Unresolved

Entire section has been moved to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/TimLambert and John Quiggin to centralize discussion and to save space here. Please to not add timestamp until this section reaches the top of the section. –MuZemike 17:35, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I've been contributing anonymously for a few years now, infrequently enough to never bother registering an account. I'm also a Reddit user, where recently two articles have been popular, Wikipedia, Notability, and Open Source Software and the follow-up to it.

They struck a chord with me, and while I can't readily check my past contributions, it saddens me to learn that many lesser-known articles I've contributed to may have been deleted.

As per the two pages I linked to, I'm here about the dwm proceedings.

I think it's very unfortunate that the first AfD was closed and reopened at all, to me it seems like an attempt to quieten outside voices and go back to business as normal.

The semi-protection of the second AfD also makes me uneasy, as though the Wikipedia deletion process does not respect or want outside input. I'm not very familiar with Wikipedia policy, so please forgive me if I make errors.

In specific, I came here about the blockings surrounding the dwm proceedings, and the conduct of the administrator responsible for them, User:Blueboy96. The following users were blocked by him on February 28:

Special:Contributions/0xd34df00d Registered in December 2007, voted in dwm AfD.

Special:Contributions/DoctorSinus Registered in October 2009, voted in dwm AfD.*

Special:Contributions/Gleb-ax Registered in October 2008, did not vote formally.

Special:Contributions/Grasagrautur Registered in February 2010, attempted good-faith source addition to dwm article, voted keep.

Special:Contributions/Ingwar-k Registered in January 2010, voted keep in wmii AfD.*

Special:Contributions/Iorlas Registered in February 2010, voted keep in dwm, QVWM, Evilwm, Aewm, wmii, Oroborus AfDs. Unblock requested and denied.

Special:Contributions/Jasonwryan Registered in February 2010, voted keep in dwm AfD.*

Special:Contributions/Jeuta Registered in February 2010, voted keep in dwm AfD.*

Special:Contributions/Necrosporus Registered in February 2010, voted keep in dwm AfD. Unblock request repeatedly denied after the AfD ended.

Special:Contributions/Thayerw Registered in September 2008, did not vote keep in dwm AfD, had made several good-faith edits prior.*

• Users that I marked with an asterisk only commented once.

The administrator also made several comments that I would deem objectionable in the second dwm AfD, such as "Delete No fewer than 11 meatpuppets have been identified as either heavily contributing to the article or came to the AfD via canvass, suggesting that this article isn't something we should keep in any event." and "Let me clarify--this article has been so tainted by meatpuppetry in my mind that if it were to be kept, it should be completely rewritten from scratch. It's a credibility issue." as if people being interested in something means they should be completely ignored.

User:Anselmgarbe and User:ArneBab were also both blocked. The former is the developer of dwm, and was unblocked on March 3 after substantial discussion. Despite being a contributor dating back to 2004. Following false accusations, he was indefinitely blocked on March 4 following a discussion full of bad faith assumptions, and the block was not repealed nor justified despite opposition by User:Kim_Bruning. User:Henrik unblocked ArneBab today, 17 days after the block was added.

I don't think making one comment (or several) in an AfD discussion merits losing your account permanently (and having unblock requests denied very quickly), and I question the judgement of an administrator who bans so many users without investigating them individually. What happened to assuming good faith and all contributors being valuable?

I question the "meatpuppet" policy in general, it seems to severely punish people who were asked to come to Wikipedia despite not knowing all the policies, and I don't think they should be punished at all for attempting to preserve an article they happen to be passionate about. None of these users were vindictive or made personal attacks. Is it really necessary to ban a dozen users for a small policy violation like this?

At this point I don't think many (or perhaps any) of them will come back. They came to try to save software they enjoy and were met with extreme hostility, with attempts to keep them out of the discussion ending in bans for all of them. If I were in their position, I would not return.

