered offensive, profane, or obscene by typical Wikipedia readers should be used if they are informative, relevant and accurate, and should be avoided when they serve no other purpose than to shock the reader. Including information about offensive material is part of Wikipedia's encyclopedic mission; being offensive is not.

I think this clearly falls into the latter bracket, and the users in question should be asked to be a bit more careful. Waggers 15:36, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I feel as the creator of this little image I should point out I - in no way - intended it as a parody of Bob Geldolf, as I was unaware he even said such a thing, and wish to dissociate myself entirely from him, his daughters, and his maelevolent beard. I just made it for a joke on Wikipedia:Fundraising redesign. Neil ☎ 15:54, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think I see this on the main page FA. --Kaypoh 16:37, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and I keep reverting the IP whose doing it as vandalism because article space is not a place for these things, and it's obviously being done in bad faith. Bmg916^Speak 16:39, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you should semi-protect it. --Kaypoh 16:47, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I said an AN, I love the alternative banner. Since my walk to work every morning takes me straight through the heart of San Francisco's lovely Tenderloin District, that is the kind of language I've come to expect to hear when being solicited for "donations." If the typical Wikipedia reader would be shocked by the word "fucking" [cringe] and would not immediately realize the banner is satirical, I guess I have no choice but to take it down. I did copy the code to make the thing transclude in place of the real donation banner from elsewhere, and if I got rid of that part and just had the image as obviously a part of my userspace, I don't think it would cause quite as much of a fracas should someone be ... accidentally exposed. Page visitors would then have an extra clue, above and beyond the banner's content, that it's satire. --Dynaflow babble 03:34, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That horrible begging banner currently defacing every single page of this fucking project is what offends me. It's just so...Wikipedian <shudder>. I commend Neil for giving us an alternate that actually puts a smile on my face (though under no circumstances will anything compel me to put any money into this project's pockets--my free labor will have to be enough). For me the choice is clear: it's either the "fucking money" banner (which is really what you're trying to say with the original, dreadful banner) or stop editing until the beg-a-thon is over for the year. Jeffpw 17:33, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Using this image is probably a bad idea. It's needlessly crude and serves no encyclopedia purpose. Friday (talk) 17:48, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Friday, I just visited your userpage, and those pink whatevertheyares scared the hell out of me. Do they accomplish anything encyclopedic on your page??????? If not, I'm afraid they'll have to go, no matter how attached you are to them. Jeffpw 17:52, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If someone can make a reasonable case that they bring the project into disrepute, I'll remove them without complaint. Friday (talk) 17:55, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen no reasonable case made about the banner; just the usual gosh gollying about little tots and their innocent eyes. Last I heard one could say "fuck' in a PG movie, so I doubt any brat coming to Wikipedia would be led down the primrose path to hell by seeing the word on my pages. Jeffpw 18:01, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think there has been a semi-reasonable case made--that some people may mistake this for an official banner and take the Wikimedia Foundation (or whatever they're called) to be somewhat unprofessional. Not every new editor understands the distinction between userspace and mainspace. Note that I don't necessarily buy this argument, but I don't think it's entirely meritless. In general, though, I'm in favor of more wikijokes, not less.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 18:29, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Peeps make a queasy whenever I see them, and they bring back bad childhood memories of The Worst Easter Ever. Anyway, there's a difference between being obscene for the sake of being obscene, and taking elements of what might otherwise be obscene and using them for a satirical purpose. The banner in question is clearly an example of the latter. --Dynaflow babble 18:02, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If this is really being added to articles like the FA of the day, a sensible solution would be adding both versions to the MediaWiki:Bad image list with appropriate userspace exceptions.--chaser - t 18:06, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a good plan. [EDIT:] Make that all three versions; here's another: Image:Giveit.svg. --Dynaflow babble 18:07, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with temporarily adding these three images to the Bad Image List to prevent vandalism, but I still want to be on record as opposing any application of WP:PROFANITY here. Surely the community did not intend that guideline to prohibit the use of colorful language in an obvious satire used only on personal user pages. I fully realize we have to draw the line somewhere, but this behavior doesn’t cross it. — Satori Son 18:28, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done. — Satori Son 18:49, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Satori, did your edit interfere with the image displaying on my user and talk page? Because it's just a blue link now. Jeffpw 19:12, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I understood that MediaWiki feature, it is only supposed to prevent use of those images "inline in articles", but I cannot see the image on your page either. Anyone else more familiar with this feature with some insight? — Satori Son 19:29, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like user pages require exceptions as well. Fixed by others - thanks. — Satori Son 19:33, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see a problem here, after all WIkipedia is not censored, and it's funny as hell!! (except if you're the Moral Majority ) ;) KoshVorlon ".. We are ALL Kosh..." 19:12, 9 November 2007 (UTC) Kosh Vorlon[reply]

I think restricting it to userpage only is a sensible solution, good stuff. Neil ☎ 20:03, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a way to restrict it to a single "domain," or is the only option to restrict the image from all of Wikipedia and list one-page exceptions one at a time? --Dynaflow babble 20:32, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think there is any such mechanism in the software. I don't mind including people in the list if they ask at my userpage. ··coelacan 20:55, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I don't think that there is any need for restrictions. I would hope, however, that people would have the common sense and maturity not to use it. I guess it shows quite clearly what kind of people we have on this project, and so in that sense is not misleading donors. User:Veesicle 20:35, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was showing up in the featured article earlier, so the potential for abuse is pretty high and I think the Bad Image List is a workable solution. As for the kind of people we have around here, well, we have various sorts, including the sort who don't care for what they perceive as intrusive pledge-driving and who, in the relative autonomy of their own userspace, prefer to subvert that with an irreverent and light-hearted jab. And I wouldn't want it any other way. ··coelacan 20:55, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If they have a problem with the WMF needing money, they are welcome to edit another wiki. User:Veesicle 21:08, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They certainly are. And they are welcome to edit here as well. Last I checked, we do not demand that editors sign loyalty oaths. ··coelacan 21:44, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, but it is rather childish. User:Veesicle 00:12, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Giveit.svg now helpfully offers: To use this image legitimately, such as in an article about human anatomy or physiology,... I'm now dreaming of legitimately attaching it to such an article. Hm, spleen, perhaps? Bile? (Moreover, it would seem to belong in [non-anatomical, non-physiological] expletive.) -- Hoary 00:29, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Something else: The banner says "Donate to Wikipedia NOW!". Donations are to the Wikimedia Foundation and help Wikipedia but "Donate to Wikipedia" could be considered misleading. I'm not a lawyer and don't know whether there are legal implications. PrimeHunter 01:54, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If one wished to donate to Wikipedia, he or she would do so through the Foundation, as my understanding goes. There's no logical conflict there. --Dynaflow babble 11:38, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shop steward's thoughts

While I personally don't struggle with this, I know that this banner can easily be considered harassment. I'm not sure about how this is treated on the web, but if it were in a workplace, and someone might look there FROM a workplace ......., or most other places, one would be vulnerable to complaints on the grounds of the local human rights code. Also, it does not portray a desirable image. I personally despise political correctness with a passion and view it as a plague and would view the inventor of it and ardent supporters of it as hypocritical, holier-than-thou twits. However, the law is the law and there is little anyone can do about that. One can easily make a case, that no part of an encyclopedia should be such as to communicate on that level AND be linked to an official part of the site. It is asking for trouble and degrading to the image of the whole site. Were it allowed, one could then also make a case for permitting that sort of language in discourse between editors. That, however, is not allowed. I would love to use more emphatic language with some individuals on here and am prevented from doing so by the rules. In short, the banner should be altered to delete the f word. If not, then why not say: "Give us your motherf?$§*ß%& money." Or how about: "Give us your motherf.... money, you stupid, motherf&%$, etc." Where do you draw the line, once you allow it? I know that as a union steward, if I had to defend a member who had been disciplined for the use of such terminology, I'd have a serious case. Even if I dealt with it under a collective bargaining agreement, that still leaves the path open for charges with the local human rights commission..... You just don't want to go there in today's environment. Even celebrities are losing their jobs over this stuff now. --Achim 03:15, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For the thousandth time, "Wikipedia is not censored." Please actually go and read that official and non-negotiable policy. We actually have an article entitled f*ck, and it's not going anywhere. We also have articles for sh*t, c*nt, and a**hole. (Yes, ironically I prefer to self-censor my own language, but no policy requires me to do so.)

We make no guarantees that the website is safe for any workplace, nor will we ever. That argument has no legal relevance whatsoever. — Satori Son 04:18, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just did some articles may include objectionable text, images, or links if they are relevant to the content (such as the articles about the penis and pornography) and do not violate any of our existing policies . One, this isn't an encyclopedic image being used in an article. So its relevance to the content doesn't really apply here. As far as violating existing policy, some people might consider this to be a little uncivil. 'not censored' doesn't protect this, yet civil would indicate it shouldn't be here.--Crossmr 01:20, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're joking, right? "If it were a workplace" It's not, it's a website. There are no collective bargaining agreements and the only work contracts apply to a half-dozen foundation employees who have no connection to this situation whatsoever.--chaser - t 06:34, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is just funny :) - NeutralHomer ^T:C 06:28, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I Would like this on my userpage, if at all possible - would it be in any way possible o the bad imag list to permit it to be use here? No more bongos 06:17, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I added your userpage as an exception for all three images [15].--chaser - t 06:34, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for typos, my keyboard is broken. Especially E, D and N. No more bongos 06:33, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't sweat it.--chaser - t 06:34, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks... No more bongos 07:31, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, if we're taking requests, I'd like to use the banner also. Darkson (Yabba Dabba Doo!) 00:32, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also  Done.--chaser - t 00:35, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if that sort of language is all OK, then why don't we go much further? And since we're not censored, then why not throw "being civil" out as well? So that means anything goes, right? What about the N word? I made it quite clear that I was not making claims to legalities here. It's just that it's a slippery slope, once you allow that sort of thing. Apart from that, ask yourself this: If you have never previously considered donating, would you be more likely to donate if the request contained the F-word? Personally, I am not, much as I am amused at the use of it here, but it certainly does not make me more likely to donate. So what's the point of having it? Amusing the author of the banner? --Achim 02:02, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Consider it a bit of rebellion from good standing contributors. I've donated money to the foundation, I'll donate again. The fundraiser banner annoys regular contributors because it is unnecessary to use. If I use a Wikimedia foundation project daily, I don't need to see a banner. But I have no choice. It's akin to being a listener to National Public Radio during pledge campaigns but with the ability to comment in response. As mentioned before, Wikipedia is not censored and so follows that the word "fuck" in satire is applicable. If it trips your work filters, sorry for that as well but that's a baseless claim for removal if that is the ultimate problem. By rhetorical definition, those offended are the on the Slippery slope's fallacy. Just keep on editing. Keegan^talk 06:46, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I just pointed out above, "not censored" doesn't protect this usage in non-article space. Not censored protects the use of words and images that people might find offensive when they are necessary to article space. It doesn't give you license to fill an article with "fuck" and in fact the policy clearly states that its only allowed so long as it doesn't violate any other policy. So you might want to cruise over to WP:CIVIL and have a read. Which obviously some people feel this doesn't jive with.--Crossmr 15:30, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure who you are asking to go re-read Wikipedia:Civility, but let me assure you that I am extremely familiar with that policy. Especially the part that says "Wikipedians define incivility roughly as personally targeted behavior that causes an atmosphere of greater conflict and stress." And the part that says "Profanity directed at another contributor." Please note carefully the "personally targeted" and "at another contributor" language I have bolded.

If someone visited your talk page and demanded that you "f*cking donate," that would be a completely different issue. But colorfully worded satire on your own personal user page is not a violation of any official policy, and it never has been.

I hope it doesn't sound like I am completely insensitive to your concerns. I personally do not approve of such language: I don't use it here and I wish that others would not either. But just as I argued that the personal essay "Don't be a f*cking douchebag" was not a policy violation, I will always defend those who choose to use profanity in a way that is not uncivil. It is simply not behavior that requires administrator attention or action. If someone feels that it should be, they should make a formal proposal at the pump. -- Satori Son 00:06, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Humour is not universal and you're going to have to accept that fact that obviously this isn't universally hilarious as its seemed to be thought. But I don't see how behaviour has to be personally targeted to be uncivil. If I go off on a rant about the general behaviour of wikipedians and lace it with profanity you can guarentee I'll be blocked for it regardless of whether or not I name names. Our code of civility states plainly that people must act with civility toward one another. More than one editor has indicated they don't find this hilarious and have an issue with it. That's enough as far as I'm concerned to consider this as not acting civilly towards each other. Another quote from the page and be careful to avoid offending people unintentionally.. This obvious was unintentional but people have been offended. And 'not censored' doesn't provide any protection here. So there is nothing here to support keeping this image and a clear policy which indicates it should be removed, along with WP:AGF which means you should take their complaints at face value unless you see any evidence to the contrary.--Crossmr 00:19, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not arguing against admin action because I think it's "hilarious"; I don't. And I don't see anything that indicates I have not assumed good faith; I have.

My argument, simply, is that official En-Wikipedia policy does not strictly prohibit the use of profanity that is not uncivil. Obviously, I strongly disagree with your interpretation of policy, but I respect your opinion. And if it's supported by other administrators, I will support consensus. -- Satori Son 01:31, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The moment someone comes here to complain about it, it has become uncivil. Whether its intended as such or not that is how its has been viewed.--Crossmr 06:04, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Even if one grants that it's not strictly prohibited (which I would grant), is that really as high as we aim? I don't really care whether it's prohibited; I care that it's unprofessional, tacky, and unbecoming the dignity of this project. -GTBacchus^(talk) 09:19, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are right: whether a behavior is "strictly" prohibited by policy is not really the standard we use for determining when administrator action is required in a situation, and I have stricken that needlessly restrictive qualifier. My other points still stand. Sorry for the misstatement. -- Satori Son 15:32, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for completely missing my point. Even if behavior is not prohibited in any way, does that make it excellent, or professional, or indicative of any class at all? Is there any reason that we might want to be excellent, professional, or classy? Is our goal to do everything right up to the edge of what's prohibited? Nobody has made an argument that the banner is tasteful, or that their chuckles are more important that presenting a professional face to the world. -GTBacchus^(talk) 17:50, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to correct a mistake I made, not irritate you. I am sorry. -- Satori Son 19:44, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't really matter whether I'm irritated - I'm not really anybody. What I think matters are two things: (a) Can Wikipedia rise to the challenge of being culturally sensitive, as opposed to culturally insensitive, and (b) Is our attitude that of doing anything that's not forbidden, or of trying to be as excellent as we can? I don't see how such a banner could possibly be consistent with cultural sensitivity and excellent behavior. -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:19, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The key to the civility policy is to act civilly towards others. The presence of the image on a userpage is not directed or addressed towards anyone; it only exists as a self-obvious bit of humorous ironic hyperbole on the part of the user whose page it happens to appear on. Now that the image has been BADIMAGE'ed, there's no worry it might be maliciously forced on a mass audience. If what is causing emotional distress is the image's simple existence, we are dealing with a different issue entirely. WP:AGF also calls for the image's detractors to accept that the users of the image are probably not using it in a manner calculated to shock or offend. As regards the "gratuitous" profanity, as long as we're still citing not being dicks as one of our most important, core values, we have to accept that profanity and quasi-offensive language, in both humorous and merely emphatic contexts, have a secure and long-standing place in Wikipedia's culture. --Dynaflow babble 06:21, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the humor is as obvious as you make it out to be. I find it cute enough, but Wikipedia is read by a lot of people from a lot of different cultures, and writing cultural differences off as some kind of oversensitivity on the part of others strikes me as very unprofessional and unbecoming of an encyclopedia. The f-bomb means a lot more in some places than it does in others. I think the banner is very tacky, and while I wouldn't support sanctions against users who display the banner, I would hope that most of us aim to be a little classier than that. We are being watched by the world, after all. The conflation of profanity with our fund-raising drive is particularly unfortunate, to my mind. -GTBacchus^(talk) 09:17, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I made the banner (in a deliberately crappy manner with all manner of bad jpeg artifact) with the sole intention of making people giggle when they clicked on the pipelink to it on Wikipedia:Fundraising redesign. It wasn't intended for display on talk pages or anything like that. Neil ☎ 09:24, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mean to suggest that you made the banner for bad reasons, or that anybody who's displaying it is doing so in less than perfectly good faith. I'm just hoping to point out that there may be reasons for not displaying such a banner that some people have not perhaps considered. -GTBacchus^(talk) 09:34, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

i think it is VERY unprofesional of wikipedia to have such a banner. after i see the banner, i will NEVER donate. americans think saying the f word is very funny. here it is NOT. i didnt come to wikipedia to see that kind of thing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.126.19.150 (talk) 09:44, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the argument about the use of the f word's being directed at a specific person. Anyone who reads it may very well feel addressed. The author wanted all readers to feel addressed (Otherwise what's the point?) And the point of the banner is purportedly to get people to donate. I don't think anyone can argue that it fulfills that purpose. That means that either there is another purpose or the author was unable to see that the purported purpose was not served by the banner. In any event, it's in poor taste. I don't see the upside of having it on a site like this. --Achim 18:01, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a good reason to keep these images on our servers? I appreciate that Wikipedia is not censored, but that's an important article-space policy. In user-space, we're presenting the face of Wikipedia, and I think it makes a lot of sense to appear professional and culturally sensitive. The banners are neither. -GTBacchus^(talk) 23:57, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The face of Wikipedia is in fact the encyclopedia: article space. We have never had any pretensions of professionalism in userspace. Despite the war on userboxes, and UCFD, and a few sad essays scattered about, there has never been more than a tame breeze pushing for professionalism in userspace. Giant Jefferson and I hope we will never see such a day. And I know it's tragically politically incorrect to say so, or perhaps I'm just a clod, but I can't muster any sensitivity for people who get flustered about fornication. Is there a good reason to keep the images? Perhaps you don't value these reasons, but I do: some productive users like them, the area of usage is confined by the software, the time of usage will be temporary, we never know what potential good we stifle when we curb expression, and there's no consensus to delete. ··coelacan 09:08, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So, the "potential good that we stifle" when we "curb expression" is worth more than the fact that we're basically pissing in the face of entire cultures? I don't think you're getting just how disrespectful the banner is. Do you walk into churches and spit on crosses, because it's not forbidden? Yes, I'm choosing extreme examples, because I'm trying to get across that, until you've been there, you don't know just how offensive these words are. I was shocked, when I lived in Kenya, to learn just how beyond-the-pale the f-word is considered there. I wouldn't say it there, unless I were trying to offend, and maybe get my ass kicked. Every time I edit Wikipedia, I think about Kenyans reading it. Is it really such a painful hardship to be respectful of other humans' feelings? I know a lot of people who do it, and seem to enjoy it. -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:19, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the silly thing about this is how people can make a case for being obnoxious (and the comment isn't made at Neil who made a one off joke and is no doubt bemused about the ongoing molehill/mountain scenario), but at those who then seek to construct a whole principle upon it). In context, I swear, I will even use the odd swear word or two on Wikipedia to make a point (and risk being reprimanded), but it is done in the knowledge that swearing is offensive, even on the Internet.

In the end though, gratuitous swearing or obscene images just make those who use it seem ignorant and insensitive. If people want to create the impression of themselves being ignorant, then I guess that is there prerogative, but it does then reflect on Wikipedia. People who wear the badge of Wikipedia, and to be that includes admins (regardless of it being "just some tools"), need to reflect that what they do on Wikipedia is seen as what Wikipedia condones. If you want Wikipedia to be reported as being run by a group of foul-mouthed geeks, then carry on, but don't fall for the kidology that what you do in userspace is not part of what Wikipedia is, regardless of what you think it should be.