Why is it that the only two who were unblocked had their blocks removed because of further scrutiny? I wonder how many unnecessary permanent blocks are given out every day. 69.196.147.65 (talk) 06:35, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This was exceptionally poorly handled by us, and a massive WP:BITE failure. Our notability policy is unpopular and hard to explain. The reasons why WP:N is a good idea are rather subtle, and imposing it with a heavy handed approach is guaranteed to alienate a lot of potential editors. This débâcle has generated a lot of bad will and strengthened the reputation of wikipedia as a bureaucracy. We're not growing any more, we can't afford to piss off potential editors. We have to be more calm and patient with new users. I don't want to point fingers to User:Blueboy96 or any other user in particular, but surely we can and must to better than this. henrik•talk 07:58, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not just by us, since the user persisted in recruiting meatpuppets long after it had been explained why that was not a good idea. I would, though, only have blocked any accounts until such time as the debate was finished, since the locus of disruption was the AfD. I also think the AfD was closed wrongly as the loud assertions of "it's teh notable!" were not, as far as I recall, matched by, you know, reliable independent sources. Guy (Help!) 11:54, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, that is a valid point. And yeah, the AfD should probably (objectively) have been closed as delete - but we can't go around pissing off everybody who isn't already an editor and knows the details of the system all the time. That is far more important than whether we have an article about an obscure X window manager or not. You and me and all other admins are already getting a poor reputation as needlessly bureaucratic jerks who delete stuff for just the hell of it. WP:RFA used to have a dozen candidates at the same time, now it's frequently empty. Our user base has plateaued. We need to do more to help people get involved and lower the initial hurdle. Sure, they'll make mistakes. Sure, they'll try to promote their own stuff initially. But we need them. And we need to figure out how to explain our policies in a way that make sense. henrik•talk 12:13, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To close that AfD as a delete after the discussion would mean a complete redefinition of "consensus", or even WP:CONSENSUS. It would reduce commentators to the status of "suggested argument providers" and leave the final decision fully in the hand of whoever manages to sneak in a close first. Of course, that person then applies a magical process that gives hir perfect knowledge of all policies and guidelines, the ability to evaluate all sources with perfect understanding and unanimity, and to come to a fully justified decision. If we have those wondercreatures among our admins, why not let them come up with the input, too, and bypass all that nasty discussion in favour of admin fiat? We can assign AfDs round robin, or have a lottery on who gets to close what. By the same logic we could have bureaucrats appoint admins without those pesky and divisive community discussion. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:28, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, it would be an entirely valid interpretation of consensus, which is explicitly not a vote. There have been plenty of deletion debates closed against the majority vote where the minority correctly cites policy and the minority only blows smoke. That's why we have the whole "not a vote" thing, because votes can't override policies and AfD debates can't override the much stronger consensus that underpins guidelines like WP:RS. Guy (Help!) 18:13, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Closing against majority is something I've always been critical about. Closing against an overwhelming majority would be abuse of process. Consensus is the source of our rules, and the ultimate arbiter, not the other way around. If the rules were unambiguous, we could just write a small program to apply them. Since they are not, we rely on people to interpret them. And in this case, even discounting meatpuppets and even counting aggressive whiners, there is certainly no consensus to delete. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:15, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Except the majority doesn't exist only on the AfD, it exists in the policy pages and guideline pages that have been discussed. Just because everyone who helped form those pages doesn't show up at the AfD discussion doesn't mean their opinion on what kind of articles should exist here should be ignored. Yes, you and many others would be quite happy if they could meatpuppet any article they wanted into a keep on wikipedia, but that isn't the way it works. That isn't what consensus says, and you have had a serious case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT during this entire process. Consensus is not majority no matter how you'd like to try and make it out and the entire proceedings that have gone on around this article have been a joke put on by those involved with DWM and their meatpuppets.--Crossmr (talk) 06:25, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My silent majority is bigger than your silent majority. And thanks for the personal attacks and the good faith. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:38, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How so? There was absolutely nothing in policy nor guideline supporting this article and it was allowed to be muddled into a false no consensus by a bunch of meat puppets. You've had consensus explained to you several times now, but more than one user. I find it rather disconcerting that an administrator apparently has so little grasp on what it is. Local majority has absolutely zero bearing on consensus unless you had hundreds or more users showing up at that discussion. The silent majority behind policies like V, NPOV, Consensus, and guidelines like RS and Notability far outweighed the few people who showed up at the AfD and promised on their mother's grave that it really was super duper important. As would they outweigh just about any AfD going. That is why WP:CONSENSUS specifically spells out that the arguments are supposed to be compared to existing policies and guidelines because those carry far more weight than any individual or group of individual's assurances on an AfD. Supporting the opposite would mean supporting including anything that could get a handful of people to show up and carry on about for a few days, which is something we specifically don't do. This article was kept on nothing more than mob fervor than it was on policies and guidelines. You want people to stop calling you out on things then pony up the evidence. Something you've been pretty shy of doing this entire process. You were asked a few time to provide the sources you claimed were so reliable and instead backed out of the discussion. So what silent majority do you think you have that is so much bigger than the existing policies and guidelines? What silent majority is it that you think you have that means you can ignore WP:CONSENSUS and make up your own rules of interpretation?--Crossmr (talk) 05:50, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think that removing the blocks would be a good minimal first step, perhaps accompanied by an apology. Going past that, the "meatpuppet" policy should be closely examined. Wanting to save something you care about is not a heinous act. The canvassing policy reads like its main purpose is to prevent people who care about something from being notified about its impending deletion. Having completely disinterested people debating is biased towards deletion because few of them will spend much time looking for sources if they don't care about the topic at hand. Deleting an article doesn't need to be a bad experience. If the passionate community is simply told that if they can find good sources, the article's exclusion will be reevaluated, they will do their best to find sources. If you attempt to reduce the debate to an echo chamber by protecting it, and ban users that did their best to present arguments for keeping it, that community starts to loathe you. I don't even think User:Mclaudt should be banned. His actions are barred by current policies, but the policies are broken. He was just a passionate user trying to prevent a deletion, who had no recourse on Wikipedia, so he had to go outside it. I think that most contentious deletion debates should end in a keep if there are any verifiable sources at all. By blocking users and preventing them from participating in a debate, yet another community is alienated and the potential base of editors becomes smaller. 69.196.147.65 (talk) 23:41, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with largely everything you said. I propose to unblock all these accounts. The likelihood of any further disruption is low. Being passionate about an article is certainly not an offense worthy of an indefinite block, and treating infrequent contributors like some sort of second class citizens leaves a sour taste in my mouth.

The way you describe how deletions doesn't have to be a bad experience is already how the deletion process is supposed to work. It's supposed to be about working together to find sources and improve the article, or collectively deciding that it can't be done. We need to do a better job of explaining that. henrik•talk 06:55, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I admit, the mass blocks in this situation were rather heavy-handed. But considering the situation, there really was no other choice. Many of these users hadn't contributed in one or two years, then suddenly reappeared to contribute in the AfD. That, to my mind, is even worse than newbie accounts popping up simply to vote in AfDs. Add to it the fact that he continued to canvass even after being warned--and there was really no other option but to drop the hammer in my mind. Blueboy96 14:45, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What's occurred here goes beyond heavy-handed. 11 indefinite blocks laid out in 34 minutes, 6 of them within 1-2 minutes of the previous. Five of the users are established Russian Wikipedia editors in good standing: ru:Участник:DoctorSinus, ru:Участник:Gleb-ax, ru:Участник:0xd34df00d, ru:Участник:Necrosporus, ru:Участник:Ingwar. Three others (User:Jasonwryan, User:Thayerw, User:Anselmgarbe) are free software developers with domains similar to their Wikipedia usernames. Note that the latter is the developer of dwm. The outlier, User:ArneBab was blocked several days later despite a lack of consensus and no actual proof of his biased canvassing. These aren't vandals, they did not register random strings as names and vandalize the AfD repeatedly; they merely made their best arguments for the article's inclusion. Several of these users have been around for some time, and to throw good faith out the window so readily despite their transparency is alarming. Really, they were worse off than vandals - At least most vandals tend to get a warning first. You then voted delete 8 minutes after finishing the mass-blocking of the "meatpuppets", using their existence as a justification for the delete. Adding insult to injury, User_talk:Necrosporus was denied an unblock four times by other administrators who likely assumed the block was there for a good reason... and unlike most of the others, he's still blocked. Eleven ill-conceived blocks in half an hour constitutes far more than a momentary lapse in judgement. Fedbn (talk) 08:36, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As I said earlier, my blocks in this case were a knee-jerk reaction to what I saw as blatant votestacking by sleepers. If I had known that there were users in good standing from another project contributing to that AfD and not just mere sleeper accounts, I wouldn't have blocked. I just wish someone had informed me of this earlier. Had I known this, their statements would have looked more like people trying their hardest to contribute in a language they didn't know well, not just disjointed attempts to clog up the debate. Blueboy96 13:31, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In order to prevent deletion discussions from becoming Reichstag-climbing-while-dressed-as-Spider-Man contests and to properly reflect the community's (that is, a cross-section thereof) view of the whether something should be kept/deleted/etc., sometimes measures need to be taken to prevent those who do nothing but protest all over the place (like what is being done here). The fact of the matter is that those blocked accounts didn't have any other purpose here but to defend the Dwm article. With that said, blocking may not have been absolutely necessary unless clear disruption was taking place. –MuZemike 16:12, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I beg to disagree with that “fact”. I was blocked, too, and the purpose of my account was and is to be able to contribute where I see errors I can fix quickly. I am no mayor editor, because I also work on other projects, a lot of them in free software, and want to spend time with my wife, too. But most times when I see an error and am sure that I can fix it properly (and have enough understanding of the topic to bring a real improvement) I set aside some time to fix it. Contributing to the AfD discussion might have taken much more time than a simple fix, but that was unintended and the result of seeing a glaring error in an area I am knowledgeable about. So please take back that remark. It’s unwarranted — and not only towards my account. Draketo (talk) 22:14, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's incredible that we still have experienced editors here who are defending what happened. Let's take the example of Anselm Garbe, the developer of dwm. He:

• used a real name account and said openly who he was; [1]
• came to the AfD to provide information, nothing else;
• said openly that he was canvased; [2]
• introduced some borderline reliable sources into the discussion;
• did not insist that the sources he introduced were reliable sources;
• did not make any disruptive contribution whatsoever; [3]
• probably had a calming influence on the angry users who tried to save the article;
• did not make any attempt to !vote (unless you count "neutral"); [4]
• reacted positively to a proposal to merge the article into Tiling window manager and made an open-ended comment that might have resulted in a merge to a different article instead; [5]
• was polite, considerate, reasonable and intelligent throughout; [6]
• stopped commenting on 25 February. [7]

Then, half a week later on 28 February, Blueboy96:

• blocked User:Anselmgarbe;
• blocked him indefinitely;
• used the totally bizarre and counterfactual block summary: "Abusing multiple accounts: Self-admitted meatpuppet of Mclaudt";
• left no block message at all on the talk page.