It is not the first time I have seen an argument that user pages are off limits to Wikipedia rules. This view extends to one that civility does not apply on talk pages (or your own talk page). That is simply unreasonable if user pages are part of the Wikipedia mechanism. Spenny 09:38, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"It is not the first time I have seen an argument that user pages are off limits to Wikipedia rules." Who is making this argument? I am not your straw admin. If the image is in violation of some rule, let's hear it. ··coelacan 10:42, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"... no doubt bemused about the ongoing molehill/mountain scenario ..." ' - you are not wrong. Neil ☎ 10:50, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

coelacan, I will not point to specific examples as I do not want to either revive old wars or fan ongoing ones. I'm not overly fussed about Neil's joke, which only backfired because of someone else's vandalism, but I would simply make the point that generally rude jokes have the potential create an atmosphere of incivility and as such you should be sensitive to those who might reasonably claim to be offended. (Long ramble omitted for all our good!) Spenny 12:06, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neil's joke, which only backfired because of someone else's vandalism. Exactly. And now that the potential has been dealt with, the rest of this discussion has been only so much Wiki drama, suitable for passing the time on a rainy day, but of no lasting consequence. As a quick aside, I fail to see how this innocent little sign could stimulate so much discussion, while userpages which advocate nuking other countries and spouting racism were allowed to stand for eons before action was taken. If we wish to keep Wikipedia from being discredited by its users, perhaps we could first get our priorities in order and deal with those kind of pages--or figure out some way to stop the vandalism which is a far greater problem and makes us look like such an unreliable source of information. Just a thought. Jeffpw 12:14, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. In any case, a little harmless vulgarity can pay dividends beyond a chuckle from those unafraid to laugh at it: "Regular swearing at work can help boost team spirit among staff, allowing them to express better their feelings as well as develop social relationships, according to a study by researchers."[16] Leave the fucking thing be. --Dynaflow babble 13:47, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dynaflow, I hope you drop the f-bomb sometime in a cultural context where it's considered truly offensive, and then you can explain to the people you upset that their culture is wrong to be so "afraid to laugh". Then, I hope it doesn't get you into too much trouble. Cultural sensitivity is not simply "Wiki drama". -GTBacchus^(talk) 17:45, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CIVIL requires we also avoid being unintentionally offensive. As pointed out there are cultures and even people in the west who find this truly offensive. This has no place here.--Crossmr 19:35, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe displaying this is intentionally offensive - I'm not intending to offend anyone. I don't see any harm in a little satire in userspace. If anyone reading my userpage would be offended by the banner, I might suggest to them that they should lighten up. No more bongos 21:29, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is no requirement that it be intentionally offensive. ...and be careful to avoid offending people unintentionally. The fact that some people have posted here and said they are offended is all the evidence that we need that this could be offensive. Continuing to display something that some people have indicated offends them, services no encyclopedic purpose, and could potentially offend other users may have some questioning your motivation for doing so. We don't assume good faith blindly and had I encountered your userpage outside of this discussion with no previous talk of this issue I'd assume good faith, but now that good faith concerns have been raised and a policy very clearly cited to indicate why it shouldn't be used, we don't continue to blindly assume it.--Crossmr 22:46, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, misread quote above. Well, fine, people are offended and the image is gone. I would suggest that some editors are rather easily offended. I suppose we all have different standards on this kind of thing, though. No more bongos 22:52, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't characterize cultural differences as people "needing to lighten up". I think it's rather provincial to put it that way. Try living in a very different culture, and then see how comfortable you are saying that your culture is right and others are just "easily offended". Wikipedia is trying to be a world-wide institution; doing that involves learning about what it means to interact with all kinds of people. They are not to be judged for being different from us. -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:19, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Direct you to my comment further down. Have seen plenty more potentially inflammatory things on userpages. Wikipedia also involves learning not to get unnecessarily inflamed. No more bongos 00:46, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not inflamed. I'm saddened that there seems to be so much resistance to the idea that we might take people's feelings more into consideration than to write them off as "easily offended". Article-space is one thing, and nothing can compromise NPOV. In the rest of the project, I'd rather not offend people if I can avoid it; I'm sorry that others feel differently. The fact that plenty of potentially inflammatory things are on user pages does not make those things classy, or courteous, or good ideas. -GTBacchus^(talk) 08:52, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted

Note that User:David Gerard has deleted two of the three images. No more bongos 21:10, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think he missed the third accidentally, rather than deliberately. Joke's over, the thought police have won - I've deleted it. Neil ☎ 22:19, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Neil, at least one portion of your sign is still providing me with use and pleasure: the code for the sign is still suppressing the crappy beg-a-thon sign from appearing on my userpage. For that I thank you. For the rest, I'll just say I'm glad the well meaning Wikipedians take themselves so seriously. God knows nobody else does. Jeffpw 22:27, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quite agree. It's possible to edit an encyclopedia seriously at the same time as engaging in light relief, just see List of sex positions. Honestly though, I don't understand the issues people had with this. No more bongos 22:31, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Other cultures are silly; let's laugh at them and at how stupid and easily offended they are. That's class. -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:20, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No more bongos, your statement above, "I don't understand the issues," is precisely correct. You don't understand how words sound to people in different parts of the world, and that's why others are here trying to help you understand. Go travel and learn. You don't sit down among Arabs and put your feet up on the table. You don't go to dinner in India and eat with your left hand. You don't make irreverent religious jokes in a religiously conservative country (no matter how stupid you think religious conservativism is). It is a different world out there. -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:29, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes - however this is the internet. Although I normally agree with those opinions of yours that I've seen, I think in this case you're both drawing irrelevant parallels and being unnecessarily patronising. No more bongos 00:41, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So what if its the internet? That means everyone should suddenly subscribe to your ideals? Wikipedia is also a community. Part of working together is not doing things to offend other members of that community. Its one thing to do it unintentionally, its another to pursue it doggedly after the complaint has been raised. However as a community we aspire not to do it unintentionally in the first place.--Crossmr 01:44, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, and would be nice if you didn't try and simplify my argument by extension. Being the internet means we do not have a homogenous moral standard. The nearest thing that exist to this is policy. Policy is flawed and appears to be self-contradictory at times.

Userpages in particular are still a very grey area. If somebody had posted a nice note on my talk page, for instance, asking me nicely to take it down as use of the "'F' word" offended them, I would have given it serious thought. Nobody did this.

Instead - and this is only a probability rather than fact - what appeared to be a regular user logged out and used an IP specifically and only to remove it from my userpage and anyone else who had it, which struck me both as gaming the system and as assuming bad faith.

In any case, parody is parody, and as far as I understand it - and this forms my rationale for displaying it there in the first place - it plays on the visual aggressiveness of the fundraising banner. If people don't find it funny, that's down to them. It wasn't my intention to cause any offence, but I found the reaction here very bite-y, which made me slightly overly combative above.

In any case, this discussion here is getting WP:POINTy, since everything has been deleted, so I invite you to my talkpage to continue the discussion, should you feel the need. No more bongos 02:18, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Do you walk into churches and spit on crosses, because it's not forbidden?" No, and in fact that is forbidden; it's defacement of private property. It's not only illegal, but immoral, since I have no right to damage or leave my spittle upon others' property. But to correct your analogy, I have in the past linked from my userspace to this monstrous text in which a terribly insensitive man calls "one half the world fools, and the other half hypocrites."

Religious conservatism of all brands is remarkably consistent in relegating women to second-class citizenship, if they are afforded autonomy at all. Women in Kenya who've been raped have to flee traditional society to live safely without reprisal. Rape is their fault only if one begins from the ludicrous superstition that a woman first brought "sin" into the world, initiating bodily and sexual shame, and was punished for it with painful childbirth, thus making sex and reproduction the centerpiece of a busybody institution that maintains mindshare by normative violence in this life and threats of hellfire in the "next".

There are indeed plenty of people who are offended by words denoting human sexuality, and those people are wrong. Their beliefs are rooted in misinformation, and are factually wrong. Their beliefs contribute to sexual and gendered oppression, and thus are morally wrong. If they learn their beliefs from their cultures, then their cultures are wrong. Insofar as their culture restricts freedom of conscience and freedom of speech, it is damaging to humans and must be opposed, or we will still be born free but live everywhere in chains. Insofar as my culture values and protects liberty to a greater degree, yes, my culture is better.

If we pretend that an aim of communication should be to appease the most easily offended, then let us not neglect to cover the female visage, easily as offensive to some people as the word "fuck" is to others. If we pretend this a moral endeavor, let us make haste to remove all graven images from Wikipedia servers (surely a worthy criterion for speedy deletion). But I'm confused; you mix in pragmatic arguments too. If I should shut my lip in Kenya lest I be beaten, this is but amoral pragmatism. On the other hand, GTBacchus, if you felt it pragmatic to restrain your vocabulary or "maybe get [your] ass kicked", then this unspoken but understood shadow of violence is all the more reason why those people are morally wrong.

It is impossible to avoid offending someone. I have just offended many people with my assertion that my culture is better than any culture which lacks liberté, égalité, fraternité. You have offended me with your suggestions that I should kowtow to my neighbor's superstitions. Sensitivities, then, cannot alone dictate what stays or goes at Wikipedia. Those who sought the deletion of the images should have taken the question to MFD. Consensus rules here, and these impassioned defenses of taboo might, sadly, have carried the day. For future reference, though, such exhortations are lost upon me. ··coelacan 09:19, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I find it a shame that you mistake courtesy for taboo. If I suggest being mannerly, apparently I'm "kowtowing to superstition". If I think it's better that we try and get along with each other, then I'm "trying to appease the morally offended". You're pretty sadly mistaken about me. I'm probably more opposed to "taboos" than most people you'll meet, precisely because of experiences I had in Kenya. That does not, however, mean that I think that casual vulgarity is going to set matters right. I still believe in treating others as I would like to be treated, and for me, that means maintaining a certain level of decorum and class.

I think it's entirely appropriate that we have articles confronting such practices as female genital cutting, which is hardly addressed in Kenya because they've got taboos against saying words such as clitoris. That's not the same as keeping vulgarity on our user pages. There's a time and a place for shocking people by dropping the f-bomb. I don't see how our user pages at the encyclopedia is that time or place. -GTBacchus^(talk) 13:45, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I'm missing something but where, exactly, is "stupid and harmful banner" listed as a reason in the criteria for speedy deletion? Or was this an out-of-process deletion undertaken with zero participation in discussion and with absolutely no desire to follow Wikipedia policy, either in spirit or letter? Oops, my mistake. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 03:13, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:IAR. We do not owe unencyclopedic pages "due process" or something. If you wish to formally contest the deletions, Wikipedia:Deletion review is right there. Furthermore, I find it very easy to see how the deletion was an attempt to follow the spirit of various policies. Assuming good faith is easy if you can just place yourself in another's shoes. If you can't... um... yeah. -GTBacchus^(talk) 08:58, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The image was deleted on behalf of the m:Communications Committee because it was in extremely poor taste while representing the WMF. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 10:05, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, in any event, I was only using the wonderful image to obscure that annoying banner from my userpages. Now that a helpful editor has told me how to edit my monobook to obscure it from every single page of wikipedia that I view, I'm even happier than I was with Neil's banner. For me, the issue was being harassed for money each time I gave my free labor with an edit. Now that's offensive, in my opinion.Jeffpw 18:09, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What a load of bullshit. Can I now demand that all American Wiki users are required to remove the Stars and Stripes flag from their user pages, as it is offensive to myself, and others that are still rightfully aggrieved over the illegal rebellion perpetrated on what was rightfully and legally UK holding? What a joke. I just hope the "editors" that spent so much time here moaning about this spend as much time chasing rasists, vandals and other dickheads.Darkson (Yabba Dabba Doo!) 19:54, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We do. Also, I didn't "demand" anything. I asked that people take others' feelings into account, instead of not doing so. Apparently, that makes me an asshole. -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:24, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly, yes. (With due respect otherwise). Duja► 08:20, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not you, but David Gerard did quite a bit more than ask, he forced the issue. And Swatjester claimed it was on behalf of ComCom, which has not made an official statement at all (nor was such a thing cited in the deletion summary). The images were ALREADY on the bad image list, therefore they could not have been placed anywhere near article space anyway. —Random832 17:11, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We're not civil only in article space. People found them offensive, civil covers this, 'not censored' doesn't make any exemption for jokes in poor taste, I'm not really sure where the disconnect is here and why some people feel they should be allowed to be as offensive as they want in the name of humour.--Crossmr 21:13, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was about to issue a short block to TShilo12 (talk · contribs), but thought I'd bring it here for pre-emptive review instead. I first noticed this user when he posted vague, unsupported accusations of anti-Semitism against another editor while simultaneously complaining about violations of WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL. I warned him at the time, he argued with me, but ultimately there were no further problems and the issue dropped.

Today I noticed that User:TShilo12 added new "evidence" to the "Allegations of apartheid" ArbCom case, which closed several weeks ago. The "evidence" in question was not evidence at all, but merely a rehash of the unsupported, inflammatory accusations he's made in the past ([17]). All the worse, this was added to a difficult and controversial ArbCom case long after its closure, in what appears to be an attempt to inflame and perpetuate the dispute.

I view this sort of baseless accusation of anti-Semitism as a problem for 2 reasons: first, because it violates the core of WP:NPA by attacking the character of another editor rather than his arguments. Secondly, there are real, dyed-in-the-wool anti-Semites on Wikipedia, and abusing the term to smear someone in a personal dispute without any sort of evidence cheapens what is a very real problem. I see no mitigating factors to what appears to be a serious, unsupported attack, made in a long-since-closed ArbCom case, designed to inflame a dispute, and coming after a previous warning. My inclination is to issue a short block here, but as NPA blocks are always a bit controversial and I generally don't issue them (not to mention the underlying issue is inflammatory), I'm bringing it here for feedback before I do so. MastCell ^Talk 19:06, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I could be happy with the NPA block but a stern warning and reversion of the addition might work too. I certainly agree with your thoughts here. JodyB _{Roll, Tide, Roll} 19:39, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm surprised and disappointed to see that TShilo12 has done this again. As far as I know, I'd never had any interaction with this editor before he made his unprovoked personal attack on me and other unnamed editors ("an opinionated and misinformed gaggle of know-it-all admins") back in August. I've not had any involvement with him since, other than asking him on his talk page to withdraw his attack (see User talk:TShilo12#Your accusations), to which he did not respond. I have no idea what prompted this fresh attack, since I don't habitually edit Jewish-related articles and my editing lately has been fairly light. Once again it seems to be completely unprovoked. What makes this especially disappointing is that I see he's actually an admin of about two years' standing, so he of all people should know that Wikipedia:No personal attacks means what it says. Given all of this - the repeated attacks, the lack of any contrition, and the fact that as an admin he knows that this isn't acceptable conduct - I think a more significant penalty is merited. I'm not calling for a desysopping (though his conduct does make me wonder about his fitness to hold the sysop bit), but I do think this requires more than a 24 hour block. As an admin myself, I think we need to show that we can hold ourselves to a higher standard, particularly when it involves repeated, willful and unprovoked misconduct of this kind. -- ChrisO 20:15, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to go ahead with a 24-hour block for repeated and very serious personal attacks, aggravated by the choice of venue. If there is evidence that an editor is an anti-Semite then that's certainly a valid issue, but it's absolutely not acceptable to repeatedly make such a claim without any supporting evidence, based on what appears to be personal animus or something, and to aggressively complain about a lack of WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL at the same time. Unsubstantiated and repeated accusations of this sort are corrosive to any sort of dialog or community-building here. I recognize this is potentially controversial, so if there's a strong feeling (i.e. multiple editors/admins) that this block is inappropriate, then I'm willing to undo it (or if I'm offline, I don't object to it being undone provided there is real discussion about it here rather than a unilateral reversal). MastCell ^Talk 22:52, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think this block is totally inappropriate. MastCell was involved in the arbitration in question, and had a particular viewpoint, and should not be blocking people who take a different viewpoint. I also don't think TShilo's comments necessarily violated the rules cited. When an editor (and admin) such as ChrisO consistently takes a particular viewpoint, in this case on articles involving Israel, and has been accused (including by me) of using his admin powers to promote that viewpoint, I think it is acceptable for someone to speculate on his motives. (Compare this with ChrisO's past repeated references to a group of "pro-Israel editors", I can find some diffs if necessary.) The real issue here is that MastCell's use of his admin powers in this manner is an abuse of his authority. I also agree with the statements of IronDuke and Briangotts, below. 6SJ7 04:26, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is no lack of admins around that are not involved in these disputes; why not to just ask an uninvolved party to look at the situation? I just do not understand what is the rush to put oneself in a compromising situation with these type of blocks. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:47, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello? What rush? I brought it here for comment before imposing the block, and I asked for review after imposing it. The thread sat here long enough to be archived, and the only response I received was generally in favor. If you disagree with the block, then fine, but you really need to check your facts before accusing me of being in a "rush" or a "compromising situation" here. MastCell ^Talk 18:56, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The point is, you really shouldn't have been involved at all. 6SJ7 00:07, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Somebody neutral please take a look at this

Ummm… my God? This block is wrong in so many ways. First of all, MastCell, you seemed to me to be very much a partisan in the very arb case from which you excised TShiloh’s comments. To have blocked someone who you disagree with therefore is inarguably an abuse of your admin role, not to mention that blocks for NPA are not generally given except in very severe cases (which this clearly is not), nor am I aware of a block policy regarding adding evidence to a closed case—and if that were a policy, I’m sure the clerks/arbs could handle it.

What Tshiloh was up to, near as I can tell without having talked to him, was blowing off some steam because nasty things were being said about him in an arb case that he was not informed of until after it closed; I think most of us would find that pretty frustrating.

And you leave this up for just a few hours on AN/I (when you can clearly see TShiloh has stopped editing and can’t respond), and get exactly two responses, one lukewarm support at best, the other from ChrisO, who I think we can all agree would not be a neutral voice as this concerns him directly, and you take this as what? Community endorsement? Consensus? I recognize that there are tough calls to be made in blocking form time to time; this is not one of them. I urge you, or some uninvolved admin, to reverse this ASAP. IronDuke 05:30, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not willing to unblock at this time. Is MastCell in conflict with TShilo? Because simply "disagreeing" with someone does not prevent you from blocking them; that's not part of the blocking policy. I don't think MastCell is claiming community consensus; he made it clear in his message that he is planning on blocking, does anyone object? No one objected, so he did. I don't understand what would compel someone to make accusations (and that's using a far milder word than I think could apply) of the sort TShilo has made while being entirely unwilling to present any sort of evidence or support. Judging from the previous responses of TShilo to questioning, I'm unsure that a block will do anything to deter him from his actions, so it could be argued that the block is punitive rather than preventative. I'm not entirely convinced of that, which is why I'm unwilling to unblock myself without knowing much, much more background. If the actions do continue, then steps up the dispute resolution ladder must be taken; this behavior is absolutely not acceptable in any shape, fashion, or form. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 05:49, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

bbatsell, thanks for the quick and thoughtful reply. When I say that MastCell is in conflict with TShiloh, I mean that he was a party to a case that was brought against people who are, or who are perceived to be, pro-Israel, and that the strong possibility exists that, as no remedies of any kind were enforced in that case, MastCell is using a tenuous excuse to block someone he's had a political dispute with. See here among many other instances of MastCell’s taking a decidedly political position on this issue. If I may offer a mild global criticism; I think admins are far too willing to overlook fairly obvious conflicts of interest when other admins use blocking to gain an advantage in content disputes. It troubles me greatly. IronDuke 06:04, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The conflict of interest here couldn't be more clear. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 17:19, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just chiming in here, but I find:

Secondly, there are real, dyed-in-the-wool anti-Semites on Wikipedia, and abusing the term to smear someone in a personal dispute without any sort of evidence cheapens what is a very real problem.