When this was noticed and two editors asked for an unblock (Pcap and Psychonaut), instead of immediately unblocking Anselm Garbe and apologising, Blueboy96:

• wrote: "If he understands the seriousness of what he's done, there's no reason why he can't be unblocked." – note that this was completely delusional as Anselm Garbe never did anything wrong in the first place;
• wrote: "Just emailed him offering to unblock if he tells other areas he's interested in editing." – Note: 21 hours later, Anselm Garbe replied to my email and was confused because he had never received Blueboy96's email and did not even know that he was blocked;

I can confirm this, I wasn't aware that my account was blocked and I learned about it from a mail of Hans Adler on 3rd March 2010. Anselmgarbe (talk) 08:21, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• did not apologise, or at least not publicly, after Anselm Garbe was unblocked [8] (this clearly doesn't count.

I thought this was an isolated mistake, but now, with the knowledge that Blueboy96 handed out indefinite blocks en masse for the egregious "crime" of being canvased, I think this is firmly in desysop territory. Hans Adler 11:01, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This as punishment for this and this after two years of inactivity is also totally outside policy.

How hard is it to read a short guideline such as WP:CANVAS and to note that it never even once mentions blocking the targets of the canvassing (or calls them "meat puppets", for that matter)? Hans Adler 11:32, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Part of the problem here, as already mentioned above, is that WP:CANVASS is one of the dumbest and most misguided Wikipedia guidelines (not policy). Why this is so can be seen by the history of its development. It was spun of off WP:SPAM, initially called "internal spamming" the policy on canvassing originally referred only to unwanted notifications (i.e. spam). Then someone who had just lost some AfD or something, with an axe to grind [9] realized that it provided a convenient stick (or a heavy bunch of sour grapes) to beat their opponents on the head with and thus WP:CANVASS was born [10] (note how obvious the sour grapes are there). Basically a bad selfish guideline conceived and written for less than noble reasons from some long forgotten deletionist vs. inclusionist debate. And then it got ossified as status quo.

In the real world, informing people who are potential stakeholders in a particular issue is seen as a *good thing*. If I remind somebody that a city council election is taking place and they should go vote (even if I know that person's political affiliation) that's usually considered "good citizenship". But here on Wikipedia, where apparently it's considered a good thing that many proposals are "flown under the radar" to get a particular result, it's all topsy turvy.radek (talk) 12:16, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that's really the problem here, since Blueboy96's actions were in no way justifiable even by WP:CANVAS. Hans Adler 12:39, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, but I also think that it's the misguided nature of the guideline itself which is partly responsible for these kinds of "misunderstandings".radek (talk) 13:34, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I fully apologize for my handling of Anselm Garbe. Having always been militantly anti-spam in any online community (not just Wikipedia), my block of him was purely reflexive. However, it wasn't within the spirit of WP:MEAT since he did make a good-faith effort to suggest improvements to the article. Blueboy96 12:48, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, no worries. Apology accepted. Anselmgarbe (talk) 08:21, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When I was alerted to what was going on in the first Dwm Afd, I thought I saw egregious votestacking, a good bit of it perpetrated by sleeper accounts. However, if I had known that those five .ru users were contributors in good standing on another wiki, I definitely wouldn't have blocked. Seen in light of that fact, they were merely trying to make a case for keeping the article in a language they didn't know well.

The Anselm Garbe case--it was a reflexive reaction on my part to block, as I have always had zero tolerance for spamming and votestacking. HOwever, I freely admit that he made a good-faith effort to suggest improvements. For that reason, my block of him wasn't in the spirit of WP:MEAT, and I apologize for my reflexive block of him.

Hopefully this clears this matter up. Blueboy96 13:37, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's hardly a good sign when an admin admits to blocking due to a "kneejerk reaction". Surely a certain amount of reasoned thought should precede any blocking? --Fred the Oyster (talk) 13:44, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There was no way anyone could have known at the time that we were dealing with users in good standing from another project. As far as Anselm goes, as I said earlier, while it was grounded in policy, it wasn't within the spirit of the rules. Blueboy96 21:16, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn’t say how you will react should something similar happen again. And you only offer excuses to the ones who ‘were in good standing in another project’ as well as Anselm. What about the other blocks? And why is the treatment people got suddenly only wrong when they turn out to be ‘in good standing’? If it was wrong when done to people in good standing, how could it be right when done to newcomers? Draketo (talk) 22:23, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, exactly. Blueboy96 needs to avoid repeating such scattershot blocks of alleged 'meatpuppets', or I'll happily pick up a torch and pitchfork and call for his desysopping. Remember: you are not Judge Dredd. Fences&Windows 22:46, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. The fact that some of the users blocked happened to be users in good standing on another project is beside the point. Draketo here has been a user since 2004 and was still summarily blocked. If you've been fighting vandals and spammers for a long time it's easy to become jaded and hard to remember that all new and infrequent users deserve the same respect and assumption that they're here to help. However, that is no excuse. We should always be careful not to create special rules for some in-clique and other rules for those not already in the group. who I don't think it's productive to call for someone's head, but some sort of acknowledgment that you'll treat similar situations differently in the future would help. henrik•talk 10:27, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blocks are intended to be a last resort, when a user's disruptive activity continues after warnings. Indefinite blocks doubly so. The assumption of good faith should be granted, with the status of most of the users herein merely reinforcing it. It did not, however, appear to be present in your actions. In this case you played judge, jury and executioner. Given that you played all three roles, it was your duty to inform yourself as to the status and outside connections of these users, but you did not. To not evaluate each of these indefinite bans carefully before placing them is a massive breach of the trust instrinsic in the community selecting you as an administrator. Apologies are insufficient - If this issue hadn't been illuminated recently these innocent contributors would have remained permanently blocked. Lastly, you have yet to address the misinformational block summary left for User:Anselmgarbe, nor the serious accusation that you claim to have communicated with him, which Anselm apparently denies. I've asked him to come here and clarify. Fedbn (talk) 01:16, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I took Anselm's statement on the AfD that he'd been alerted to the discussion as an admission he'd been canvassed. That being said, in the future unless an account that appears to have been canvassed to take part in an AfD is being clearly disruptive or it's unmistakably obvious that they're SPAs, I'll simply warn them on their talk page. Blueboy96 13:12, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That Anselm said he was canvassed is completely irrelevant. The fact that you are repeating this now in this way makes me wonder if you have understood this. There was obviously a problem at the last ANI discussions with several editors who thought being canvassed can be held against someone. It cannot, as it is simply not their fault. The idea that someone with a block button might remain under this misconception even after the fact has been pointed out to him makes me very uneasy, so please clarify. Hans Adler 16:32, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I realize now that accounts that come here in this way have to be looked at on an individual basis, and can't automatically all be assumed to be disruptive. Blueboy96 21:46, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have previously created a thread here but was referred to WP:WQA. However the thread to Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#User:TechnoFaye has not been taken seriously. It is not the first time, WQA has numerous problems and at present is not adequately equipped to handle civility problems. I am aware of the policy on forum shopping but I have felt it necessary that this issue be handled at ANI, because there are many more experienced editors here. My main complaint is that TechnoFaye keeps on saying "Blacks are stupid". I find these comments offensive, and have tried to ignore them and put them in context. But because she keeps repeating them, I felt it necessary to get outside input. Some of the quotes include

• So how is R/I different? Eye color = self-reported race, and 11 toes = stupid (or whatever the polite word is). Why is this a false analogy?. [11]
• My best guess is that, like Gould, some well-meaning editors feel that a genetic basis for blacks being stupid should be denied 'even if it is true.'[12]
• "It's not about the data-centric structure; that's just the disingenuous cover story. It's about pushing a political POV, and is just like naming the article "Why Blacks are so stupid".[13]
• What do you think of the theory that the IQ difference is due to everyone else believing that blacks are stupid[14]
• No, it means it's extremely unlikely that one exists, because it would have to be something powerful enough to make a whole race of people stupid, yet hidden and secret enough that no one ever thought of it[15]

These comments have been occurring over a period of at least one month. According to the user's Block log, the user has prior blocks for incivility. Wapondaponda (talk) 19:57, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would echo the comments made at WQA; these edits are not incivility. Also, it seems to me that you're putting words in her mouth when you say she "keeps on saying 'Blacks are stupid'.". An uninhibited exchange of ideas is usually a good idea during a mediation. I encourage you to disagree politely with her comments, but not characterize them as uncivil. I'd recommend no action here. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:24, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Floquenbeam, TechnoFaye is not having words put into her mouth. To quote from her MySpace blog on the topic of the Race and intelligence mediation: "Why is "they're stupid" an okay explanation for everybody else's low IQ score, but blacks' score of "retarded" is due to some mysterious, unknown reason other than that they're retarded?" and "negroes are so abysmally stupid."[16]Her blog is v NSFW Repeated racism does fall under WP:CIVIL as far as I'm concerned. If she can't reign herself in to refrain from making bigoted and inflammatory language, she should be indef blocked (regardless of her autism). Fences&Windows 22:22, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rubbish. It seems to me that either a deliberate misunderstanding of what she is saying is being used against her and/or the quotes are being used massively out of context. I can't see any racism or bigotry, at least not from TechnoFaye. What I do see are kneejerk reactions to non-politically correct statements of unpopular realisations. Personally I see her autism as a perfect way to be unencumbered with the pervasive and ever-present PC bollocks screwing up this project. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 23:26, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All I can say is that her tale of a crazy-bum-woman-living-in-the-forest to suburban-sex-slave-who-wants-to be-raped transformation story on her blog was one of the more disturbing things I have seen in a while. I couldn't get past that to actually look into the on-wiki dispute. In fact now I think I'll sign off for a while and go take a long walk. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:31, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Whereas all I see on that page is someone wanting to do exactly what they want to do with their own life... --Fred the Oyster (talk) 11:21, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If one says "blacks are stupid" once, it may be said in context, it may be literature or a creative way to discuss something. I would be willing to overlook a one-off statement. But to repeat the same statement 6 or 7 times is no longer creative or an uninhibited exchange of ideas, its more like taking advantage of the fact that nobody is complaining. Wapondaponda (talk) 16:00, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Fred: Not to wander too far off topic here, but I never suggested she was not free to make those choices, just that I personally found it very disturbing, and frankly indicative of deep-seated mental health issues that cannot be explained by autism alone. But of course none of this is actually relevant to her on-wiki actions with regard to possible racist comments. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:16, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, I don't believe her comments are racist. They can appear so when listed like they are above, but that is of course Muntuwandi's intention to strengthen his/her case. As usual it's politically incorrect to refer to possible deficiencies in ethnic minorities and as ever there is always someone wanting to appear to be a crusading liberal. If anyone is causing disruption it's Muntuwandi with his/her forum shopping. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 19:29, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To set the record straight, the complaint here is specifically about incivility. Unless there has been a major paradigm shift that I missed, but according to my understanding it is generally uncivil to refer to any individual or ethnic group as stupid. WP:CIVILITY specifically states:

The following behaviors can all contribute to an uncivil environment: 1. Direct rudeness

• (a) Rudeness, insults, name-calling, gross profanity or indecent suggestions;
• (b) personal attacks, including racial, ethnic, sexual and religious slurs, and derogatory references to groups such as social classes or nationalities;

Without Wikipedia's civility policy, we would not be able to discuss difficult, controversial or politically incorrect subjects. The complaint is not about the subject matter, that remains an independent matter altogether. If we were editing an article about how to bake cookies and an editor persistently stated that an individual or ethnic group were stupid, I would still bring it up as an incivility issue, because it distracts from editing the article and creates an "uncivil environment". I have noticed a few editors want to blame the messenger for bringing this up, but I have done so not to score political points. I would like to know if it is now acceptable in wikipedia discussions to refer to any ethnic group as being "stupid". Wapondaponda (talk) 00:59, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wapondaponda: just as an aside - the nature of this article means that we have to treat civility issues with circumspection. a few editors on the page (Faye included) stray over the line into personal attacks on other editors, and that needs to be dealt with, but Faye's racial comments aren't so much incivility as a deeply held belief that there is a biological/genetic/racial basis of some sort to intelligence. I'm pretty sure she's guilty of syntehsis from published materials on this point, but I don't think she's trying to be uncivil or racist as much as she's trying to be (what she views as) accurate. she has an extreme view, and a fairly ham-handed way of presenting her opinions which comes off a lot worse-sounding than it actually is. I'm less worried about the implicit racism than about the implicit synthesis, but I haven't yet got her to see that. --Ludwigs2 09:31, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't realise that Faye had not been alerted to this thread. I have notified her (Wapondaponda, here's a trout slap for you) and I have given her notice that she will be blocked if she continues to make derogatory comments about groups of people. This is not about "political correctness", this is about Faye being deliberately offensive. Arguing that the average IQ of black populations is lower than that of other populations and discussing why that might be is OK. Saying that "black people are stupid" is not OK. Fred, do you see the difference? One is acceptable scholarly discourse, the other is derogatory and inflammatory. Fences&Windows 02:10, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Of course I understand the difference, I'm also able to read at a sufficiently advanced level to understand that she didn't actually say that "black people are stupid". She asked a question about a theory, someone else's theory, she did not say that she held with that theory or even accuse anyone, let alone Blacks, of being stupid. All people seem to be doing is seeing those 3 little words "blacks are stupid" and instantly go into paroxysms of spluttering and the equivalent of "you can't say that these days". The point is that some people DO think blacks are stupid, some of them even scientists who aren't being racist. Therefore it's, in my humble opinion, fine to ask the question she asked, It isn't fine to say that she thinks they are, it isn't fine to accuse any particular person of stupidity, but in this world there are a lot of stupid people, some of them do happen to be black. Similarly an awful lot are caucsian/asian/chinese/manchunian/blonde/freckled/female/lactose intolerant. In her defence her autism is going to be a distinct disadvantage due to the social filters not functioning properly, after all it is a communication disorder and I believe she should be given more latitude than normal. It's not her fault she doesn't have that little voice over her shoulder warning her "don't say it quite like that". It would also be helpful if there wasn't so many knees moving through 90 degrees from the faux liberals. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 02:31, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My error, I apologize for that, I did inform her of the thread at WQA where the user did respond and I posted a link from WQA to this thread. But I should have specifically informed the user about this thread. I agree with Fences and windows that there is a difference between scholarly discussion of group differences and referring to certain groups in a derogatory manner. I think latitude has been given, these comments have taken place over a period of 5 weeks so this not a knee-jerk reaction. Regardless of the user's condition she is aware that she makes offensive statements. Obviously one needs a thick skin when editing controversial articles, but even with thick skinned editing, the above comments are quite unhelpful. Wapondaponda (talk) 05:13, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A little off topic... but has anyone else noticed that User:TechnoFaye's user page displays what appears to be a giant naked photograph of her? I'm aware of WP:NOTCENSORED but as far as I'm aware user page content is supposed to be at least marginally related to Wikipedia. - DustFormsWords (talk) 06:54, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

yeah, I scratched my head over that too. I figured it's relatively tasteful, and wasn't overtly violating any policies, so it got filed in the 'too trivial to worry about' category. --Ludwigs2 09:40, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