an incredibly important and valid point, just for future readers. DEVS EX MACINA _pray 04:02, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with IronDuke and Briangotts, and also see my comments before the section break. The block here was unjustified. 6SJ7 04:26, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You guys really need to take a deep breath and check your facts before you go off here. I don't even know where to start addressing such ill-informed vitriol, and I don't see the point in refuting every poorly conceived attempt to paint me as "politically motivated" here. I'll just refer the reader back to the diffs I originally cited as the justification for the block, and point out the following: I brought the proposed block here before imposing it and asked for review afterward; the truly neutral parties who have commented have no problem seeing the utter unacceptability of TShilo12's behavior; making excuses for him ("blowing off steam"?) instead of holding him, as an admin, to a slightly higher standard is incredibly lame; and I've never been in any sort of content dispute with TShilo12 and have no idea how I'm supposed to have contrived this block to win a content dispute. If you can't see this situation for what it is - a block for egregious, repeated, unapologetic, and unacceptable personal attacks - but instead see me pursuing some sort of poorly fleshed-out political agenda, then that's a bit problematic. Or perhaps it's just more "blowing off steam". MastCell ^Talk 19:22, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think those of us who know the situation can see the block exactly for what it is. You were breathlessly urging arbcom to employ “the stick” against those you disagreed with in the case to which TSHiloh was a party. When they failed to do take action, you contrived an excuse to wield it yourself. Shameful. IronDuke 23:42, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, all of this falls into the usual death spiral of conflict among those of a supportive-of-Israel bent and those of a critical-of-Israel bent, of which I am admittedly/regrettably a part of as well. Any administrative action taken by a participant (or a perceived participant) of one camp against a member (or a perceived member) of the other camp is instantly met with suspicion, accusations, and voices of support for their respective members/adherents/whatever. This is a larger beast than Tshilo12 and WP:NPA that is rearing its head here, and something really needs to be done to address it. The latest ArbCom attempt went out with a whimper, so what else is there? Tarc 22:18, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just want to say that this a rare case indeed: I fully agree with Tarc. This is only the 2nd time it occured. 3rd time I'll have to buy him icecream. Zeq 15:36, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tarc, I basically agree with you; there is a great deal of suspicion and mistrust on this issue. What can admins do to help? How about not make blocks to further their own political agendas? What troubles me most about Mastcell’s serene indifference to how his actions would be perceived is that he was right that nothing would happen! He used admin powers to punish someone who disagrees with him politically, and all you hear on this board is the sound of crickets chirping. IronDuke 23:41, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You've succeeded in completely undermining your credibility, and I don't think your comments warrant any further response, particularly as the block has expired and has been supported by the uninvolved editors who have commented here. It may be worth noting, regarding the ArbCom case, that while I argued against any sanctions for TShilo12 there ([18]), I did present evidence that you and 6SJ7 had disrupted Wikipedia to make a point. Now here you two are, defending this sort of inexcusable crap as "blowing off steam" while attacking the admin responding to it. One might be inclined to wonder which of us, exactly, is gleefully pursuing a political grudge here. MastCell ^Talk 03:14, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MastCell, you’re welcome to stop responding; I think that would actually be a positive thing for you to do right now. I will say, however, that the diff you provide makes my point better than I made myself. You were involved in a spat with TShiloh, who was a party to a case and grouped with editors whom you strongly disagreed with for political reasons. You saw an opportunity to pick him off, and you took it. Yes, you had ChrisO’s support (who was himself involved in a dispute with Tshiloh) and one other lukewarm support; did you need even that much to do what you had already made up your mind to do? You have now me, and Brian, and 67SJ and Jossi all telling you that you made a bad blunder, but you’ll admit to nothing. I understand the block has expired and nothing can now be done—I’m not asking for anything to be done, other than to make plain to you and to others that what you’ve done is wrong, and that it will be called wrong again if you try to bully others with admin powers in a content dispute. That is all. IronDuke 04:08, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You know, the sound you're hearing isn't crickets chirping. It's people ignoring your attempt to turn yet another corner of Wikipedia into a battlefield. MastCell ^Talk 04:50, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MastCell, you were one of the people with the torches and pitchforks in the arbitration (in which, by the way, neither IronDuke nor I were found to have done anything wrong), and you accuse someone else of turning Wikipedia into a battlefield? Give me a break. 6SJ7 05:34, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've said everything I have to say about this. MastCell ^Talk 06:09, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) Whether or not a block of one's political opponent is "proper", it is usually inflammatory and that's a good enough reason not to do it. A good block accompanied by thoughtful commentary from a neutral admin can make the block recipient become a better contributor. Blocks by opponents are less likely to have that effect. It would be really nice for admins from both sides to decide that henceforth they won't be blocking anyone from the other camp. BTW I've had the privilege of having both pro-Israel and pro-Palestinian editors tell me that I'm clearly on the other side. Kla’quot (talk | contribs) 07:13, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well it sure is lovely to see Ironduke and Zeq so agreeable, but I think they missed the point entirely. Statements such as Duke's "How about not make blocks to further their own political agendas?" are becoming the essence of the problem here. Admins are being called to recuse themselves, etc...on the basis of their perceived beliefs and ideologies, not because of specific actions or circumstances. Even the proverbial "uninvolved admins" get savaged when they go against one bloc or another, as we saw in one of the ArbCom-related DRVs. That is what has to stop; this neverending second-guessing of motive. Tarc 15:49, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Look. Sanity check. I'm not a member of any "camp" here. The fact that I disapproved of IronDuke's and 6SJ7's behavior in the ArbCom case does not make me "pro-Palestinian" or "anti-Israeli" or a "political opponent" of anyone. It makes me an admin who's fed up with the fact that users are allowed to turn those articles into battlegrounds and pursue exactly these kind of vendettas with zero consequences. The (apparently successful) effort to cast anyone who disapproves of the tactics of specific editors as de facto political opponents is exactly the problem here. Leave the rhetoric behind and look at the facts. I have never edited any articles touching on Israeli-Arab relations, nor ever expressed a political stance of any sort that I'm aware of. I had no interaction with TShilo12 other than to warn him, months ago, for an unacceptable personal attack. He repeated the unacceptable personal attack, and I blocked him after seeking feedback. The neutral parties who commented were generally supportive. Two editors with a grudge against me from an old ArbCom case showed up in tandem to level a bunch of unsupported accusations, as if the problem here was not TShilo12's unsubstantiated, corrosive, repeated personal attacks (remember those? anyone?) but the fact that I blocked him for 24 hours for them. 24 hours. No admin saw fit to unblock him, despite a plea from IronDuke to do so and an explicitly stated willingness on my part to accept an unblock. TShilo12 didn't request an unblock himself. You're seeing a group of editors addicted to drama using this as an excuse to fight about something. The block expired days ago. It's time to move on. MastCell ^Talk 17:08, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you were so interested in reducing tension in these "battlegrounds", why then was your evidence overwhelmingly on the side of the anti-Israeli position? That doesn't make you a referee, that makes you a combatant. And again: you posted here for feedback, waited just a few hours, got one uninvolved editor to comment with lukewarm support, and blocked someone with whom you very much appeared to differ politically, and had tangled with in the past. And FWIW, if TShiloh had decided to block you, for good reason or bad, I would be having this same conversation with him. I'm sorry Kla'quot struck out his point, as it was a good one--you talk about drama addiction; did you really not think anyone was going to object to your using admin powers in this manner? Anyway, it's all water under the bridge now. I just hope you'll let someone else do the blocking when it comes to editors you've had bitter content disagreements with in the past. If you could commit to doing that now, that'd be great, but I won't hold my breath. IronDuke 17:59, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Response to MastCell) Good points. I agree the "evidence" that you have different politics from TShilo12 is awfully thin. I've struck out my statement above because although I think it's true in a general sense, I'm not sure it applies well to this particular incident. Kla’quot (talk | contribs) 17:29, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Response to IronDuke) Exactly my point. I took the position, in the ArbCom case, that you and several other editors view Wikipedia as a battlefield and were entirely too willing to disrupt the encyclopedia to make a point. That position is in no way "anti-Israeli", it does not make me a "combatant", and the fact that you are unable to see it in any other terms reinforces my point. MastCell ^Talk 18:05, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you're not going to respond to my points, you could just stop responding altogether (as you keep threatening to do). IronDuke 18:10, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did respond to your points, but you twice moved your comments out of chronological order and made it look like Kla'quot was responding to you and I to him ([19], [20]). I regret participating in a discussion this petty, and I think I'm done here. The Last Word is yours. MastCell ^Talk 18:30, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully, the last word is mine. I have, as I've implied elsewhere, received offWP email in which a number of the foremost contributors to the whole "Allegations" fracas have been characterized as antisemitic. I singled out ChrisO for particular criticism in my original remarks back in August because I regarded his closure recommendations as an open endorsement for the suspension of AGF in an apparent last gasp effort to keep anyone who might disagree with his stance from closing a particularly contentious AFD. That said, however, I am being accused of whimsically brandishing the bludgeon of Allegations of Antisemitism. The bludgeon here, however, is MastCell's finger on the "block" button, just as ChrisO's bludgeon back in August was attempting to drag as many people into the Allegations ArbCom case as possible. Contrary to what some people seem to believe, I was not an involved party in that dispute, although I found that ChrisO attempted to make me one by pointing out that I had !voted in the fifth reincarnation of AFD/AoIa. If anyone cares to take the time, they will see that I never called ChrisO an antisemite, I said that I could see why others might. OffWP emails aside, this is not something you all need to see my emails for. If you look at the evidence and reams of pointless "foul!"-crying in the relevant RfAr, you will find that ChrisO himself says people have accused him of antisemitism. Why I should be bearing the brunt of MastCell's misdirected rage is beyond me, but in the discussion that followed above, I am flabergast by the amount of effort being poured into defending the indefensible. If what I have done warranted a 24 hour block, what MastCell has done, coupled with the time and effort wasted in its aftermath, warrants someone removing the mouse and keyboard from his computer.

With respect to my crime of editing the evidence page of a closed RfAr, ok, that was dumb. I should have known better. The "evidence" is still pathetic. If I were actually involved in the RfAr, I probably would have even known it was closed. Seriously, the entire thing was a complete waste of time. The articles all need to go, as I stated in my !vote (oh no3s! my "involvement"!). Cerejota put it best. (And no, I would not have voted to delete Israeli apartheid.) What's sad is that Homeontherange created the mess, in an effort to push his anti-Israelism on WP, and succeeded spectacularly...but is now gone (at last check) from WP. His lieutenants, however, are keeping up his legacy nicely. !Kudos.

As for my not sitting around waiting for MastCell and ChrisO to respond to their solemnly worded remarks on my talk page, in August or now, I do not have as much time to edit WP as I did back in the day when I was unemployed. If something irritates you so badly that you feel a need to block me for it, try email next time, I'll probably get to it sooner. I must say, I was shocked to return to WP tonight and find not only that I'd been blocked (thanks for blocking me over Shabath, btw), but that the ridiculous block had generated this much discussion. Enough standing around the water cooler, people. Enough rambling from me, as well as from the rest of you. Go write an encyclopedia. Tomer^talk 04:44, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The takeaway message I'm getting here is "only an admin with a hole in his head willingly gets involved in Israel-Palestine articles." How about we cordon off that whole topic from the rest of the encyclopedia, let the partisans fight to the death, and indef block the survivors? Raymond Arritt 05:23, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you know what Oscar Wilde said.... or is it the other way around? Tvoz |talk 05:38, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've read this discussion with some bemusement, but I have to say that it's symptomatic of the problems Wikipedia is having in this area. Leave aside the subject matter for a moment. The issue at hand is a behavioral one on the part of certain editors who happen to be supporters of a particular political POV. (It could just as easily be pro-abortion, anti-Scientology, pro-Ron Paul or any one of a number of other controversial topics. It just happens to be Israel-Palestine in this case.) Some of these editors - who don't by any means represent everyone who shares their POV - are using obnoxious methods to delegitimise and intimidate anyone who disagrees with their views. In particular, critics of their views are tarred as racists, regardless of any actual evidence. They go further, by attacking in similar terms anyone who disagrees with their debating or editing tactics. They also behave as a faction, using Wikipedia policies as a club to attack their perceived opponents while minimising policy violations by their perceived friends. We can see exactly this dynamic playing out in the discussion above. For criticising what I regarded as policy violations, I'm attacked as a racist; for acting against a policy violator, MastCell is attacked as politically biased; for violating policy by posting anonymously sourced smears, TShilo12 is defended as merely "blowing off steam".

This is a nettle we're going to have to grasp at some point. We can't have a situation where admins are reluctant to intervene against blatant policy violations because rabid partisans are going to gang up and attack them if they do. The likes of IronDuke and 6SJ7 aren't just addicted to drama (though they are, of course); they're purposefully trying to create a situation in which Wikipedia's policies and conduct standards aren't applied to them or their faction because admins are too intimidated to intervene. This, of course, isn't acceptable. It's not going to be an easy problem to fix, since the rot is pretty deep by now, but it would certainly help if some of the worst offenders were banned or at least given a topic ban. IronDuke and 6SJ7 in particular wore out their welcome a long time ago.

Finally, I have to say I'm disappointed that TShilo12 still doesn't seem to understand why what he did was wrong. His defence amounts to "I was only forwarding unsubstantiated anonymous smears." If he doesn't recognise the wrongness of that he's lacking in common decency, let alone common sense. During the allegations of apartheid arbitration, I was sent a number of fairly rabid e-mails smearing some of the other editors involved in the arbitration. I deleted them on the spot, and I have no intention - unlike TShilo12 - of posting something to the administrators' noticeboard (!) repeating anonymous smears against named editors. I'm totally unconvinced by his claim that he hasn't had time to respond to my request back in August for a retraction (since when he's made over 500 edits); he likewise hasn't responded to my second request a week ago, despite taking the time to post here and reply to two other editors in the meantime. So I'll ask him a third time: TShilo12, will you retract the anonymously sourced, unsubstantiated libel that you posted about me? -- ChrisO 16:46, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's a tendency for trolls and partisans to attack any administrator who attempts to set limits on bad behavior. We need to not fall for the lie that enforcement actions cause an administrator to become "involved". If that were the case, there would be no way to enforce policy. An involved administrator is one who has a bona fide editing dispute with a party. I don't think this was the case here, or at least I don't see the diffs that would make such a case. - Jehochman ^Talk 17:03, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I also don't see how MastCell qualifies as partisan or involved in this fracas. I further share ChrisO's concerns about the disturbing tone and atmosphere in the Middle Eastern related editing spheres. Tiamut 20:10, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ChrisO, you can't have it both ways. Either people have characterized the anti-deletion of AoIa "cabal" as antisemitic or they haven't. I have not done so myself, neither regarding you nor anyone else; I have simply said that others have. You have said the same thing. If you don't remember, go look at the rest of the evidence you presented on the /evidence page. I have never said anything to the effect that I agree with the assertions, I have simply said that I can understand where the impression has come from. Empathy does not equal agreement. And as for your assertion that you AGF, I think your statement above, in which you call me a liar, pretty effectively puts the lie to that. Tomer^talk 03:51, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fake accusations of antisemitism are a problem on Wikipedia, and are usually accompanied by silly attempts at deniability of the sort TShilo12 indulges in above (I have never said anything to the effect that I agree with the assertions, I have simply said that I can understand where the impression has come from – yeah yeah, whatever). I don't know that blocking is the answer, and I'm not much for blocking/banning editors involved in incivility infractions in and around I/P articles anyway, because those seem to go with the territory, but it must be said that MastCell went about it in the right way.--G-Dett 06:02, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How you can pompously believe that what you have just said isn't a blatant personal attack against me defies reason. But reason has long since been abandoned in this discussion, so I guess that's par for the course. Why should you be any different? Disgustedly, Tomer^talk 06:25, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please would somebody note the actions of User:Sarvagnya. Edits such as this are clearly disruptive and vandalising yet nothing was done about it and this which shows a clear aim by this user to remove existing content and damaging the encyclopedia - to destroy a whole license which has been previously been authorized and would affect hundreds of articles and then attempting to persuade the authoriser User:Riana at the commons to "nuke them all" on the grounds of his belief it isn't adequate. There is a clear purpose from his recent actions to attempt to erode existing articles related to Indian cinema and destroy the weeks of work and effort from other contributors brnading their work a "pile of garbage". If new editors did all this they would have been blocked. He has excessively tagged many main existing pages with often 4 or 5 different tags to portray the articles as terrible such as the Bollywood article. Addressing tone and ordering references is fine but this editor has gone so far that it is clear he isn't acting in good faith when many articles will be under threat. Is this what people want? He has been warned by an admin before Please avoid making personal attacks. because he personally attacked one editor. But it is time to do something about this. It is rude and it is disheartening to other editors, and is certainly not an environment I want to work in particularly when content is under attack and I am having to continously against my wishes having to become involved in it and try to protect existing content. I haven't got time to waste on people or this sort. I seriously fear that hundreds of articles or going to be degraded in this way and going unnoticed ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 14:02, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: How do you qualify this as disruptive? Shouldn't a user be allowed to express his opinion on Wikipedia? So what do you want to indicate? That people who are notifying copy-vios in Wikipedia are damaging it and should be blocked? Nice try.. And if you are complaining about personal attacks, may be you should see this, arse jockeys, eh? -- ¿Amar៛^{Talk to me/My edits} 17:46, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not a bad try yourself there. Now, if someone could address the substantive issues of the user in question's repeated apparently unjustifiably tagging content for speedy deletion, repeatedly adding other tags without any explanation, and the other substantive complaints made here, the discussion might rise above the level of the comment above. John Carter 17:54, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't normally react , count it lucky I didn't react even worse and leave permanently - I was crying out at the same procession of editors following Savagnya in bringing things down and that an ameniable alternative wasn't made from discussion first ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 17:57, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lucky, eh? Lets leave out the personal attack business from the discussion... -- ¿Amar៛^{Talk to me/My edits} 18:03, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Sarvagnya seems to have developed a bit of a history misusing the speedy deletion template, as per his talk page and elsewhere. Is there any way to formally recommend that such misuse cease. Regretably, he doesn't seem to misuse it often enough to qualify for a block, but he does seem as per his talk page to misuse the template with some regularity. John Carter 16:47, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please notify the user of this thread. - Jehochman ^Talk 16:49, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See the above thread Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Sarvagnya Woodym555 16:50, 13 November 2007 (UTC)(threads merged) Woodym555 16:53, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This user has been warned many times about this the latest warning about speedying existing articles and images and general disrpution was removed as "nonsense". I don't know what it'll take for him to get the message. He has actually been warned more times than I had previously though see User_talk:Sarvagnya#speedy but continues to ignore warning at disruption. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 16:56, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would ask anyone interested to review the contents of the editor's talk page. Placing all sorts of templates without any justification given, removing verifiable and appropriate content, making legal threats, etc. User seems to have a history of unilateral action without any explanation. John Carter 17:02, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

blah blah blah.. I made legal threats? Where? Point out or shut up. Sarvagnya 17:15, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing the editor's talk page would only be like looking at the one side of the coin. If some one is reviewing, I request to review the complete conversation, which could have happened in multiple talk pages. Thanks - KNM ^Talk 17:09, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If I am misstating the content of User talk:Sarvagnya#no legal threats explanation, my apologies. However, I cannot help but be amused that much of the content of your talk page, and the purpose of this discussion, is your own failure to abide by that principle, given your repeated failure to justify any of the seemingly irrational tagging you so often engage in. John Carter 17:21, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(unindent)Much of the content on my page has a history of which you know nothing about. Many a time the allegations are as ill informed and ludicruous as your own here and so I dont even bother replying to those.. that doesnt make those allegations true! So stop shooting your mouth off and making a fool of yourself. If you find the contents on my page amusing, good for you but keep it to yourself. Dont waste people's time on ANI by misrepresenting conversations and slandering others. And next time, do your homework before you come on ANI.

And oh, Blofeld that applies to you too. Before you crib that I reverted or attacked someone, make sure that the user was not a banned troll. Also if you're going to complain that I tagged 'brilliant prose' as nonsense, be ready with a diff to back it up. You're surely not faulting me for removing that gem of a "Bollywood is entering into the consciousness of western audiences" etc., on Bollywood, are you?

Can anybody here say honestly and with a straight face that articles havent improved after I've paid them a visit? Can you say that Zinta didnt improve after the FAC? Can you say that Bollywood hasnt improved in the last 12 hours? The amount of bad faith and witchhunt against me is appalling. This is probably the second such thread in a week. For what? Because I opposed your article on FAC on the grounds that it lacked RS sources?! Sorry, I'd rather clean up non-RS and copyvio cruft on wikipedia than make friends.

If you have a problem with me cleaning up cruft, too bad. You can cry hoarse on ANI.. but its not going to change the way I go about cleaning cruft. And dont make it sound like I've tricked Riana or Yamla or Guy or anybody else into buying my POV over those images. They're sensible and intelligent people too and your insinuations against me are really an insult to them. Blofeld, if you werent wikipedia's 'most productive editor', I wouldnt be dignifying this screed of yours with a response. You should work on assuming good faith and examining the edit and not the editor next time. Nichalp, a bureaucrat, also supported my stance on that FAC. Have you considered opening a thread like this on ANI against him too? Anyway, I'm out of here.. dont expect me to keep replying here. Sarvagnya 17:57, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah Nichalp I'm wondering when he'll turn up. If you concentrate on adding content and really improving articles I support you 100%. Its when articles are made to look pathetic and hard work attacked and branded as a "pile of rubbish" that I find offensive. Each time I log into wikipedia I find you have gone further and are attmepting to ruin something else or putting articles up for speedy, when I really want to continue with something else. If you got on with adding the content and improving articles like you claim to do which I beleive you are capable in a half ameniable fashion I wouldn't give you a second glance. I don;t know how you expect to systematically pursue your course of actions and not expect anybody to be evne slightly concerned ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 18:10, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Boy.. should I be concerned that people get worked up for no reason? I simply cannot help it. If people are going to keep taking ill informed stances about me, I cannot help it. And I didnt make the articles look pathetic. They were pathetic. I merely tagged it and brought it to people's attention! Nothing gives me more joy on wikipedia than writing articles. But I wouldnt be able to sleep at night if I wrote nonsense like Bollywood. Writing articles takes time and diligence. at the moment (as you can see from my talk page), I am too busy in RL to write articles. I've been working in snatches last few weeks and I only have time to do drive by cleaning.. and that is waht I am doing. Also when I create articles, I usually create them on notepad and hoist them up in one shot like I've done

here, [21], here, here, here, here, here and several other places. For that matter, even at this moment, there's a half done article sitting in my sandbox. Those edits obviously get buried in my contrib history and all that someone assuming bad faith can pick out is edits like the one you've chosen to misrepresent here. I usually hate making a case for myself even when I run the risk of being misunderstood, because I see it as vanity. This isnt the first time I've been dragged to ANI nor will it be the last. Only this time, it isnt the usual rank troll who would drag me here. It is you, Blofeld and that is why I'm even bothering to reply.

And what do you mean by irrational tagging? I tagged and got dozens of images deleted by dozens of admins and I've been doing it for months now. So you're accusing all of them of acting in bad faith? Same with articles. For your information, there used to be a List of Tamil film clans or some such which I tagged as unencyclopedic. Another editor, a Tamil himself and one who considers me his sworn enemy supported me, took it further and tagged it for speedy. And it got speedied. So that is what I had in mind when I put Bolly clans up for speedy. Its appalling how people can think that such a list is even encyclopedic! And stop making up stories like the edit war on Shahrukh had anything to do with my edits on Zinta FAC. I've explained this before and let me explain again. If I remember correctly, from SRK I went to AB where again I saw the same non-RS sources. From there I clicked on several Bollywood articles and all of them turned out the same. So I went to WP:INB to leave a message where I saw your message about Zinta FAC. It was from there that I landed on the Zinta FAC. You led me there! Sarvagnya 18:58, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Look that Bollywood article did have some misleading statements -thankyou for identifying them. Statements such as "Bollywood is generally making a breakthrough in the west" or whatever it was is a dreadful generalization to make in an encyclopedia article - its not about that -we both know there is some bad text in a number of articles. Many of the Bollywood articles need serious work to address comments and bad references and if this improves and eventually builds content this would be ideal. However, it is the way that you conduct yourself and your course of action that I am concerned with with little regard to the concerns and protests of others time and time again and it is clear you look on many editors and their work with disgust and in a condesending manner.. Now I have done no real editing on Bollywood articles at all, in fact my only editing there has been with adding film posters or templates and cast sections on existing film articles rather than actors. However terrible you think articles are, you just don't make decisions to nuke articles with no consensus with other editors and however terrible you think an article is ,you most certinaly should not discourage anybody who attempts to add constructive content to this encyclopedia. You keep claiming good faith, but how can your continous disregard for the genuine efforts of hard work , whether it is in article content (or with images which I helped with) be acceptable. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 19:32, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - He has been warned by an admin before Please avoid making personal attacks. - No, that user who warned is not an admin. Also, the user on whom Sarvagnya is alleged to have made a personal attack appears to be an obvious sockpuppet, and his edit in the same page was reverted back by admin. - KNM ^Talk 17:06, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Either way, within minutes of the edit war and vandalism here on the Shahrukh Khan article, when his edits were reverted within minutes he influenced the Preity Zinta FA nomination by declaring "strongest possible oppose" as a response. This is when this user came to me attention as I was rather surprised at how it seemed to be overly degrading. Follwoing each of these events his close friends such as KLF turn up to offer their support. Nobody seems to be notice the misconduct here -this is what worries me. Would somebody please see the edits here and how entire paragraphs of article being removed and branded as nonsense ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 17:16, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Influence?? What do you mean by influence? The article did not pass the GA review, because the lead editors could not address the review comments. Why do you want to make Sarvagnya as the scape goat, when the lead editors inability to move the article to a GA was the reason for the failure? Didn't you see the page history of Preity Zinta after the GA review, where a lot of cleanup is in progress? Please be more objective than trying to put in your opinions... -- ¿Amar៛^{Talk to me/My edits} 17:28, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is possible for such a profound statement as "strongest possible oppose" to sway votes, even if that "swaying" is accurate. It is also legitimate to point out that the party seems to have certain "tag-alongs" or "defenders" who appear shortly after the initiatior himself. And I don't find a User:KLM. Was Blofeld perhaps referring to User:KNM, who has posted here already? John Carter 17:35, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Mr. Carter, may I point you to the history page of the Preity Zinta article to show you the clean up happening after the FA review. This is ample evidence that the article did not deserve to be an FA. What do we want next? Half baked articles being promoted to FA? Please... "Tag-alongs" and "defenders"? Would User:Shshshsh and Mr. Blofeld be an example of what you call as "Tag-alongs" and "defenders", since they seem to edit together? -- ¿Amar៛^{Talk to me/My edits} 18:08, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I used the example because it seemed highly suspicious and quite a coincidence that is occurred within minutes of that conflict. That article had some issues which have nothing to do with this editor. Now please don't try to justify all of his latest actions as good faith, it is clear he has gone beyond this. I am amazed how the same group KNM and Amargg turn uo in the same succession everytime to run to his aid ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 17:34, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly Blofeld. Exactly! Shahid • ^Talk2me 17:42, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is quite serious, worse than i thought.This article was vandalised and emblazened with a "hoax" tag and he received a warning about this. This is a serious threat to our encyclopedia on major articles such as this. The question is are people happy to let him undertake such actions to our articles? ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 17:46, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All that tag summarily says is "The truthfulness of this article has been questioned.", which is perfectly fine for an article like in that state, where there is absolutely no references (not even single citation), and when a long-standing editor has concerns over its truthfulness. Looking from the positive perspective, that edit would only help bringing the article into a better shape by having references, inline citations and removing the original research. Once we start assuming bad faith on an editor, everything from him/her will be start appearing as -ve contributions to Wikipedia. Thats the whole purpose of, WP:AGF. - KNM ^Talk 17:58, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, such, potentially conscious, misstatements of fact are themselves troubling, particularly from an editor who so frequently seems to rush to defend the editor in question. I presume you didn't bother to read the second sentence of the template, "It is believed that some or all of its content might constitute a hoax." Such distortions of fact for the purpose of defending actions could themselves be seen as being potentially problematic. And perhaps the editor could explain on what basis clearly and specifically alleging something is a hoax without foundation can be counted as being acceptable. John Carter 18:08, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What distortions and what potential problems are you talking about John? Do you see any references in that article? One single reference at least for it's sake? What is the notability of that err...committee? I believe Sarvagnya was well within his rights to tag the article as hoax. There is no distortion or misrepresentation here. Things are just fine. Gnanapiti 18:51, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, yes. By any stretch of imagination, I cannot see that as a vandalism. Perhaps I must request you to see WP:Vandalism. Thanks - KNM ^Talk 18:01, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Look you know that my main concern is to improve article content and quality this is why I am here. Often sources and tone does need addressing yes but if you exmaine the course of actions over the last fortnight the actions and attitude of this person which is pretty obvious in this disccusion you'll see why I am concerned. Now it has become plainly obvious these edits are not done in good faith. How can anybody possibly justify the edits and behaviour identified as in good faith? ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 18:14, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This whole complain thing is nothing but trolling. Not even one legitimate diff to back the complaints. All I see are incomplete complaints about personal attacks, hasty lies about legal threats and not so wise ways of looking at things. Tagging hoax for that completely unreferenced article was absolutely fine and well within wikipedia polices. And you wanted Preity Zinta to qualify as an FA? That would be a dishonor to all other well deserved FAs. I know what's coming next. Keep them coming, only if at all I need to reply. Gnanapiti 18:17, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, there is also the matter of the absolute refusal to address valid points on the part of those who are defending the subject of this thread by attacking those who have commented on his misconduct, and the clear evidence on his talk page of possible repeated abuse of the speedy delete template. It would be interesting to see if anyone will actually directly address that matter. As they seek direct evidence, I would point to the following threads from his talk page:

• User talk:Sarvagnya#Suspect Licensing (possibly legit),
• User talk:Sarvagnya#ICFI (in which hoax and OR tags were placed without any comments made to justify their being placed),
• User talk:Sarvagnya#Allegations of state terrorism in Sri Lanka (in which the party removed cited material without any discussion),
• User talk:Sarvagnya#WP:RS (removed a reference without any apparent prior discussion),
• User talk:Sarvagnya#Chennai (removing cited material without discussion again),
• User talk:Sarvagnya#Tamilikam (regarding tagging articles),
• User talk:Sarvagnya#Carnatic (in which the party is suggested as possibly "causing more edit wars of this kind"),
• User talk:Sarvagnya#regarding tagging (again adding tags without seemingly bothering to indicate why),
• User talk:Sarvagnya#Hi friend (another reversion of information),
• User talk:Sarvagnya#Chola bell (reverting again),
• User talk:Sarvagnya#on kongu nadu (yet another complaint about sources, with allegation of a "jehad" from the Karnataka workgroup),
• User talk:Sarvagnya#hi (yet more reversions),
• User talk:Sarvagnya#speedy (being told about misuse of the speedy deletion tag),
• User talk:Sarvagnya#Apology needed (regarding personal attacks),
• User talk:Sarvagnya#Please stop (marking templates for speedy deletion),
• User talk:Sarvagnya#Image tagging (again regarding tagging images for deletion),
• User talk:Sarvagnya#Image:JasmineSimhalan-kalaripayatt-silambam.gif (in which an admin questions the suggestion for speedy deletion and warns that going admin shopping when he can't accept a decision won't work), and
• User talk:Sarvagnya#Changing a cited quote (changing a cited quote without discussion). Rather a longish list. I would welcome any defense of the complaints individual, but I also believe that the sheer frequency and repetitive nature of them are more than sufficient for this editor's actions to merit scrutiny. John Carter 18:56, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps incidentally, Sarvagnya has archived all the discussions above. Here is the permalink to the talk page before archival. -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 03:17, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User talk pages represent only one side of the issue and I had expected an experienced editor like you to realize this already. More legitimate and trustful would be actual diffs of misconduct and any further discussions done on the issue, if you have any. Gnanapiti 19:05, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but about three of those are explicit statements from admins about misusing the template. I note that once again no direct responses regarding points made are forthcoming from the subject's apparent allies. And I think it can be understood that the sheer weight of allegations of misconduct regarding this party from both admins and regular editors can be seen as being at best reason to question the actions of the editor, particularly when they come in such rapid proximity to each other. John Carter 19:11, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah I wondered when Gnanapiti would turn up, Sarvagnya gave you an award didn't he. Has anybody noticed that so far all editors supporting him are from the same close group from India ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 18:18, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just want to point out that I normally stay far away from such discussions as possible and have never reported an existing user before. However over the last weeks it has become plainly obvious the actions of this user are disruptive time and time again to the point I have become shocked-and he has a clear attitude problem in ignoring these warnings as nonsense which is very disappointing from a user who I feel has the ability to constructively edit this encyclopedia. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 19:08, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding non-RS. Previously, on the Shahrukh Khan page, Sarvagnya came from nowhere and started removing references and placing fact tags instead. A few days ago, I requested Sarvagnya to turn always to the article talk page and list his non-RSes there. Because it definitely can be subjectve, and every source can be proven as RS. This is a debatable case. That's why removing references without prior discussion is unacceptable.

Regarding tags. It is very hard to work when tags are being added. Yes, as Sarvagnya said, the Bollywood article has improved (I have cleaned up), but not because of these tags. It is also subjective, and again, if he has a reason to place these tags there, he must provide his reason on the article talk page with explanations. If you say, it reads like a magazine, so you probably have examples, so why not intrduce them on the discussion page? I've cleaned up the Bollywood article and it had a major tone down. Yet, I forgot to remove the tags. The only important thing is to discuss things before making drastic edits (and these were drastic), and then act further. Best regards, Shahid • ^Talk2me 19:30, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This image again is a blatant copy vio and I'll be putting this image for deletion soon. If you guys have problems with this image getting deleted, please fix the license now. Gnanapiti 20:17, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That image has nothing to do with the Bollywood blog agreement. It is isn't from that site. I can get a replacement ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 20:19, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment I think Blofeld should take this discussion off ANI and workout the issues on each other talk pages.thanks Dineshkannambadi 20:57, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now Dineshkannambadi is a clearly constructive editor who I have a lot of respect for. All I want is for articles and images to be secure and not under attack so I can continue editing in peace and not be concerned hundreds of articles are going to be chopped up ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 21:56, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All this guy needs is some serious lessons on consensus to stop speedying or attempting to delete existing content without real justification and in doing so try to treat other editors with an ounce of respect ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? —Preceding comment was added at 22:02, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I fully agree on the consensus part. This user has a history of unilateral removals, massive rewrites, POV pushing, as well as calling disagreeing edits "BS". See Talk:Tolkāppiyam#Layers, Talk:Tolkāppiyam#Rajam, and Talk:Tolkāppiyam#Influence_of_Sanskrit for example. He has not responded to my query regarding his removal of cited info here despite a reminder. He has been warned several times by different admins and has been reported here on more than one occasion. His violations have been mostly borderline and his disruptive edits are interspersed with good edits making it difficult for stronger action. I seriously wish that he be more amenable to discussions and NPOV, and stops using rude edit summaries. -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 04:45, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I have said elsewhere, user:Sarvagnya is the rudest editor I have had the depressing privilege of encountering on Wikipedia. I have reported him once on ANI (see here) and once on Wikiquette Alerts (see here). In each case, the attending admin/volunteer (user:Samir and user:Bfigura respectively) warned him on his talk page, but to little avail. However, what is more worrisome for me are his "cohorts." These editors: especially, user:KNM and user:Gnanapiti, but also a few others like User:Dineshkannambadi and Amar seem to turn up, all at once, on different pages, especially when on or the other is in an edit conflict. They have in the past been accused of colluding and at least two of them, user:Sarvagnya and user:Gnanapiti were once asked to not edit the same articles by the presiding administrator at RFCU. Perhaps, it is time for an admin to step up and issue user:Sarvagnya (and the others) more than just a mild warning. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:08, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dineshkannambadi has over 10FA's to his name,calling him a cohort is nothing short of a dastardly personal attack. I instituted the original checkuser, but was told by dmcdevit (talk · contribs) that the two were not the same and have noted their contributions to Kannada history and Indian related items on wiki. Reporting someone on Wikiquette/ANI doesnt make you a concerned observer, it makes you a whiner looking for attention ready to waste time with bureaucracy.Bakaman 04:02, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some fascinating links which the above user recently directed me to suggests that he thinks civility is overrated anyway, so perhaps his comments on personal attacks and Wikiquette should be taken in that light, and irrelevant to the conversation. Relata refero 06:44, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS. The cohort's continuing to add the official Indian honours and decoration template to a private literary award, the Jnanpith Award (see history here) is but the latest example of such collusion. It is the equivalent, as I say on that page's talk page (see here) of adding the Booker Prize or the Whitbread Award alongside the Victoria Cross (if one made such a template for Britain.) Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:26, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

False analogy. The jnanpith has no equivalent of similar effect in the US.Bakaman 04:02, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see no analogy to the US. Relata refero 06:44, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think Fowler&Fowler is trying to pile on to someone else's ANI complaint, be opportunistic and push in his views too. If he has any issues, I suggest he take to a different forum. This is his new method to gain some mileage, after his straw polls lost popular appeal.Dineshkannambadi 16:19, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Straw polls lost popular appeal." Really? user:KnowledgeHegemony, user:Blacksun, user:Ragib and are against mentioning the Kannada writers on the India (culture section). Who do you have on your side? That is, in addition to the cohort? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:32, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Theres a lot more to it Sarvagnya than me being miffed at wasting weeks of work and effort. It is not just a response at your clear "good intentions" to remove copywright or bad sources or POV. What deeply concerns me is your attitude and clear disrespect for other editors and wish to delete content including valid content or over tagging articles to suit your own needs and not listening to at least the 15-20 warnings you have had form many editors. Your attitude is diabolical -your edit summaries show this. It really has shocked me how such a spiteful tone can come across on the web. Everytime he responds its like being spoken by a hissing snake spitting poisonous venom at you ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 18:25, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Fowler&fowler completely with everything he's said, "seem to turn up, all at once, on different pages, especially when on or the other is in an edit conflict." - Exactly. they all seem to interact in some ways to enforce their opinions on others. Both these users (Sarvagnya & KNM) went to User:Spartaz to ask for my block initially, providing false claims and false diffs of "3RR" violation. First came Sarvagnya, and then, from nowhere, came KNM to support him. They appear always on different pages at the same time, when one of them is in troubles, or as said, in edit conflicts. A few days ago, KNM and I had some edit conflict on Preity Zinta's page (The reasons are clear, but it's irrelevant here), and suddenly, from nowhere came Sarvagnya, reverting my edits (just from nowhere!): [22], reverting my edits without even being aware of the issue. It has always been like this. Even the Preity Zinta GA reassessment. KNM nominated it for GA review, and within 30 minutes (even less), all of the above mentioned users voted to delist it. How can it be possible? It's impossible! And it's only a little example of many more. Oh and don't forget the quick and sudden appearance of these users here. Please do something. It's tiresome. Shahid • ^Talk2me 18:41, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let's stay on topic here. We've suddenly gone on a tangent discussing our problems with particular editors. Nishkid64 (talk) 18:44, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, part of the problem seems to be that these editors seem to have a consistent,predictable way of almost instantly jumping to each others defense. This could be seen as a possibly consistent attempt on the part of these editors to game the system. I would acknowledge that some editors do show an interest in defending others, but the apparent consistency and regularity of all these editors appearing whenever any of their numbers is challenged could potentially be a concern, as such conduct could be seen as being at least potentially very problematic. John Carter 18:55, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Like how? Like you jump to Blof's defence or blof jumps to shahid's defence? Or like how blof got "25 votes" piled on in double quick time on a FAC where the article didnt have one RS-source in sight? Or like when you guys got together to pile it on on an AfD and even close it within hours of opening it and not even bothering to leave the customary notices at India deletion project etc.,. Or how he gets the likes of you and Shahid to support him when he uploads copyvios by the hundreds? huh. Sarvagnya 19:27, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

None of which actually addresses the point made above, though. John Carter 19:36, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What's your point anyway? Or is there any point? Gnanapiti 20:11, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you confirm that every image on that site is copywrighted except the screenshots or promo photos? You still haven't answered on how you think they obtain often twenty to thirty images of an event within hours of it occuring. If such images were copywrighted I seriously doubt they would have twenty or thirty differnet photos, different angles of people etc available and have it organized so quickly. You;ll believe what you want to, and manipulate things and people to make sure you get your way. As John said this is very worrying for wikipedia ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 20:13, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aren't you guys already talking about those images in length? Drag the discussion here too? No please! Gnanapiti 20:23, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've blocked BetacommandBot for incorrect operation. It's been tagging images that are not claimed as "fair use" as "orphaned fair use": see, for example, [23]. Betacommand has not responded to my concerns that this is confusing for new users; he thinks that because templates such as {{no copyright holder}} place images in the category Category:All non-free media, it is appropriate to treat them as fair-use images. --Carnildo 20:52, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BCBot has been blockec numerous times for incorrect tagging, I think Betacommand might be in the process of fixing it. He is usually rather quick in fixing problems to get it running again. Qst 21:07, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(As an aside, I deleted the image, it was an obvious copyright violation though the tagging was somewhat unclear. It was taken from [24] and the source image is copyright General Electric... Georgewilliamherbert 21:08, 13 November 2007 (UTC) )[reply]

It's just the example I came across. I could probably find a dozen more without even trying by looking at images OrphanBot's tagged recently. --Carnildo 21:12, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Would you mind doing that so we can take a look at one that hasn't yet been deleted? Thx, Wikidemo 21:20, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Have a couple: [25] [26] --Carnildo 21:30, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Slight correction, [27] is an inappropriate NFCC #10C tagging, not an inappropriate "orphaned fairuse" tagging. --Carnildo 21:32, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From WP:NFCC: For purposes of this policy "non-free content" means all copyrighted images and other media files that lack a free content license. Such material may be used on the English Wikipedia only where all 10 of the following criteria are met. (bold mine)

Then, from the same page: 7. One-article minimum. Non-free content is used in at least one article. (bold mine, note that it does not say "fair use")

I can't say for sure, that I follow where BetacommandBot was doing something disruptive. SQL^{Query me!} 21:21, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Technically, you are correct. However, the point of {{no source}}, {{no license}}, and the like is that we don't know if it's under a non-free license or not. All we know is that it does not have a free license tag.