<- TechnoFaye (talk · contribs) claims to have taken this picture [17] herself File:Bpesta.jpg. This is clearly not the case and is a copyvio. Why did she lie? Mathsci (talk) 07:19, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Faye has (as should be evident, and as she herself admits) some form of mild autism (or perhaps some other minor developmental disorder - I'm not sure if her claims of autism stem from self-diagnosis). I have been trying to be tolerant of that, and guide her towards some more socially acceptable modes of interaction, with limited success. however, because of this thread (and Mathsci's complaints below) I am putting the mediation discussion on a strict civility program; I am going to start insisting on 3-day breaks from the discussion for any editor who cannot refrain from making disparaging comments about other editors. I'm going to try a firm hand for a little while on the page, and see if we can capitalize on the progress we'e made and break through the points of stubbornness that are currently plaguing the page. If you ask me, we can close/table this discussion for a week and see what progress a new approach can make. --Ludwigs2 09:06, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2009-11-12/Race and Intelligence
• Race and intelligence

I looked at the main page to which TechnoFaye contributes and there seems to be a much deeper problem. Mediation started in November on this topic, initially under the supervision of Reubzz (talk · contribs), who shortly afterwards disappeared and had no prior experience at all as a mediator. The mediator was changed to Xavexgoem (talk · contribs) and then Wordsmith (talk · contribs). At present mediation is unsupervised - a completely chaotic free-for-all. At the very beginning of mediation last year, there were sensible statements and discussions. That does not seem to be the case now. Various users involved in the mediation are no longer present (eg myself, on wikibreak in Cambridge, and Ramdrake (talk · contribs), who hasn't edited wikipedia for 2 months). Currently the page does not seem to be serving any useful purpose. It seems to be frequented largely by WP:SPAs and a coterie of highly problematic users, with some exceptions (eg Slrubenstein (talk · contribs)). TechnoFaye's contributions and directing of the mediation page do not seem to be particularly helpful, nor her choice of language. The page is in no way a mediation page any more. Please could administrators or mediators explain what is going on and attempt to restore some order? There is no record on the page as to who is moderating at present (surely not Ludwigs2 (talk · contribs)?). Mathsci (talk) 05:59, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am not quite sure how this kind of poorly written synthesis[18] by an anonymous IP from Brussels

• Race_and_intelligence#Ten_argument_supporting_the_existence_of_race_differences_in_IQ_scores_between_whites_and_blacks.5B71.5D

from a single questionable source (Richard Lynn) made its way into the article Race and intelligence. I'm afraid this kind of writing reminds me of what can be read on far right websites like Stormfront (website), except their English is better. It is some of the worst writing I have seen on wikipedia to date, ungrammatical, picked from one dubious source and sometimes making little or no sense. It shows that there is a major problem with the article and mediation. The article has never been in such an unbalanced and unreadable state before. SPAs, who now seem to dominate the article, have left this unencyclopedic and completely WP:UNDUE material in the article, still claiming there is some kind of neutral mediator in their recent edit summaries. That does not seem to be the case. Mathsci (talk) 06:31, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mathsci - nice of you to ask me, but yes, I am still mediating there. I've been letting the page run a bit, for a number of reasons: (1) to save myself from burnout (it's a difficult crew) (2) to keep myself looking draconian (I have the urge to impose order severely at times, but I resist - don't see that as my position), and (3) to let some of the steam of the participants burn off. if you have a problem with my mediation style, you are free to use my talk page to discuss the matter with me, but I'd prefer that you don't go posting notices about me on ANI without notification. since you've brought it up, however, would you like to discuss the matter now? --Ludwigs2 07:41, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My comments make it quite clear that I had no idea who the mediator was. It is not announced on the page. Presumably, since I was inscribed early in the mediation, you should have sought my approval. Unfortunately I think there have been many long term problems with your own edits on wikipedia, which indicate that you are not a neutral party and completely unsuitable as a mediator. Your edits are wikilawyering par excellence - you've been doing so above. From the archived talk page, you appear to have hijacked the initial stages of mediation conducted under the two experienced mediators mentioned above. I suggest the mediation be terminated and the article returned to some previous state, so that it looks slightly less like illiterate right wing propaganda. No experienced mediator would have allowed this nonsense to stay in the article for two weeks. This is just disruption, Ludwigs2, and possibly worthy of a block of some kind. This should be discussed here by administrators and experienced mediators, not hidden away on your talk page. Mathsci (talk) 08:01, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

<- Just a reminder of what you as mediator allowed in the article for two weeks:

Mathsci (talk) 08:37, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I offered to take over the mediation a good long while ago, when the last mediator quit in frustration: there was a sizable discussion about it, and the editors who participated in the discussion all agreed. I'm sorry you missed that discussion, but there's not a whole lot I can do about it now unless you want to reopen the issue on the mediation page.