The specific disruption is that, by adding a potentially irrelevant tag, new users are confused as to what's wrong with their image, and the image will be deleted after 48 hours, not after the seven days that {{no source}} allows. Since new users don't visit Wikipedia on a regular basis, the image can easily be deleted before they have a chance to fix any problems. --Carnildo 21:30, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nevertheless, it appears the bot is correctly applying the image policy in tagging these images. — Carl (CBM · talk) 21:33, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is clearly wrong to tag/claim that a fair use claim is invalid when there is no fair use claim in the first place- and in fact no claim at all. The bot isn't applying policy here, it is generating random noise. While the bot sometimes gets it right, we shouldn't let it be this blatantly wrong. GRBerry 21:49, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The image in question was tagged as orphaned and nonfree, and it was both. The image was on our servers without a free license, and used in no articles. — Carl (CBM · talk) 22:17, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if you are referring to the same image I am. The one I'm referring to is Image:MOP.jpg. Before Betacommandbot screwed it up, there was nothing in the image page about it being a fair use image. Then the bot falsely claimed that the image was orphaned fair use. There was never a fair use claim, so it wasn't orphaned fair use. It was orphaned, but it never had a fair use claim. It was completely unsourced, which is WP:CSD#I4 and would have led to deletion even if Betacommandbot had never touched the page. So Betacommandbot is not helping in these cases, it is making things worse by causing confusion and making it harder to fix the real problem. GRBerry 22:35, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Considering how many times the bot has been here with some sort of problem like this, perhaps it's time to retire the bot completely? Argyriou (talk) 22:02, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Won't happen, sadly. But it would be a glorious day for many, many editors. Neil ☎ 22:09, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm against retiring the bot without a replacement being available. We do need to comply with NFCC policies, and like it or not, automated tagging is the best way. Maybe if BC could break the bot out into several userid' bots (BetaCommandBot1, BetaCommandBot2, etc). According to this http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3APrefixindex&from=Bots%2FRequests+for+approval%2FBetacommandBot&namespace=4 it is approved for 8 tasks. At the very least, multiple bots would prevent the entire operation from being shut down if one of them goes haywire. Mbisanz 22:11, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, splitting separate tasks into multiple bots sounds like an excellent suggestion. At least that way when the programming gets screwed up, we could only shut off the affected tasks. We've seen bad coding too many times to let this continue. GRBerry 22:34, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

this was not caused by me, it is an improper use of {{non-free media}}. Template:No copyright holder contains that template. {{non-free media}} is used to label non-free media. β^_command 02:19, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is caused by you. It wasn't too hard for me to add various exceptions to OrphanBot; how hard can it be to add a check to BetacommandBot that says "if there is a deletion template on the image, then do not place an 'orphaned fairuse' or 'fairuse disputed' template on it"? --Carnildo 02:41, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please unblock BetacommandBot soon, please. I need it to inform me when my pictures get removed from articles, so that I can vent some incivility upon some of my fellow wikipedians. Jecowa 03:43, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say that the bot shouldn't be unblocked until the tests requested by Carnildo are added, and ideally, until the tasks are separated into separate threads under separate bot accounts. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 16:35, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just a small comment here, the whole point of the {{non-free media}} template was to add it to our non-free image copyright tags to make it easy for a bot to identify non-free images without having to maintain a huge list of tags that are exceptions or special cases and such. So the solution here is obviously to make sure {{non-free media}} is only actualy added to non-free copyright tags, and not all sorts of deletion tags. I'll just go remove {{non-free media}} from teh various "no source" "no license" tags and this will no longer be an issue. --Sherool (talk) 18:44, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking initiative to fix the problem, Sherool. She rule. Cereal. Pizza. Oh, sorry. It's that ADD thing. Jecowa 20:32, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will not separate the bot into separate accounts, As for the error with {{non-free media}} I would have removed that template my self but I cannot edit protected pages. Also BCBot needs unblocked still. β^_command 22:02, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please leave it blocked and do the whole project a favour, or at least let's open up another RFC or something. DEVS EX MACINA _pray 05:18, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"I will not separate the bot into separate accounts" - what a helpful response to good faith suggestions. Why not? It seems like a very good idea. If you can't manage the coding, I'm sure someone could give you a hand. I note the bot has been unblocked now. Perhaps we should have a sweepstake on how long until it breaks down again ([28]). Neil ☎ 09:48, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because it would be seven more talk pages to monitor and seven more accounts of redundant code in which to make bug fixes and because it's his bot and he doesn't want to. Jecowa 16:53, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

 – A mistake has been made here. ➔ REDVEЯS isn't wearing pants 22:10, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Misza13 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)- In the past few months has appeared to have been running an unauthorised blocking bot and an unauthorised deletion bot under their main account. These bots may be doing a good purpose but I must complain about this as there has been other sysops who have been blocked and had their rights took away. Betacommand (talk · contribs) for example. I don't see why one admin should be allowed to have unauthorised blocking and deletion bots when another hasn't. Please inform me if I have made a mistake here. The sunder king 21:13, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Everybody knows this...Qst 21:16, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See User:Curps, he was a block bot (although still a user), he made over 26,000 blocks during his time here. Qst 21:17, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Edit conflict x2) Betacommand didn't get desysopped for running an unauthorized bot. They are two different situations. In many ways, it is one of those "as long as it ain't broken, don't fix it" situations, IMO, such as the Curps blocking and rollback bot a while ago. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 21:18, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, the community generally takes a laissez-faire attitude towards adminbots as long as they aren't disruptive. Misza13's bot has been running for quite a while, performing a useful service without disrupting the project --krimpet⟲ 21:23, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The {{resolved}} wording is a bit insulting... the Betacommand decision included a [29] "Admins should not run bots on their sysop account that are enabled to perform sysop actions (blocking, deleting, etc) without specific community approval from Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval and/or WP:RFA". It can hardly be a mistake to actually think that would be fairly applied. --W.marsh 22:48, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Arbcom rulings only apply to the case they are part of and do not set policy or precedent. Sometimes rulings follow established convention or the consensus of the time and sometimes rulings lead the establishment of consensus, which later coalesces around the ruling, but consensus can change. If it is the current consensus that adminbots are OK, then that supercedes the ruling. Maybe an admin RFC should be opened to determine what the current situation is? Thatcher131 00:07, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia:Bot policy is policy though. "Prior to use, bots must be approved at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval", "Administrators should block bots if they are unapproved"... I mean, my point is just that it's reasonable for someone to be surprised that everyone's all apathetic about an unapproved adminbot. --W.marsh 01:34, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Generally agree but since this seems to be a tolerated open secret, it should probably go to a bot talk page somewhere or an admin RFC, rather than directly blocking Misza at this time. Thatcher131 01:50, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • If the only reason it's a problem is "But... but... it's policy!" then it doesn't seem to be a problem... is this bot causing any harm to the project? – Luna Santin (talk) 05:09, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Please don't try to mock me for pointing out what policy is. I didn't say either way what I think we should do here... I'm just explaining what policy says. --W.marsh 13:40, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • A user running an unapproved bot on his own account takes the full responsibility of the edits made by the account. The way I read the Bot consensus is that bots must be approved if they need the bot flag, or run under a separate account. Most of us sometimes perform AWB runs to fix things under our accounts. -- lucasbfr ^talk 10:07, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• The Curps block-bot was not in line with the bot policy, but it was still reasonable in the exceptional circumstance that we had. Curps had gone through several precautions to minimize any accidental collateral damage, such as posting an automated ANI message asking for a quick unblock if the block was mistaken. At the time, rapid fire page-move vandalism was a major problem for us, and breaking a policy in order to attack that problem can be justified by pointing to the emergency we had at the time. A single fling of vandalism with 6 vandal accounts could take an hour to clean up and to check that no mistakes with accidental article deletions had been made in the process. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:57, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A person using a variety of anonymous IPs has made racist and incivil comments in Talk:Cat Stevens. EG a comment on another wikipedian being a Jew, [30], [31]. The person identifies himself as "Hans Rosenthal" (coincidentally, the same name as a holocaust survivor and television personality) or ROHA. A few (but not all) mentions of previous misconduct can be seen in: December 2005, same incident mentioned elsewhere some of the IPs involved, August 2005, February 2006. Does such a user need any more warnings, or should they get blocked? Andjam 01:34, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Have they been busy recently? Those examples are from a while back and ROHA has always been on a shifting IP so there's little point in blocking. The article was semi-protected in OCtober because of their edits. Just remove the remarks from the talk page. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 07:31, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the recent comment on Talk: Cat Stevens which was specifically directed at me was on October 14, and it remained there until yesterday - I thank Andjam and Raymond Arritt for objecting to it, and Raymond's removal of it, but the problem seems to me to be deeper than the temporary semi-protection on Cat Stevens, as this gratuitous and unmotivated anti-Semitic comment was on the Talk page which of course wasn't protected - and the article's sprot has since expired. Perhaps the sprot should be made permanent, or much longer-range which might deflect his attention - ROHA has disrupted there before, but he has done so in other places as well, and that wouldn't have stopped his attack on the talk page anyway.

I see a similar discussion going on below about a different IP abuser. Maybe it's time to rethink IP editing if you're not willing to range-block because of worries about collateral damage to innocent editors who use the same IP range. ROHA freely gives his email address, for example - why can't the Foundation's lawyers step in and try to deal with him at that level? Where is the protection against harassment of good faith editors?

If you'd like some more diffs about this person, try here and here. There are more disruptive edits too. Yes, these are old, but that's the point: he's been doing this for years, but now it's gotten personal. I am asking for something more to be done about this abuse. Tvoz |talk 07:15, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just found this discussion. Maybe it will help to know, there have been several incidents with a user "Hans Rosenthal" using the name ROHA on :de Wikipedia. Among other statements he clearly states that he is allways using the name ROHA ("Mein Kürzel ist stets ROHA." ). ROHA claimed to be "invulnerable" and will continue as a IP ("ROHA: "Ich bin nicht angreifbar. Weiter unter IP." /I'm invulnerable and will continue as IP). His account was blocked on :de indefinite for being a troll-account (see [32]). He is listed in several :de users'"vandallists", eg. :de admin's de:Benutzer:PDD [33]. The related IP range had to be blocked repeatedly. A request on the :de administrators' noticeboard for detailed info on him (German) shows that he is clearly considered a serious vandal and edit warrior by the admins on :de. I would therefore recommend extreme caution. In this case AGF didn't work out on :de for quite a while. Regards. --Nemissimo 15:34, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I warned this user several times [34] [35] [36] [37] under his previous incarnation of Lwachowski to stop broadcasting my (many times stated) affiliation with the BKWSU. However he persistently uses this technique to imply untrustworthiness and an agenda on my part [38]. In the linked example he's complaining about the removal of a link to a community site that was established to be inappropraite by an rfc [39] [40].

Whatever the complexities of the article may be, I hope I get some support for the principal that these constant comments about me and other editors and their affiliations by AWachowski will now have to stop. I would appreciate some kind of assertive remedial action to enforce this in no uncertain terms. I have suffered this abuse pretty-much for as long as I have been registered on Wikipedia. AWachowski is just one more of a long line of incarnations that seem to find this technique useful. I suspect Green108 is a notable previous incarnation.

There are many more examples of this. Just look at any post made to a talk page by these users.

Thanks & regards Bksimonb 13:42, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aren't AWachowski and Lwachowski username violations for being confuseable with famous real people? 70.227.232.162 17:12, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well you may well have a conflict of interest. Maybe if you are involved in this new religious movement you shouldn't keep editing its article? Secretlondon 22:09, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you are a Christian should you not edit articles on Christianity? Also I have left the really major changes to the article to other non-involved editors. For the record, AWachowski has quite a major conflict of interest, otherwise why would he edit the article and post comments in such a blatantly aggressive way? If you believe what he is saying that my membership of the BKWSU is a show-stopper then his propaganda campaign to discredit other editors is obviously working. I would hope my willingness to accept an NPOV article and work in a reasonable way with neutral editors would determine how much of a COI I really have.

I hope that you are not implying that perceived conflict of interest on my part means that no action should be taken to enforce a basic NPA policy? Either he is intimidating other editors unfairly or he isn't. Please enforce the policy. That's all. Thanks. Bksimonb 05:39, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, I appear to have ranted. A more appropriate and considered answer would be that, yes I probably do have a COI and I would be happy to discuss the issue and explore solutions for ensuring the article doesn't become defamatory and misleading as it has done in the past. However, right now, I would really appreciate that the specific problem that I have highlighted is addressed in some way so that I have at least some chance of working on a level playing field in a civil environment. Much appreciated Bksimonb 16:34, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If Bksimonb has a COI, then AWachowski has just as much a COI if not more being an ex-BK (and a particularly vehement one at that). COI does not prevent one from editing; one must discuss changes and gain consensus on the talk page and refrain from controversial edits. This position should go both ways here. Right now there is little attempt to get consensus on the talk pages. AWachowski makes huge wholesale changes without discussion and Bksimonb is reverting back to the previously agreed-upon version and trying to get discussion on the talk page to gain agreement on changes. Renee 23:43, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Without getting involved, it's apparent that User:Reneeholle is also involved in this edit war, so again, objectivity in this argument doesn't seem to be apparent. It's pointless crying 'COI' at someone if you yourself have an obvious COI. I'd suggest that perhaps page protection for a while, to let everyone cool down might be a good idea. Perhaps an RfC in the duration. Coldmachine^Talk 09:33, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It should be noted, completely unrelated to anything above, I have blocked the account for violating our user name policies. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 12:59, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Shazaam!. Let's see what account name comes back.

In response to the previous posts, I'm curious, as a principal, shouldn't WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA been enforced regardless of any other COI or editing issues. I thought that nothing excused personal attacks or incivility, especially if it is directed with purpose over a long period of time. Regards Bksimonb 13:49, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

After an ArbCom where Cool Hand Luke was on the losing side, he is now trolling my edits and reverting edits that satisfy all guidelines. I ask that he be spoken to and desist from harassing me. This is becoming a problem. --David Shankbone 16:24, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is absolutely untrue. I've followed the entire debate, and the only reason CHL got involved with Shankbone again, is that Shankbone was once again editing biographical information about a person with whom he has had a very heated on-wiki conflict. The only harassment here has been Shankbone's steadfast refusal to let it go, even though the editor in question is long gone from the project. Shankbone has now done an interview for Wikinews in which he raises inflammatory allegations about one of this editor's colleagues (i.e. allegations of extramarital affairs), and is linking it to that person's BLP. CHL reverted that link, and that's the extent of his so-called "harassment". I can think of half a dozen reasons why Shankbone shouldn't be adding that link (RS, BLP, COI, WEIGHT, EL, OR), and he's reverted 4 times in 3 days. ATren 16:36, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide some diffs. Jeffpw 16:45, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ATren is the other person who was involved in the ArbCom dispute. In fact, if you look at this version of his User page he has a lengthy diatribe about me and the ArbCom case. So we have two people who were on the losing side of an ArbCom now harassing me. --David Shankbone 16:46, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There was no "losing side" as the case was dismissed. Please show diffs of the edits so we don't have to go fishing through all of both of your recent edits and guess where the problem is. Thatcher131 16:52, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Every finding of fact was working out against THF, and CHL and ATren were arguing his side. It was only dismissed because THF left the project. --David Shankbone 17:09, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you really want to dig up that case: (1) I was not "involved". I participated in the debate, because I felt strongly that a good editor was being hounded for his views. (2) At the time the case was closed, the only proposed negative finding that got 6 votes was the one that discussed your behavior. (3) When I defended THF in that case, you harassed me by repeatedly bringing up a completely unrelated dispute from well over a year ago ([41]) - harassment that went on for several weeks even though I asked you half a dozen times to stop. Shall I go on? David, I've tried to ignore you, even though I very strongly disagree with your attitude and approach here, but when you continue to add questionable material to THF's bio, even though many respected users have asked you to stop, that's when I feel compelled to get involved again. When are you going to let this conflict die? ATren 17:26, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I added no questionable material to anyone's bio. Ever. And you were very much involved the ArbCom case, ranting and raving. There was only one finding of fact against me--that I could have handled my pursuit of THF better--and it was one I had admitted to going into the ArbCom. --David Shankbone 17:44, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm done with it. Do whatever you want, and when someone else objects you can dig into their edit histories and attack them with it. You are engaging in the exact same behaviors that you supposedly "admitted to going into arbcom", except that now you're targetting CHL and me as well as THF. It's obvious what's going on here, and I will not be chased off like THF was. I'm disengaging. ATren 17:53, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You can continue to make preposterous allegations (I remember you calling the ArbCom a kangaroo court) with no basis in reality. I'm the one being trolled and reverted here, not you. --David Shankbone 18:02, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The case was dropped because THF had been harassed off wikipedia by you David. Then THF made the mistake of thinking that wikipedia policies ment what they said, which they don't if you have friends like newyorkbrad. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 13:12, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See also the discussion on my Talk page. Raymond Arritt 17:14, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The only thing I'm asking for is for Cool Hand Luke and now ATren, two people who were unsatisfied with the ArbCom as it didn't work out the way they wanted, to stop trolling my edits and reverting me. This is harassment. If they have a problem with one of my edits, broach it with an uninvolved admin to take a look. It's really that simple. But neither of them have a clear head coming out of the ArbCom. --David Shankbone 17:50, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could you provide some diffs to show the edits in question? You have a lot of edits, to your credit, but that makes it hard to sift through your edits and theirs to correlate a pattern of stalking/trolling. If you can provide a few diffs, that would help everyone who's trying to get to the bottom of this. Thanks! Arakunem^Talk 19:13, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The situation is at Paul Wolfowitz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and is also being discussed at WP:BLPN. Briefly, Shankbone conducted an interview with Craig Unger, author of two books on the Bush administration, and posted it at Wikinews. [42] He then linked to the interview at Paul Wolfowitz, [43], which some editors including Cool Hand Luke, objected to. Thatcher131 19:31, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It strikes me as seriously problematic that David has created this content and linked it from the article. As I understand it, no independent editorial party has ever evaluated this content. As basically unreliable material, we should seriously question linking this at all, let alone giving it a privileged position simply b/c it is on a sister site.

Aside from those general concerns, this interview strikes me as uncritical and an example of poor journalism. In short I hardly agree that David's edit "satisfies all guidelines." Christopher Parham (talk) 20:43, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The "poor journalism" argument is misguided. An interview is not always set up to challenge a person, but can also be to record their views. Here, we have a renowned journalist who has been a contributing editor, editor-in-chief or deputy editor of major publications. The idea was to talk about his book, not challenge him on it. That does not make it "poor journalism". --David Shankbone 21:24, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• In fact, Shankbone added the link to 8 or 10 articles about conservative people and organizations, and Cool Hand Luke removed it from two, Paul Wolfowitz and Douglas J. Feith‎, which seems to be the basis of the "stalking" claim. Thatcher131 20:48, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I picked out only the BLPs, where the Wikinews link had already been removed by other editors and reinserted by David. People inserting information into BLPs bear the burden of justifying it, and these links looked like a BLP issue to me. I did not revert his work or hassle him for the sake of it. I just pulled out the narrow subset that looked like a serious problem. This is not frivolous or harassment. Many users seem to agree that the edits were questionable. Cool Hand Luke 22:34, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the page history, there is edit warring without use of the article talk page. That is inappropriate behavior. I've protected the page in question temporarily. If consensus is reached on the subject of the edit war, any admin can unprotect. GRBerry 21:00, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Got another weird one. After the legal threat last week, I'm a little warry about this one. An IP user has blanked a redirect for the acronym PIPC, claiming that it's a registered trademark, and they will be making reports to the US Patent office if the redirect is continued to be used to point to an unrelated organization. Really hard to tell if there is any validity to the issue. I'm not really certain what, if anything, needs to be done now. Maybe just a few more admin eyes on the redirect in case something blows up here. - TexasAndroid 21:15, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's a crock. The patent office has nothing to do with trademarks in the first place, and the use of the trademark is fair use when referring to it in this matter. Block the User for making legal threats, and move on. Corvus cornix 21:22, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've put a WP:LEGAL warning on the anon's Talk page. Corvus cornix 21:25, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're right that the claim is a crock, but you're wrong about the patent office: the full name of the organization is the United States Patent and Trademark Office. --Carnildo 23:30, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just an update, this appears to be far from over. More updates this morning on the PIPC redirect, including continued trademark claims. Thanks to those who jumped in to deal with it. - TexasAndroid 17:58, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Yidisheryid (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log)
• Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Yidisheryid
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive302#In which there is a dispute between User:Yidisheryid and User:Avraham.

I am afraid that the user is exhibiting symptoms of recidivistic behavior, especially as relates multiple personal attacks against multiple editors, incivility, misunderstandings and misrepresentations of wikipedia policies such as reliability, verifiability, hoaxes, and Wikipedia:Non-free content, among others.

The user has a history of sockpuppetry, and was blocked for such, and only unblocked after issuing an apology.

The user was brought to ANI earlier, see here for these issues, and especially for his habit of redacting other people's edits. The user was blocked for disruption and incivility, admitted such, and once again, promised to reform.

Unfortunately, there has been no indication of any reform; au contraire, there is only further evidence of incivility and personal attacks [44] [45] [46] note edit summary [47] [48] [49] [50], improper accusations of admin-tool abuse [51] [52] [53], continued ignorance of wikipedia policy even after being informed [54] [55] [56] [57] [58] [59], and subtle and overt changes to others' comments [60] [61]. More examples exist.

Since I am this person's main target for abuse, it is possible that I am too close to the issue, so I am asking my fellow editors and sysops here to comment on this user, his track record, his recidivism, and whether or not some time to review wiki's policies and rules would be helpful, or perhaps other remedies, such as a topic ban or long-term block would be appropriate to prevent further disruption to articles relating to Judaism, Zionism, Israel, and attacks against other editors. Thank you. -- Avi 21:17, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have noticed that every time there is heat against him at one project he moves on to another project as can be seen here evidence for incivility, misunderstandings and misrepresentations of wikipedia policies such as reliability, verifiability. It's been ongoing for more than a year now, every time he is quiet on yi I see him active either on en or he.--Shmaltz 23:14, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

for the record i am active daily in all 3 wikipedia languages; he; en; and mainly Yi.--יודל 14:21, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• "au contraire"? Is this the Spanish Wikipedia, or something? LessHeard vanU 23:15, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, but the term is pretty selbstverständlich . -- Avi 23:26, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • it's not Spanish, it's French for "to the contrary" ;) -- lucasbfr ^talk 14:00, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

YY's Reply

Who am i: First of all i can say to u i am a man of many wrongs and the community may decide that they don't want to put up anymore with me if they deem me a drag on the wiki, to tell u the truth i was blocked many times in Hebrew wikipedia and many more in the Yiddish wikipedia, and now i am back full force corrected and straightened, after all so much dedication, well over 40.000 edits daily i have declared the wikipedia my addiction and home, mostly in my native language Yiddish where i was already 2 times sysop, i am faulty and nobody has to live with me, but until i am not thrown out of here i believe in this medium especially for my community the Williamsburg Brooklyn Hasidim which needs desperately a form of transparency of knowledge and information to cope with our repressive lifestyle, i have not spoken the Hebrew language nor the English until a very recent time in my life, i believe that we must interlink all those 3 languages and many more on all topics.

Uncivility and Personal Attacks

i will try to answer all the links avi brings one by one and to explain it, and let u judge it as u see fit. he claims that i am uncivil and use personal attacks, i beg everybody to look at his links not the last edit link but my answers to him as well, (i will have time i will link them as well) about my detractors i have nothing to say, but please keep in mind that this is an ongoing constant attempt by Avi to get me blocked and last time i tried to show his pattern about me i was blocked for it, so i am silent. Yes i have ticked off the few users mainly Avi and Shmaltz and yossia and Izak. but i beg to consider my contributions just as worthy as theirs, shmaltz and yosia arent active and avi and izak i consider as better users than i but before u want to block me on their word i would like to correct myself so be very clear what i have done wrong and i will change by further noticing my blemishes thanks for everybody who feels important here to comment and on my behavior, i will take them deeply into my heart and construct it into positive motherly criticism and nurturing of my humanism.

Sockpupetry

i was never ever a sock puppet, and once i was guilty of vote socking which i did not know at the time to be illegal.

Disruptive

yes i was found to being disruptive at one moment back a few months by an admin who blocked me for 24 hours, i had at the time apologized and moved on. please take a look at the whole incident and see what i did wrong was heavily debated and even though i did nothing wrong in of each incident because i was found by others of dismissing their opinion i felt a need to apologize so what it was boiling down to it is lack of respect to other users, which i was promising not to do again and i hope i did breach my promise.

Ignoring Policy

also about my ignoring policy he brings his accusations that i ignore them, never did i take policy here easily i read them over and over, and i even translated all of them to the Yiddish wikipedia, i will answer everybody and retract my words all the time if somebody shoes me that i am wrong, i have even been accused of being a flip-flopper because i changed my opinion after rereading policy.

Changing others text

also about his links that i make neutral headlines on my talk page, it was already discussed in a previous ANI nomination by Avi, and it was answered that i may put my headline above his if its my talk page, as long as i don't temper with his words--יודל 13:49, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

--יודל 12:39, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Avi's Acusation of YY changing others text

• I won't comment on the rest (i looked at a few and agree with you on some points), but your "subtle and overt changes to others comments" examples are both changes in a heading level (not even the text), and addition of a comment (with its own heading) above it - in one, he even explicitly states what he has done to avoid even the appearance that it is intended to mislead people about what someone else has written. It seems like you can build a case against him without resorting to such accusations, so why'd you throw that in there? A heading is not part of a comment, and thus is not owned by the person who wrote the comment. People change talk page section headers all the time with no objection, and he didn't even change the actual text in either of your examples. —Random832 13:39, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please be clear on what other points there is a case against me so i can correct it. thanks--יודל 13:59, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My own interactions with YY have always been civil, though we frequently disagree on specific issues. I think the general tone sometimes not ideal, but not outside the run of things here. DGG (talk) 20:21, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

 – Disruptive users blocked. See dispute resolution for further steps if the problem repeats. - Jehochman ^Talk 17:48, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am asking that an administrator enforce the conditions laid upon Cladeal832 for constantly reverting articles with no rationale. I reported Cladeal and his/her sockpuppet/meatpuppet, an anon user, and was kindly helped by GTBacchus. Refer to these pages for GTBacchus' response: User talk:Charles#Re: Ancestry template dispute, User talk:Cladeal832#Dispute noted at WP:ANI and User talk:GTBacchus#Comment requested at WP:AN/I and also Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive325#Nonconstructive reverts and edits to ancestry templates by IP address 24.57.196.130. Currently, the user is still reverting without posting again to the talk pages, saying that I am not following the administrator's advice, which I have been doing. In an effort to preserve peace and maintain this articles, I ask that this user be dealt with according to the conditions/consequences already laid out. He/she has not shown him/herself to be willing to discuss anything beyond saying "there is nothing wrong with my edits", essentially, ignoring all discussions thereafter. Note the differences at GTBacchus' talk page after the user was warned to discuss edits. He/she simply reverted after without discussing them, yet calls on me to discuss them (which I have done). I do not want to engage this individual in edit warring. I would like to see him or her dealt with. Charles 22:23, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Really get a bit sick of my best buddy Charles here. The guy will not let up. He keeps tracking my edits, adds unnecessary edits, then goes to every adiministor he can find, then one responds to just discuss it on the article Talkpage, and stop edits, but instead just reverts edits anyhow. I would like Charles dealt with. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cladeal832 (talk • contribs) 22:26, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have not been stalking the user's edits. Obviously, he or she has been stalking mine as he or she found his- or herself here three minutes after I posted. I have some 1300 pages on my watchlist. Almost all of them (about 98%) are royalty articles and I check most changes in my watchlist in an effort to combat vandalism and the like. When the ancestry charts were first created, I and others began implementing them and either then or after, the names in them have been adjusted to reflect the standard at WP:NC(NT). Cladeal's petty reversions amount to vandalism on a consistent, bothersome and sad basis. I have followed the administrator's advice of explaining my edits on the talk pages but have not been treated to the courtesy of discussion. Cladeal simply reverts the changes and says anything along the lines of "this is better" or "this is consistent" when there is absolutely no rationale for such. "Consistency" is brought with the naming conventions I have cited and it also reflects the article names (generally the simplest and shortest way of linking). It states that kings, emperors and their consorts are named Name (Ordinal) of Place and that all over royals are Title Name of Place or Name, Title of Place (if holding a substantive title). I have explained this but with no response from the other user. Charles 22:38, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, for the purposes of this report, the previously mentioned anonymous user, 24.57.196.130 (talk · contribs), is active again. Charles 03:32, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What's wrong with a redirect? Cladeal832 04:28, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, the exact same question asked by the anon user on a number of talk pages. As I explained elsewhere, there isn't a problem with redirects, but they are bypassed if possible and especially where the case warrants it, such as applying titles and ordinals to individuals where it is not warranted and contravenes naming conventions for the sake of "consistency". The naming conventions themselves are as consistent as possible in how they treat royals as I explained in my previous post here. Charles 05:05, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've blocked both Cladeal and the IP for 48 hours for obvious puppetry in the furtherance of an edit war, best evidence seen at the history of Sophie of Württemberg. I however suggest to Charles to take further conflicts up the dispute resolution chain, as serial blocking is not a good course to take, and edit wars are never good. --Golbez 05:52, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

 – Participants are counseled to prepare a detailed report to support their complaints. No action is justified at this time. - Jehochman ^Talk 10:15, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User or adminstrator (I can't figure out what he pretends to be) User:Dbachmann insinuates I am a neofascist. I don't have anything to do with fascism, I despise fascism and don't know what he is up to. To me it seems he recurs to ad hominem for lack of arguments to support his point of view, since I always take effort to source as well as I can. Maybe it sounds silly (it probably is), but I suspect his personal commitment to the Kurgan hypothesis is the root cause of his impolite attitude. Anyway, I don't think such a personal grudge is healthy and it feels as if he is rallying people against me. I don't think throwing dirt and loose insinuations are acceptable. Recently he dedicated in removing a lot of what I contributed, and only came up with a lot of personal accusations to have this justified. I think he needs a break. Please take a look at this discussion: User_talk:Dbachmann#Kurgan_hypothesis. Thanks! Rokus01 23:04, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dbachmann is an administrator. Prodego ^talk 23:13, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"...I have never been prepared to compromise with disingenious pov-pushers. Intelligently argued neofascist pov-pushing is just the same to me as dumbly argued Afrocentrist pov-pushing..." [62] is a pretty unwarrented insinuation and is counterproductive on Dbachmann's part indeed. — Save_Us_229 00:02, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

dab overreacted, but is understandably frustrated given what Rokus is adding to these articles. I've interacted with Rokus in the past, and his M.O. is to add large globs of text to inappopriate places in articles, usually sourced to obscure Dutch authors, and usually written like an essay. Perhaps an RFC is in order. - Merzbow 03:25, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're kidding, right? I'll vouch that dab is very frustrating in his zeal to wipe out nationalism, and what he calls fringe. ~Jeeny ^(talk) 07:30, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you have followed Rokus's edits you will understand both of Dab's comments about Rokus's disingenuousness and his "fascism". As Merzbau says, Rokus's MO is to create impenetrable bodies of obscure argumentation with elaborately mystificatory claims apparently supported by citations which often turn out to be only tangentally related to the arguments he is making. He is a master of WP:SYN. He will always react strongly to the accusation of fascism, for the simple rerason that all his edits are tied to a POV that the "Nordic race" of north west Europe were the original Aryans and that a pan-Germanic mythology underlies cultures in Northern europe, which is somehow associated with this 'racial' identity. This is standard mystical Aryanism familiar from the early 20th C. Paul B 11:33, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Barlow, you and DBachmann lost a chance to prove how sincere your "battle against fascism" really is, when DBachmann failed to support me in the revert discussion I had with one of his protegés (you): Talk:Nordic_theory#This_is_NOT_a_good_article. And you even refused to have the folly of the masterrace addressed in terms of racist ideology, and dared to idealize fascism with WP:OR, contradicting academic sources forwarding something so basic as to define nazism being a characteristic feature of fascism. Sincere? I rather have the impression DBachmann and you are abusing such would-be anti-fascism to create a false pretext of "neutral credibility", like DBachmann is doing now in the other intolerant battle against Afrocentrist pov-pushing. This is not sincere, this is hypocrism. Maybe you think you can fool somebody sometimes, but you can't fool everybody all the time. Rokus01 19:40, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As usual, you are barely intelligable. Nazism is not "a characteristic feature of fascism". How can Nazism be a "feature" of fascism, since fascism predated Nazism? It's a particular form of fascism with its own unique features, as everyone on the fascism page pointed out to you. Paul B 00:30, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is extended revert-warring on the part of Dbachmann and he was recently warned by two administrators on his talk page. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 05:58, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Afrocentrism and related articles are a mess, and those of us who frequent WP:FT/N are very grateful to DBachmann for taking the lead in keeping unsourced nonsense out. I see that's what the 'warnings' are about. Relata refero 06:34, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not, he's a bane, and does nothing useful but makes others angry and frustrated. ~Jeeny ^(talk) 07:30, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I sorry if you feel angry and frustrated, but perhaps you should realise that Wikipedia articles can't always look the way you want them to look, and it isn't always other users' fault. Relata refero 08:56, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dbachmann is trying to keep fringecruft out of Wikipedia articles, and Rokus01 is very often criticized by other editors for adding such material, see e.g. Talk:History of the Netherlands, Talk:Frankish mythology and Talk:Paleolithic Continuity Theory. I think that Dbachmann is doing his job well as an administrator.--Berig 06:40, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I challenge anyone to review Rokus' contribution history and find a major edit that isn't a complete head-scratcher. For example, [63] - "Applied on the issue of origins of the Indo-European languages, the approach resulted into a set of prepositions supported by generally accepted principles that lay the burden of proof on the shoulders of competing theories, especially when relying on invasions." His contributions are filled with text like this, and invariably they are either unsourced or the conclusions are synthesized. Another: [64] - "the Netherlands could be considered one of the worlds most underestimated cradles of people and civilization." I can't figure out exactly what type of weird pro-Dutch pseudoscientific agenda he is pushing, but it's not encyclopedic.- Merzbow 06:45, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merzbow, it is impossible to communicate with everybody on the same level of understanding, still I am grateful you made your problem clear by quoting a sourced phrase that was literally copied from Alinei. Did you challenge yourself? In the second phrase you missed the key word "underestimated". Equally, I could forward similar compelling arguments to label the contribution to civilization of Sub-Sahara Africa "underestimated": or did you already know that Europe's Neolitization was accomplished by people of originally Sub-Sahara stock? Very easy to call this Afrocentrist pov-pushing whenever mentioned, still I am convinced some facts deserve special notice, especially with people that miss an open mind. Rokus01 19:40, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you can challeged Rokus' contribs. But there are many others who have a problem with Dbachman. He is uncivil, arrogant and is just as bad as those he refers to as trolls. I'll be back with more examples. But, I may not because I don't really want to waste my time. I'm pretty sure there is another AN/I about his behavior somewhere in the archives. He's actually threatened me and other's with his powers while engaged in an edit war. This is but one of many edit wars he's been in. ~Jeeny ^(talk) 07:26, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Recently I've also had issues with this particular administrator very similar to the issues you've mentioned above. Not only is he exceptionally uncivil to the point of blatantly rudeness and insults but also has a habit of reverting without note, as can be seen here: [65] One may also note that he's taken a short quip from a small review here that is basically an off the cuff insult and used it as the descriptor for this page's article here, which I removed and gave my suggestion as this obviously is an attempt to frame an opinion and violates WP:NPOV. The response? A simple reversion on his part without explanation. I've had past disputes with Dbachmann [66] but I've noticed he's becoming more bullying and bullying lately and I simply don't have the time to go through his edits and pick out what he's called (or lumber together wtih) "fascists" today or "Neo-Nazis" yesterday without a source. Because of this and my concern for Dab's edits as well as his reckless usage of these terms and the associations they bring on to their subjects, I've decided to speak up here. :bloodofox: 08:07, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A reminder: will those who don't spend time around nationalists and supremacists of various descriptions please not throw the first stone here. Relata refero 08:56, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I support Rokus. Dbachman is very rude and Impolite. He is never objective in his arguments and always tries to comment on the motivations of the user. And the comments pretty much drop down to insults. He also keeps on editing articles he has no clue about. Some one should take action upon this admin. He is a real menace to wikipedia. Xyzisequation 09:18, 15 November 2007 (UTC) — Xyzisequation (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• I filed the Sadi Carnot arbitration case about fringe theory pushing. Before coming to ANI with complaints, I suggest each of you prepare a detailed report offline to document the fringe theory pushing, or the administrator misconduct that you allege. If you provide clear evidence, either here or via RFC, I can offer advice, warnings or sysop services as needed. For the moment, I see scattered diffs that don't tell a coherent story. ANI is for complaints, not investigations. I recommend you better organize your evidence. If you wish to collaborate in private, Google Documents is a useful tool. You can place the final report in your userspace and reference it in your complaint. Here's an example: User:Durova/Complex vandalism at Joan of Arc. Thank you. - Jehochman ^Talk 09:29, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quite right. The mere repetition of complaints won't be either addressed or considered relevant on AN/I. If those who object to Dbachmann's efforts can pool together their complaints, it might be reasonable to ask if there's a case for ArbCom to accept, but I don't think that this will get anywhere. Relata refero 10:03, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dbachmann is merely trying to enforce Wikipedia's core policies. After all, we're supposed to be creating an encyclopaedia here. If POV-pushers are allowed to skew content and add inaccurate information, then we're failing at our primary aim. More admins should be following dab's example, then perhaps he wouldn't get so frustrated. --Folantin 10:41, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No action? This user has been highly uncivil and has responded to my request for civility with disdain and generally questioning my good faith as an editor. Saying: "Just teaming up with any editor that happens to be "pro-Afrocentric" no matter how pathetic their output is unwikilike, disingenious, disruptive..." He implies that all users who disagree with him are unintelligent. This isn't what I expect from an admin. futurebird 13:43, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Forget the process wankery, leave Dbachmann alone, and try to help him out. He's one of our best contributors and has done an absolute mountain of good work. If he's getting frustrated, there's a reason why. Look for the subtext, look at the content! I'll try to get my head around this over the next 24 hours or so, provided the India wars haven't completely killed off my sanity by then :) Cheers, Moreschi ^{If you've written a quality article...} 14:04, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to draw attention to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fruit (slang) and the ridiculous personal attack left by User:72.68.121.10 towards User:Benjiboi. The comment can be seen in the AfD history here: history. It was removed, so User:72.68.121.10 went and posted it again on User:Benjiboi's talk page. User:72.68.121.10 should be perm banned from WP for this outrageous attack. -- ALLSTAR ECHO 02:17, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jumped straight to an npa4 on the user's talk page (no warnings had been left there — one had been attempted on their user page, but there is about a 0% chance that they actually saw it — no orange bar) and reverted the message left on another editor's talk page. Post back here if it continues and no one catches it. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 02:24, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They did it again 6 minutes after your warning. I've blocked for 1 week. Anyone who wants to extend the block is welcome to do so. ··coelacan 02:37, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And he's back under another IP and has attacked User:Benjiboi again. See User_talk:Benjiboi#Articles_for_deletion.2FFruit_.28slang.29 comment by User:72.76.11.153 -- ALLSTAR ECHO 05:53, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is there nothing to be done about this? This asshole has been stalking and harassing Benjiboi (and to a lesser extent, me) for the better part of a month now. This is not the first time this has gone to ANI, yet the abuse continues, with very little attention from administrators. Is this to be yet another example of a solid editor being harassed off of Wikipedia? To me,. this is one more example of why anon IPs should not have editing privileges. Jeffpw 06:12, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, like it or not, that's not going to change. We're not going to block obviously dynamic IPs permanently for things like this; it's just pointless. --Haemo 06:18, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, ok. So we lose one solid editor and gain one anon IP stalker/harasser who pushes a conservative religious right agenda. That's a real net gain for this project:-s Jeffpw 06:21, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff, I don't think it's that Haemo doesn't care, but that there are real technical and other limitations to what we can do about dynamic IP harassment.--chaser - t 06:23, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Echoing chaser. Jeff, remember when Nkr*s had the long knives drawn for me, and admins had to just keep whacking each of his IPs until he got bored? There's really very few technical solutions available to us. I've semi-protected Benjiboi's talk page for a couple of weeks so the troll has fewer troughs to feed at. The full solution is just to maintain the vigilance of a neighborhood watch. ··coelacan 06:34, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know whether it's bad enough for a Wikipedia:Long term abuse file, but having documentation somewhere (like a userspace subpage) so that admins know to block the IP on sight might at least get you a faster response. The range of IPs is too large to block all of them.--chaser - t 06:23, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again, to second the above comments, what Haemo is saying is NOT that this person should be allowed to continue to harass, its that playing whack-a-mole with the huge number of IP adresses they use is fruitless. Ideally, this person should not be allowed to continue. Practically, since they use an ISP that dynamically assigns IP addresses to its users at each log-in, there is no practical way to block the person. Each block is to an IP address they are unlikely to ever use again. As mentioned above, this is a technical problem, not a uncaring-admin problem. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 06:28, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bingo. The only solution is a blanket block on anonymous IP editing, and since the higher-ups have made it abundantly clear that this is not going to happen, we can't really do much more. WP:DFT is the only line of defense, coupled with vigilant blocking. --Haemo 08:09, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Benjiboi is documenting the incidents as they happen, and Mangojuice knows a bit aboutt he situation, too. If Benji hasn't done it before I get a chance, I'll provide a link to the page he documents on. Thanks for listening, and sorry if I came on frustrated. It's just that this is the second time we came to ANI about this and the first time got no real reaction at all. Jeffpw 11:20, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why not semi protect his talk page and leave a note at the top directing genuine anons elsewhere? User:Veesicle 11:42, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh it already has been, never mind. User:Veesicle 11:43, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be possible and/or useful to contact Verizon to complain about their customer's bad behavior? Powers ^T 13:17, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's absolutely possible, but whether or not its ever useful is a completely different question. I'm not aware of any ISPs responding in any helpful way, although it's possible that's happened. Natalie 15:03, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotected - per Benjiboi's request on WP:RFPP[67] - I'll keep a watch on things, though - Alison ^❤ 17:24, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

 – Warning has been effective. - Jehochman ^Talk 04:55, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SurferDude7 posted a very uncivil comment on the Talk Page for Fighting for Justice. This comment contained a personal attack against the editor, who was called an "absolute pervert" and was told that he "belong(s) in jail." Although the offensive commentary has already been removed and I just posted a warning about personal attacks on SurferDude7's Talk Page, administrative action may also be in order. ~ Homologeo 02:22, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Needs be warned, but only made one single edit. A bad breach of WP:NPA, so one and only warning issued with {{uw-npa4im}}. David Ruben ^Talk 03:02, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See User_talk:216.166.78.9#Green_Kirby, the history of User talk:Green Kirby and a lot of the edits made by both, not only to each other, but to several other users. Some civility time outs may be needed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Corvus cornix (talk • contribs) 03:22, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree. None of them seem capable of letting the smallest thing slide, or letting any of this go. These kids are in serious need of time outs. GlassCobra 05:31, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Myself and Chaser have been attempting to work with these guys. Green Kirby is on his final chance having been released from a previous indefblock. I've just archived Kirby's talk page and am watching things closely there - Alison ^❤ 10:18, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Parsnip! is using a totally different username in his/her sig. The sig points to "Nobody of consequence". Can we please force them to change the sig? - Nobody of consequence 04:11, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

People use pseudonyms in their signatures frequently here. If his signature was inappropriately linking to a user page that wasn't his, then it would be an issue. I do have concerns, by the way, about your post here considering you just registered 3 minutes people you posted this. This feels like a WP:POINT violation to me and probably a bit of WP:SOCK as well. Metros 04:15, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If a person is posting on one account and signing as another, should the account not be blocked for being a socketpuppet?--Dacium 05:35, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Block away, I'm not going to use the account. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:15, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's not what's happening here. User:The Parsnip!'s signature is as follows: Nobody of consequence. It links to xyr user page, but the text reads Nobody of consequence. Because User:Nobody of consequence seems to have created that username solely because the reasonably established User:The Parsnip! was using that text as a signature, should User:Nobody of consequence be blocked for impersonation? WODUP 05:40, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Nobody of consequence registered the account for the sole purpose of wasting our time here, and has been indef-blocked accordingly. Cheers, ··coelacan 06:45, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong. Not created to "waste your time" (if you have enough time for WP:AN/I then you have too much time). Signatures should be clear. This one is not. Also, that's a pretty cool username. There's a good chance that someone woudl have eventually created it. What would someone do if they create and start using the username after this editor uses the misleading signature? Do you see where the problem lies? - Ta bu shi da yu 07:19, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks also for sharing your opinion of those who donate their time to ANI, that they merely have 'too much time on their hands.' --Golbez 08:13, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say it was not worthwhile, I just said that they have too much time. - Ta bu shi da yu 08:23, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It would only apply if that was an actual user; since you created the account only to complain about the sig, I would have to say you aren't an actual user yet. --Golbez 05:56, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I created it. This clearly gets in the way of the signature. It's a bad move. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:11, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. not resolved. The sig needs to be changed. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:11, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps before demanding we might wait to see if The Parsnip!, having been told, apparently in good faith, that his signature is, at least to some, confusing, expresses a disinclination to change his signature. I'm not at all certain that WP:SIG would counsel that he change his signature, which, after all, is really, in the absence of the Nobody of consequence account, no more confusing than is any other signature that differs from the attending username, but I'm certain that it, and, you know, all of those conduct policies that mean to codify the collegial, collaborative spirit that underlies the project, would counsel that one make a civil request (preferably one that stems from legitimate confusion or prospective confusion) that a user change his signature before bringing the issue to AN/I; here, a request from the Noc account was made just two minutes before the issue was posted here (even as Ta bu, at least, subsequently requested that TP! change his signature, the request wasn't, IMHO, ideal), and I cannot imagine that there is anything further to be done here before TP! has occasion to reply. Joe 07:35, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree. Looks to be fully resolved. In plain English - you had a beef with the way his sig read so you went and registered under the name, then minutes later came to ANI to complain about it (WP:POINT). In that case, YOU are in violation and not The Parsnip. Had you (or someone) created that username and started to contribute, and after a short time then had a problem with it (also after properly contacting and informing The Parsnip about it) - that would have been a valid ANI entry. As stated above - you are wasting people's time here. Rarelibra 07:21, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh come off it. I'm hardly wasting any time here. You're basically telling me that you spent 3 minutes on this thread, and that this "wasted" your time? And no, I'm not in violation of anything. - Ta bu shi da yu 08:25, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. I'm rather shocked you would waste our time with this Ta bu shi da yu. Especially since you should know the signature and sockpuppet policies, and know that your actions have violated both. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 07:26, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know the signature policies. That sig is misleading. As for sock puppets: come on off it. There are heaps of sock puppets, many of them do great work. I used it for one edit, didn't disrupt anything, unless you think me reporting this to WP:AN/I as "time wasting". Had I reported this to WP:AN/I with my normal username, we would have had the same conversation, and I can assure you that accusations of time wasting would not fly about. How is this any different? - Ta bu shi da yu 08:23, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because you initially came off as a troll, instead of a long-time valued member of the community. --Golbez 08:25, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't change the substance of what was being requested. - Ta bu shi da yu 09:58, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll quote WP:SIG here:

While not an absolute requirement, it is common practice for a signature to resemble to some degree the username it represents.

So there is no pressing need for us to make him change his signature. He has a right to do it if he so pleases. It never interfered with another user name until you created the new user name. There is nothing an admin has to do here. Metros 11:12, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It interfered with me, as it wasn't immediately obvious when I was trying to respond to them who I was actually talking to. It is disruptive, and we've blocked for this before. So, no, it is something an admin must do. Again removing the resolved! It is NOT resolved!!!! - Ta bu shi da yu 12:45, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Given that Nobody of consequence is now indefinitely blocked so cannot be used or recreated then this particular problem is now moot. ---- WebHamster 12:51, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My God, I wake up this morning and this is what I find? There is absolutely NO RULE that says I can't change my signature to show as a pseudonym, in fact the preferences tab explicitly allows for it. If anyone should be blocked, it's Ta bu shi da yu (talk · contribs) who should be blocked for violating WP:POINT, for deliberately creating an account just to try to force the issue, and for being highly disruptive with this absurd shrillness. All kinds of people do what I do and I can't think of anyone ever having a problem with it. Nobody of consequence 14:45, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(reset indent) NOW I see why this person went on their WP:POINT spree with me. I MFDed Wikipedia:Facebook, which Ta bu shi da yu (talk · contribs) then speedy closed out of process. That page is NOT an official policy or guideline, so there is absolutely no call whatsoever to speedy close it. Someone really needs to look into this and deal with it because this person is seriously overstepping his authority. Never mind, I see it's been listed at DRV. [68] Nobody of consequence 14:53, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

With Ta bu shi da yu being an admin, I would have assumed he would have first brought up the concern with the signature on The Parsnip!'s talk page with either a personal note or by using {{uw-username}}, which exists for this exact reason. Then I would have thought Ta bu shi da yu would suggest to The Parsnip! to create an account as User:Nobody of consequence and redirect it to The Parsnip!. Even as it is, I would still recommend an admin allow the account to be reset so The Parsnip! can usurp it and mark it as a {{doppelganger}} account.

On a different note, I would like to see Ta bu shi da yu bring this up at WP:U and initiate discussion to change the policy exactly as he has stated here. I have agreed with for some time now the same points he brings up here, only to be rebuffed by the policy. I would actually support such a change in username policy, but this is not the platform nor manner in which to do so. Making a point, I have unfortunately found, usually works (but can be harmful to the point maker's reputation in the long run). Regards.--12 Noon 17:18, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've modified my signature so the "C" is now uppercase and created a corresponding doppelganger account that redirects to my original account. Nearly Headless Nick, for example, has done the exact same thing, so hopefully this is kosher and eliminates the signature problem. Nobody of Consequence 18:33, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't make a doppelganger account - you made a user page for a non-existant user. Which is different from what Sir Nicholas did. He registered the "Nearly Headless Nick" account so it actually exists. Yours doesn't, and technically the User:Nobody of Consequence and User talk:Nobody of Consequence pages could be speedied under WP:CSD#U2. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 01:35, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The complaint here does look a troll, but I do wish that WP:SIG unambiguously required a sig which displays the username. It's a pain having to mouseover a sig to find out the username of the editor concerned, which is essential if trying to track contributions. I don't mind sigs of the form [[User:foo|Foo]] (myname) so long as the "foo" is displayed. If "The Parsnip!" wants to change username, that's fine, but a sig which displays something completely different is at best unhelpful. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:21, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The start of this thread looks like the absolute most ass-backwards way to bring up what otherwise could be a legitimate issue. If you want somebody to change their sig, I dunno, just ask them? Build consensus? No need for silly sockpuppetry or other attempts to make things a bigger problem than they are. I don't have a strong opinion on the policy matter itself, other than to be glad it's being discussed, now. – Luna Santin (talk) 20:24, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What is there for admins to do?

At this point, what is there that admins need/have to do with this situation? The Parsnip! has tweaked his signature and created a doppelganger account. Nothing needs to be done as far as I can tell. Any further issues with this should probably be directed to WP:SIG as that would be the place to debate the logistics of whether these signatures need to be eliminated or not. Other than the ridiculous point violations of Ta bu shi da yu, is there anything else here that admins need to discuss on ANI or can this be marked as resolved? Metros 20:39, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not yet since all s/he has done is to create a couple of userpages for a non-existent user. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 01:35, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a "he." If you want to speedy the redirects to enable me to create a doppelganger account, go ahead. But please tell me what it is you want me to do (how to create the dop account satisfactorily) so we can be done with this. Nobody of Consequence 02:21, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not possible anymore, Ta bu shi da yu has already registered an account with a similar name. Although I don't think anybody cares anymore. east.718 at 02:23, 11/16/2007

I just tried it and yep, it won't let me. Although the error message said I can ask an admin to create the account for me. If someone here wants to help me by doing that, then that would be lovely, however I've done all I can do. Nobody of Consequence 02:34, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Check your email. east.718 at 02:38, 11/16/2007

Resolved

 – Please report further issues, if necessary, at the conflict of interest noticeboard. - Jehochman ^Talk 05:00, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

At John H. Cox, Lkharrington (talk · contribs) inserted this edit into the article. In that edit, the user states that she is Linda Harrington, the media director for Cox's campaign for president. The edit was later reverted and I just gave her a warning for conflict of interest issues. Since this is a campaign for the presidency (albeit not one of the "big guns"), should anyone "up the ladder" in Wikipedia be made aware of this much like a sensitive IP being blocked or is it perfectly fine to leave the situation as is? Thanks, Metros 04:12, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should assume good faith and say that this person is trying to edit helpfully, dispite the fact that the claim should have been linked to a verifiable source ;) We're going to get plenty of problems over presidential candidates in the coming year. this is a minor one not meriting more than standard action. Physchim62 (talk) 17:35, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. There's nothing special about a presidential campaign. Certain sensitive IP addresses should not be blocked without going "up the ladder", such as the US Congress IP range, but otherwise any disruptive user can be warned by any editor, or blocked by any administrator if there's a reason. You should invite Linda to use the article talk page to recommend edits. She's just unfamiliar with the way things work here. Additionally, Wikipedia:Business' FAQ provides useful guidance. - Jehochman ^Talk 17:40, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

 – Semi-protected. Please visit requests for page protection if the problem recurs. - Jehochman ^Talk 17:43, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tonight, I happened to look back across some edits at the Noob article. I ended up reverting 98 edits back to a version 6 days old. Apparently, there's a huge vandalism problem going on there and I'd suggest semi-protection for a finite interval until things cool down a bit. — Dave (Talk | contribs) 05:42, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's something almost poetical about novice users vandalizing Noob, but I've semiprotected for a week. Raymond Arritt 05:54, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LMAO!!!!!!! That hadn't occurred to me but you're right. But, hey, thanks for the sprot, anyway. :-) — Dave (Talk | contribs) 05:58, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also consider that the article is (now was) a copy of an existing article Newbie. I boldly redirected the article to the other copy, which notes (correctly) that the article "Noob" should redirect to "Newbie". --Jayron32|talk|contribs 06:01, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note - since this hasn't been addressed but had been archived, I'll copy the discussion here. If this is the wrong thing to do, my apologies. Vizjim 06:41, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This user is abusive, adopts a confrontational stance at all times, and makes the experience of editing Wikipedia less enjoyable for others. This is a long-running low-level irritation at the Cyprus page, and I would ask interested editors to refer directly to both the talk page and to the edit summaries on the article history: similar issues can be seen at Geography of Mexico, Metropolis, North America, and so on. It is not a question of accuracy, but of incivility (and, on a side note, an insistence on incorrectly marking changes as "minor"). I and others have repeatedly requested that the user abide by the usual WP:CIVIL guidelines, but he refuses to do so. I note from his contributions history that he is engaged in similar low-level unpleasantness on several other geographical articles, involving many other editors: this reassures me that, while my own behaviour is certainly not perfect, I am not alone in finding Corticopia a disruptive and aggressive presence. An experienced administrator's intervention would be useful here. This complaint was originally posted to the Wikiquette alerts section [69], and has been redirected here with the comment from User:Jamessugrono as follows: "This should be at either WP:AIV or WP:AN/I, this user has been blocked far too many times for this to be simply a matter of incivility - there are plain, obvious, disruptive edits". Vizjim 10:33, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I totally agree, since he created that account he's being contributing mostly to Mexico-related topics, for reason that couldn't explain in one paragraph but if you check his record you'll see what I mean, I myself have had countless confrontations with him, usually reverting my changes with the excuse of NPOV, and it's not just me, users Jcmenal and AlexCovarrubias (who's been absent for a while) have had the exact same problem, Alex even suspected he was a sock of a previous user that was banned, he even has some evidence but for some reason nothing happened, I would really like the intervention of an administrator here, he uses profanity and uncivil manners and it should not be toletared in Wikipedia, there has been too many warnings for him. Supaman89 17:13, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll just add to the list the constant playing around and gaming of the system with respect to 3RR, again visible at Mexican and Cypriot pages. Vizjim 08:03, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I guess I'm being dumb but... I don't see these disruptive edits. Any chance I could have some specific diffs for the violations you mention (i.e., incivility and edit warring)? If you can substantiate these allegations, I will certainly take them seriously, given Corticopia's history of being blocked for these reasons. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 08:08, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He constantly deletes his talkpage to hide his messages but here are some of them:

• Edit War - Geography of Mexico
• Bad Attitude - Cyprus
• 5 reversions in less than 24 hours - Hawaii
• Erased the whole comment and only left the part where the other guy looked bad - Hawaii
• Someone told him that he could archive his talkpage instead of deleting them - He erased it anyways
• He's blocked again for one month for engaging in edit wars
• Again he erased another comment listing all his negative and disruptive attitude
• Once again blocked by 72 hrs by breaking the 3RR rule
• Look at the summary, what's up with "crap will be expunged"?
• 3RR breakage
• Another edit war in Mesoamerica

And those are just a couple of examples, I could easily keep looking for two more hours, but I think it gives you an idea of what this user is like and how he's been behaving all this time. Supaman89 16:57, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Couple of add-ons - Rude edit summaries, e.g. [70], and abusive arguments - e.g. [71]. Vizjim 19:05, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He is perfectly allowed to blank his talk page; in fact, it acknowledges he is reading the messages. I see the Hawaii link you listed was from August and he was blocked for two weeks for that. It would be helpful if you focus on any post-block activity (or just add the dates so that it's clear how long this covers); listing specific events through his entire history (especially activities for which he has already been blocked) will probably be counterproductive. I've also informed him but it looks like he doesn't tend to respond. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:24, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Corticopia is not the wiki's most civil user but we also shouldn't allow him to be constantly poked and proded like this, either. WilyD 14:17, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The rudenesses in the dit summaries and on the current Cyprus talk page aren't old news, though. As I say in the complaint, I originally brought this up at Wikiquette and only brought it to AN/I on a suggestion received there. Basically, Corticopia's refusal to be polite, achieve consensus, etc, in the discussion on that page suggests that he's going back to his own tricks: as such, I was hoping that an admin might be willing to have a quiet word and let him know that his behaviour is (again) being watched. This seems preferable to waiting until he does something for which a long outright ban will be required. I certainly didn't mean for this single action to come across as "constant" poking. Vizjim 22:57, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

 – Indef blocked for vandalism and threats. James086^{Talk | Email} 11:35, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spotsnever (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Vandalism only account made this threat. PrimeHunter 11:31, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indef-blocked already. Not much to think about though. Typical vandal threats. - Aksi_great (talk) 11:36, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

A user named Barney-12-3 (talk · contribs) seems to be playing silly buggers with Hormone. Multiple page moves, and I can't quite figure out where things started or are supposed to be. Help? --Calton | Talk 13:42, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed it: just the two moves, hormone to life hormones and then to hormone signalling. Note that you can investigate this kind of thing by using the move log. --bainer (talk) 13:57, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dans1120, who is a member of the Something Awful forums and who has previously posted threads in those forums about vandalizing Wikipedia, has used at least two socks abusively on a number of pages. ColaDude was revealed by EGG BABYS MOM to be a sock of Dans1120 (dans) in the debate over the now-deleted Mexicanstandoff.jpg on Talk:Mexican standoff. Dans employed a second a abusive sock called Cooldood246 to try to establish consensus in his favor. All three accounts have been used for questionable edits to a wide variety of pages and Dans himself was involved in the Daniel Geduld deletion debate (after repeatedly vandalizing the original article) which eventually resulted in the block of Rubber cat and the resulting goon rush over the past several days. Cumulus Clouds 15:21, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This might be better handled at WP:SSP.  _{Folic_Acid | talk}  15:24, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Well it concerns Dans1120's abusive editing in addition to his socks. I wanted to have the former addressed before the latter. Cumulus Clouds 15:33, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Any links which don't require you to pay money to see? JuJube 15:34, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok - if it regards abusive edits, could you provide some diffs that illustrate that?  _{Folic_Acid | talk}  15:37, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• They are mostly contained within the edit history of Daniel Geduld, which I don't have access to. He posted about it to the SA forums, and actually this is a free copy of the link where he discusses his vandalism to Daniel Geduld: http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=2676125&perpage=40&pagenumber=1 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cumulus Clouds (talk • contribs) 15:39, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a user with a two-handed edit history. Hand one: minor copyediting and wikilinking, sometimes reverting other vandalism. Hand two: Something Awful vandalism, often intentionally subtle. The Daniel Geduld edits were definitely vandalous. Dans is definitely responsible for the "I choose logic" vandalism described in the SA thread in Cumulus' last link. Note also he quip of "I need to make this look legit." in the SA thread. Here is the Pac-man is an atheist vandalsim. See the history of Sexual roleplaying, back in May '07 for more of this. Can anyone see any reason not to indefinitely block the main account? The only one that I can think of is that this user appears to be on a dynamic IP, and we'll probably have to do the sock drawer thing until he goes senile or gets a life. GRBerry 21:19, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would support blocking. It's trolling by a group of users trying to game the system. They make legit edits (some are clearly parody) and problematic edits to force discussions like this one. They're also fond of subtle vandalism of things like dates, statistics, or making malicious edits to unsourced statements/sections ("in popular culture", for example).-Wafulz 04:43, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've blocked Dans1120 indefinitely. Subtle and intentional vandalism we can live without. I suggest taking the socks to WP:SSP or WP:RFCU; for people with more experience in sock drawer clearing than I have to review. That there are puppets is obvious, which ones and whether they will be meat or sock is not. GRBerry 05:13, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

I'm adding as a footnote to this article the possibility that the Doctor and the Master may be brothers, and it keeps geting reverted as a theory. Thing is, it's essentially the same information as a footnote found in the Master (Doctor Who) which nobody seems to have a problem with, so if my footnote keeps getting deleted, shouldn't the same footnote also be deleted from the other article? HalfShadow 18:07, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't an administrative matter. Hut 8.5 18:11, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bingo. This is a content dispute; refer to the fact that other stuff exists as an un-compelling reason for inclusion, and instead pursue our dispute resolution venues. This not an issue which requires admin attention. --Haemo 18:13, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Haizum (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has a long history of being blocked for incivility and personal harassment of Wikipedians, and is very thorough POV pusher. If you review his full Block Log, you will see a variety of blocks for personal attacks on other users. The latest block was today.

History of blocks

Starting in 2006 he began to rack up blocks (an indefinite block in December 2005 was overturned):

• 03:44, 18 February 2006 Madchester (Talk | contribs) blocked "Haizum (Talk | contribs)" with an expiry time of 48 hours ‎ (personal attacks, talk page vandalism)

• Madchester reduced this block and protected his talk page instead, to stop his attacks and disruption. The next day, however, he reblocked Haizum again for 31 hours for still more personal attacks:

• 04:05, 19 February 2006 Madchester (Talk | contribs) blocked "Haizum (Talk | contribs)" with an expiry time of 31 hours ‎ (personal attacks on webpage; accusatory comments)

This user has been on ANI afterwards many times for abuses and violations.

• June 2006: Harassing admins User:Sceptre and User:Will_Beback with email. Result was a block, which was upgraded several times, and finally removed five days later by Shell Kinney.

1. 21:52, 2 June 2006 Sceptre (Talk | contribs) blocked "Haizum (Talk | contribs)" with an expiry time of 48 hours ‎ (Massive incivility and edit warring on Laura Ingraham)
2. 22:16, 2 June 2006 Sceptre (Talk | contribs) unblocked Haizum (Talk | contribs) ‎ (lengthening block)
3. 22:17, 2 June 2006 Sceptre (Talk | contribs) blocked "Haizum (Talk | contribs)" with an expiry time of 3 days ‎ (asked for another day, I'm happy to oblige)
4. 02:26, 3 June 2006 Tawker (Talk | contribs) unblocked Haizum (Talk | contribs) ‎ (npov tag is not rationale to block)
5. 10:58, 3 June 2006 Sceptre (Talk | contribs) unblocked Haizum (Talk | contribs) ‎ (extending block, again)
6. 10:59, 3 June 2006 Sceptre (Talk | contribs) blocked "Haizum (Talk | contribs)" with an expiry time of 1 week ‎ (abusive emails)
7. 21:49, 4 June 2006 Sceptre (Talk | contribs) unblocked Haizum (Talk | contribs) ‎ (lengthening block)
8. 21:50, 4 June 2006 Sceptre (Talk | contribs) blocked "Haizum (Talk | contribs)" with an expiry time of indefinite ‎ (particularly venomous email I recieved)
9. 00:12, 5 June 2006 Sceptre (Talk | contribs) blocked "Haizum (Talk | contribs)" with an expiry time of 8 days ‎ (shorter block)
10. 12:13, 6 June 2006 Shell Kinney (Talk | contribs) unblocked Haizum (Talk | contribs) ‎ (block excessive for content dispute, already discussed on ANI)

Another block followed two weeks later from more attacks and incivility, but was again overturned:

1. 05:53, 25 June 2006 Circeus (Talk | contribs) blocked "Haizum (Talk | contribs)" with an expiry time of 48 hours ‎ (user repeateadly assumed bad faith and was uncivil on several talk pages)
2. 06:31, 25 June 2006 Lord Voldemort (Talk | contribs) unblocked Haizum (Talk | contribs) ‎ (See his talk page.)

Haizum was again blocked by Nandesuka this time for five days, for this attack.

• 12:44, 19 March 2007 Nandesuka (Talk | contribs) blocked "Haizum (Talk | contribs)" (anon. only, account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 5 days ‎ (repeat offender, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Depleted_uranium&diff=116206235&oldid=115154874)

Again today, he was blocked by LessHeard vanU for insulting Vermont editors among other recent incivilities:

• 13:47, 15 November 2007 LessHeard vanU (Talk | contribs) blocked "Haizum (Talk | contribs)" (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 48 hours ‎ (Incivility)

Other ANI reports on Haizum, final warning issued

Further information on ANI archives:

• Thread on the June 2006 blocks involving Sceptre, Will Beback, and other admins over Haizum and indefinite blocking, where Sceptre is urged to simply filter out abusive and harassing emails. From reading ANI recently, this seems to be counter to the idea of protecting people from harassing users...
• Later in June 2006, ANI discussing Haizum's further personal attacks; thread was initiated after he apparently made semi-homophobic comments about Bear community.
• December 2006. Haizum starts an ANI thread about a dispute with another editor, ending it with the comment, "I've started a dialog on the respective talk page instead of edit warring, so I'll take my Get Out of Jail Free card and think about who's edits remind me most of bovine excrement. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 02:09, 24 December 2006 (UTC)"

More recently, in addition to the above blocks, he was being disruptive on Talk:Blackwater_Worldwide#Shameless, which led to *two* ANI reports from Pleasantville, and then another from myself two days later (which I can't find in the archives, now). The Blackwater Worldwide talk page section also clearly demonstrates the POV he pushes heavily across Wikipedia. While its fine for him to fervently defend conservative viewpoints (mine are fairly conservative, though not quite so far right), his manner is very troubling. Read: Talk:Blackwater_Worldwide#RS_.26_NPOV. Summary quote from Haizum:

• "A similar Blackwater USA article could have been written entirely from conservative sources, but it wasn't, and it never will be. The community simply will not allow it. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 22:25, 4 October 2007 (UTC)"

That does not engender any kind of good will collaboration. As a result of all the bad behavior on that page, the administrator User:Haemo gave Haizum a final warning:

"I've given this user a final warning about his behavior. His conduct on this page, and the page in question is clearly crossing a line. --Haemo 18:35, 5 October 2007 (UTC)"

Extensive history of personal attacks and nastiness

Haizum also has an ongoing habit of leaving nasty attacks, which apparently have been missed by all these blocking admins. I only went back to February of 2007, and only on User_Talk pages. There are more but I honestly am tired of staring at all these horrible statements. I imagine given that the blocks on this user go back to 2005, and that he has directly harassed administrators by e-mail (note the block log) I don't believe these are unique situations.

• 05:17, 30 October 2007: "In the future, when you act as an apologist for Nazis and a rewriter of history, please try to not be so obvious when doing so. Thanks."
• 09:50, 17 October 2007: "Get back to your indoctrination sessions and stop crapping all over Wikipedia."
• 03:48, 4 October 2007: "Get a clue."
• 01:14, 1 October 2007: "As an editor I deal with the reality of Wikipedia being infested with powder puffs and intellectual frauds on a daily basis, but I found this attempt to delete an article that meets featured article quality standards to be particularly egregious, especially considering the totalitarian motivations behind said attempt."
• 11:17, 24 August 2007 "Keep up these kind of garbage edits and I'll watch you go down in flames."
• 18:40, 26 July 2007: "Stop crapping on Wikipedia. It's bad enough as it is." After another editor removes that comment as too extreme on a new editor, Haizum reverts and re-adds it.
• 19:42, 23 July 2007: Pointlessly goading a homosexual woman: "This individual insulted the Wikipedia community by referring to heterosexuals as "breeders." In order to expose the hypocrisy of this, I asked how it felt to be the product of a couple of breeders. To interpret this as "anti-gay" is a cognitive failure. Logic wins.".
• 22:17, 23 July 2007: "In that last little rant, your own English doesn't exactly uphold the highest standards, does it? Heal thyself."
• 03:06, 10 July 2007: "It doesn't matter if you think I did something, the rules still apply. Apparently the University of Florida doesn't teach anyone logic."
• 03:26, 27 June 2007: "Stop leaving your mouse turd edits on Wikipedia."
• 10:34, 3 June 2007: "Learn how to edit before you start chicken scratching all over Wikipedia."
• 07:10, 3 May 2007: "STOP VANDALIZING ARTICLES YOU JACKASS."
• 07:08, 5 April 2007 "Hiding won't save you." -- further harassment of User:Nricardo.
• 05:03, 27 March 2007: "Stop making garbage edits to Wikipedia."
• 01:54, 21 March 2007: One of his unblock requests... "I'd simply like my block lifted. I don't have time for tyrannical admins with agendas that get in the way of proper use of privileges."
• 00:42, 21 March 2007: "I suggest you do something about it before you start pissing on the sovereignty of my talk page, again."
• 20:28, 10 March 2007: "Get a life."
• 10 March 2007: Edit summary -- "rm fake survey that probably funds fascism".
• 01:47, 25 February 2007: "Thanks for deleting my comment. You have shown that as a self-described neoliberal, you are incompatible with opinions contrary to your own. You've inspired me; I'll be sure to monitor the mousetrap image discussion to be certain that my freedom of expression is not infringed upon by neoliberal tyranny. Feel free to retract your own illogical viewpoint, but keep your hands of my rationale."
• 02:12, 26 February 2007: "Someone go ahead and ban this douche indefinitely."

Summary

I'm posting here as numerous users and admins have had ongoing conflicts with this person. I don't think Wikipedia benefits from his participation. At the least, I think we should consider a personal attack/civility parole, with increasingly lengthy blocks. While I think he can be of some benefit, maybe, I don't know if an indef block isn't the best solution here. His basic role has been to argue aggressively in favor of a very conservative political POV; to insult people; and he rarely if ever actually edits articles. See here. Only 278 encyclopedia contributions. He seems to be just around to stir some political pot and to cause drama. This user made working on that Blackwater Worldwide article and it's related articles painful at best, for me, but he had moved onto other pastures, and had moved his attacks onto everyone else he came across. • Lawrence Cohen 18:29, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Emails

Emails #1, #2 were blatant Wikilawyering. The second asked for "another 24 hours", which I was happy to oblige. Email #3 was Wikilawyering with a dash of incivility. Email #4 used the two most Godwinific terms ever, "admin abuse" and "fascism".

The fourth was what I blocked him over. It all was over Laura Ingraham (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), which I rv'ed three days back to pre-edit war, which severly pissed him off. He's continuing incivilities fourteen months on, so let's get rid of him.

Footnote: I'm (regretfully) not an administrator any more. I'd block him myself if I was. Will ^(talk) 18:48, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I have upped the block to indefinite. If anyone feels they can reform this guy they are welcome to try, but it's clear to me he's not interested in fixing the problem. Guy (Help!) 19:30, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response

I have had only one extended interaction with Haizum, so I cannot and will not speak to the vast majority of what has been posted above. What I can say, however, is that the link above marked "Pointlessly goading a homosexual woman" is rather misleading by omission of context. The "homosexual woman" being referred to is User:Cr8tiv, an enthusiastic POV-pusher. Cr8tiv made a long series of uncivil edits to Haizum's talk page, apparently prompted by this innocuous edit. Haizum's reply was less than ideal, and I can't say that I care for his style, but he was the one being attacked here, not Cr8tiv.

Again, if Haizum has a long history of tendentious editing and POV-pushing, then that's beyond the scope of my interaction with him and I cannot comment from experience, but I didn't want to let a misleading statement stand unopposed. A Train^talk 19:31, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock request

User:Haizum has requested an unblock at User_talk:Haizum#Block extended, citing the block as retroactive. • Lawrence Cohen 20:11, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oooh, I wish I could nail the final hole in the coffin. His unblock reason just shows the kind of incivility. Will ^(talk) 20:14, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

With a block log that long, how did he keep avoiding the indef? Kwsn-pub 20:17, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm guessing no one looked too closely at what he was doing. :( • Lawrence Cohen 20:20, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He updated the language to say, "Retroactive and capricious indef block based on vendetta ANI." It was anything but a vendetta. I was taking his abuse towards me in stride personally, because I assumed it was limited to the two articles we interacted on. His (wildly and overly) critical comments forced me to dig up bulletproof sourcing and language on the Blackwater Worldwide articles, which I'm glad for now. But the rest of that? Calling people douches? Sorry, Haizum. • Lawrence Cohen 20:20, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm astounded he's lasted this long. Tendentious editing is one thing, persistent aggression, rudeness and email harassment is another. Guy (Help!) 20:25, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't know why I reduced the block in the fist place... Will ^(talk) 20:27, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know we are not supposed to repost from banned users, but in good faith (from me and I hope from him) I'm posting here what Haizum just put on his User talk page. Please delete this entry if this inappropriate. I'm not going to post to him again (beyond my last apology for this notification, and a confirmation that I posted this). Sorry for any extra noise.

"A block should be based on prior administrative action, not comments which only received attention today -- because you personally took the time to dig them up. Therefore, we have a. retroactive blocking and b. a vendetta. Please convey this to the ANI even if you do not agree. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 20:30, 15 November 2007 (UTC)"[reply]

He wanted that reviewed. I asked him to use the unblock template again for anything else. • Lawrence Cohen 20:35, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Currently, as I understand it, he is indef blocked not banned, so reposting is fine. If he was community or ArbCom banned it might be different, but you are in the clear. nb. My original block was pursuant to an AIV report - I censured the other party to a longer block because the language was more violent, but generally acted to stop an escalating cycle of personal attacks. I accept whatever actions other editors and admins with more experience of this individual decide upon. LessHeard vanU 20:59, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppetry ultimatum

From here"

"I'm fully capable of coming to terms with my actions. However, I will not volunteer this when it is clear that there is a double standard in play, specifically when my edits are trolled for alleged infractions that were never subject to administrative action. I feel that is a fair stance to take. Now, we can do this honestly; I will accept a long but limited block for my actions with the mutual understanding that there was past administrative malice and a questionable ANI, or, I will change my IP address and create a new account with a blank slate. Yes, I'm sure at this very moment you are recoiling at my ultimatum, but note that my preferred concession keeps me publicly accountable for my block log. I ask you, which is preferable?"

So for allegedly attacking everyone in sight, if admins don't agree that he was not at fault, he will come back with a new IP immediately and a new account. Perhaps this should be elevated to a full ban. :( • Lawrence Cohen 21:02, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm... Blackmail? What an excellent reason for an unblock. NOT! LessHeard vanU 21:10, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. This bloke is not good for wikipedia and should be banned. I intend to protect his talk page now Theresa Knott | The otter sank 21:05, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorsed. Unfortunately the user doesn't seem to see the underlying problems with his behavior and hasn't shown any interest in changing his ways. henrik•talk 21:12, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse a full ban. I haven't dealt with this editor since last year but judging by his history since then he is not making positive contributions to the project and is disruptive. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:23, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. My original indef should've stuck. Will ^(talk) 21:30, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If his response to this situation is to threaten that he'll change his account, rather than make some serious effort at finding someone to work with him to reform his abusive behavior, it's clear he's not going to reform. I think we can consider him community banned at this point. --Haemo 23:58, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support community ban. Georgewilliamherbert 03:27, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My my, he has a way with words

Apologies for my snarkyness throughout the thread, but I love how it's all my fault he got banned. Yes, surely I am a part of a secret non-existent cabal who can make personal attacks and do whatever the fuck they like without fear of punishment, when the truth is that I tend to operate solo unless I need admin assistance. I'll maybe reconsider this post if political ideologies are no longer used as epithets, which is unlikely to be soon. Will ^(talk) 23:38, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is an odd page, which I found while using the "search" function: 350 Kb of ... line noise. That's the best description for it. Only contribution this user ever made, deleted or otherwise. I only looked at it because the username reminded me of a banned user. If the page's harmless, I'm happy to ignore it; if someone tried to upload a worm or other maleware, then this page needs to be deleted. (I didn't see any ill effects after viewing this, but my system is non-standard.) -- llywrch 19:40, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the nonsense, but I doubt an administrator would have deleted this page - just incase the user ever did return to contribute constructively. Qst 20:28, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The first three bytes of the zeroed user page (BM6) are part of the header for an image format used in portable devices. It's possible the user was trying to copy the image here, but it is obviously not capable of rendition in a browser not running on Symbian (for example). No harm done. --Rodhullandemu (please reply here - contribs) 23:23, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whig (talk · contribs)

To summarise: Community banned homeopathic POV-pusher who was unblocked as part of an attempted mediation, then disappeared for a month. Just returned, and began the same idiocy all over again. Re-banned. Adam Cuerden ^talk 20:30, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with reban, the user obviously has no intentions of contributing constructively here. Qst 20:32, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good block. Multiple RFCs have failed to solve the problem. This one's here only to advance his POV, at which point he and the encyclopaedia have to part company. Moreschi ^{If you've written a quality article...} 21:02, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Drama ended with amicable resolutions on both sides. No need to further engage. —Kurykh 05:53, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Last month I proposed changing the name of the article Myanmar to Burma. After a very extensive and exhausting debate where even Jimbo participated, the proposal was closed as "move". A few days ago, I discovered that a new poll/discussion intended to move the article back to Myanmar had started. The proposal wasn't even listed at WP:RM so I speedy closed it for violation of procedure and for the temporal proximity with the last proposal which consumed so much of many editors' time. However, User:SqueakBox decided to undo my closure today and reopened the discussion, which I reverted, and informed SqueakBox that he should bring my closure to WP:ANI if he disagreed with my reasoning for it. SqueakBox wrote this reply and started yet a new move proposal at the bottom of Talk:Burma. The proposal was listed at WP:RM but I still don't think it's productive to restart such a painstaking discussion all over again. I would like to hear the opinion of fellow users (as I don't wish to be accused of acting on conflict of interest) on whether or not would it be valid to speedy close this new move proposal so to allow more time before a new discussion may take place. Thank you. Húsönd 20:38, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Since the previous move discussion had been scrutinized so carefully by so many editors, a new discussion is both unneccessary and dilatory. In my opinion, Squeakbox was wrong to reopen it. Cumulus Clouds 22:24, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Though another view of that would be that so much discussion and scrutiny could be a sign that there wasn't really a solid consensus for the original move to begin with? Agne^Cheese/^Wine 22:34, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The closed discussion was a genuinely disputed event and Husond said that the problem was that it hadn't been posted at Requested Moves, which I then proceeded to do[72]. This is a genuine controversy that needs sorting, the redirect was completely messed about here which kind of closed the debate in a completely non-wikipedia way, and I am opening it again. As the proposer Husond clearly had and has no right to close. Thanks, SqueakBox 01:08, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

 – Simple cases like this can go to administrator intervention against vandalism. - Jehochman ^Talk 21:21, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I encountered certain users of this IP address gleefully vandalizing articles. I spoke to them in RL about it. They responded with a sort of disjointed tirade about truthiness and how people have the right to edit the truth on Wikipedia. I have left a final warning on their user page, on top of a small pile of other warnings. Considering that none of the edits made by this IP address have ever been in any way valuable, and in light of a general disregard for rules and regulations and a vow to continue vandalism expressed by the involved parties, I recommend the IP address 71.62.25.150 be blocked from editing. Fifth Rider 20:43, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well they have only actually made 4 edits in total. If they come back I'm willing to block, but at the moment I don't see the need. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 20:54, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See also Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Deeceevoice, please check out for background and context.

Today I banned this user from Afrocentrism and its talk page for tendentious talkpage time-wasting, incivility, edit-warring, and POV-pushing (see [73], [74], [75], [76], [77], [78], [79] (you need to read the article and see how bad it is to get that one)). Please also check some of her contributions to other articles to get the full flavour of her/his POV-pushing. From the user talk we get such gems as this:

Directed at User:Wikidudeman, I believe. In response to my banning this user from Afrocentrism, I get told my actions are "unresponsive, high-handed, arrogant and totally off the wall" on my user talk. Reviews? Opinions on further action? Moreschi ^{If you've written a quality article...} 21:44, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have no opinion on Deecee's edits on Afrocentism per se, but I do believe she is guilty of multiple, repeated, and unapologetic violations of civility. Long as her block log is, I'm surprised it isn't longer given that she’s basically thumbed her nose at the arbcom ruling. She's been around since 2004--I'm not sure there's a way to reach her, though as I've seen people I respect say she's a good contributor, it'd be nice if there were an effective way to get her attention. IronDuke 22:02, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The block log and history here seem amazingly similar to the Haizum (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) situation in the section directly a few sections above here, at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Haizum_-_request_for_further_admin_action. Similar blocks, similar long-term incivility, just a different POV is being similarly furiously promoted, for better or worse. Haizum was just blocked indefinitely (and then appears upgraded to an indefinite ban, afterwards). EDIT: Actually, Deeceevoice's block log looks worse than User:Haizum's. • Lawrence Cohen 22:35, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]