I have been expecting the participants in the mediation to reach some consensus which would mean a major revision of the entire article, and I was aware that the participants were monitoring the article itself for changes. sorry this bit slipped in, but it would have been gone by now had the consensus been reached

In deference to you, I've gone ahead and announced a stronger approach on the mediation page, and will begin pursuing it tomorrow. beyond that, I am not concerned with your (thoroughly misguided) impressions of me. As I said, if you have a problem with me personally, take it up on my talk page (or through one of the numerous dispute resolution processes wikipedia has to offer). However, if you just want to talk shit about me, no one is interested. --Ludwigs2 08:49, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article is in a hopeless state. I have no idea why you sought to mediate such a controversial article, given your own record on wikipedia. (It is not dissimilar to GoRight offering to act as Abd's mentor.) That you missed the above glaringly awful insertion, until I pointed it out now, is a clear sign that you don't have the qualities required to mediate. At least User:Reubzz left personal messages on talk pages and clearly edited the mediation pages to explain what was going on. You don't even seem to have bothered monitoring the article recently. Please stop treating wikipedia as some kind of game. Mathsci (talk) 09:02, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

again, this is a topic you should bring up on the mediation page. if you don't want me as mediator, I'm certainly not imposing myself on the situation, and a nice discussion of the matter there would resolve the issue. or is there some reason you keep wanting to harp on it here, where it won't do a darned bit of good?

with respect to your problematic passage - if you have good reason to remove it, remove it. you don't need a mediator for that, unless it becomes a matter of contention between you and another editor. as I said, it is not my place as mediator to make content decisions for you. --Ludwigs2 09:10, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, Mathsci, we have you yourself not removed this section, since you seem to object to it? I am mediating this article, which limits my capacity to make editorial decisions (I'm not here to take sides in editorial disputes, but rather to try to develop some kind of consensus). as an interested editor, you should be the one monitoring the article for inappropriate material. --Ludwigs2 08:55, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In its present state I wouldn't touch the article - this was only one of the things wrong with it. I wrote above that it should be returned to a much earlier state. I see very little hope for it at the moment, given the current circumstances. Mathsci (talk) 09:08, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

if you are not going to touch the article, then shall I remove your name from the list of mediation participants?

The possibility of reverting the article to an earlier state was discussed in mediation, but there was no consensus on the matter, and I didn't want to impose a solution. the issue will be resolved as soon as we reach a consensus in mediation, since the entire page will be revised, or you can reopen that thread for further discussion if you like.

so, now, what is your reason for wanting this section removed? is it unsourced? no. is it a misrepresentation? I don't know, do you? is it clear synthesis? not that I can see, but I'm willing to be convinced (because I don't like the passage any more than you do). give me an argument for removing it and I will remove it; don't expect me as mediator to remove material that (superficially, at least) seems to conform to wikipedia's policies and guidelines. --Ludwigs2 09:20, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I only add citations and sources to that article, and very seldom. I am aware, however, of the academic literature. I'll leave you to figure out on your own what is wrong with the above passage and why it blatantly violates several of wikipedia's core policies. As a clue, here is an article edit I made yesterday.[19] Mathsci (talk) 09:34, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

well, thanks for the hint, but I have no idea what it means. are you making some comment about referencing or complaining that the statistics in the section is bad? can race be modeled using hermite polynomials? and what does this have to do with core policies? --Ludwigs2 09:48, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you're asking questions like that, you seem clueless about editing wikipedia. The statements are improperly sourced from a single source. Statements like "The high IQ of American Jews is well known since 1930" need some kind of inline citation and exact quotation. Controversial statements, that are improperly sourced, are not normally permitted on wikipedia. Likewise the statement about the average African IQ. Honestly, Ludwigs2, your statements about editing articles are singularly clueless. With less than 1,500 article edits to your name, that doesn't seem very surprising. Your replies at the moment are verging on "trolling". Mathsci (talk) 15:05, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with some of Mathsci's observations, some oversight by experienced editors may be necessary. I get the feeling that this mediation is taking place tucked away in a hidden corner of wikipedia and without the support of the broader community. It would be also useful if some experienced editors could evaluate whether the mediation in its current state has the potential of being fruitful. If it has no potential, then maybe as Mathsci suggested, it would be best to have it terminated. If there is still hope, then some supervision would be necessary to ensure that the mediation process and its results are consistent with the views of the broader community. Wapondaponda (talk) 14:46, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@ Mathsci:If that's your belief, then again, I don't know why you haven't removed the passage. someone else went ahead and did it, and so the problem is obviated, but still...

@ Wapondaponda: again, I'm not doing this for love or money. if you don't want me to mediate, bring it up on the mediation talk page as a matter for discussion. I'm not interested in being supervised (though I'm happy to take any advice anyone has to offer). if you want another mediator to take over, find one and suggest them

Now, let's close this discussion (which is not an ANI matter in any sense of the word) and reopen it on the mediation talk page if you so desire

To be precise the material was removed [20], then reverted [21], then removed again [22]. Hardly straightforward. If I hadn't pointed it out, this nonsense would still be in the article. How I edit has nothing at all to do with what is being discussed. When mediation started I made a careful statement about what should happen to the article, which had consensus. Your own actions as self-appointed "mediator" have not helped in the slightest. I only see complete disarray. Mathsci (talk) 18:55, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ludwigs, I have not made any comments concerning you being a mediator. My concern is with the process in general. With the persistent incivility, I have just gotten the feeling that the mediation is on autopilot, and nobody cares. Currently Slrubenstein is probably the only experienced editor participating in the mediation. I would be happier if there were more experienced editors who are not effectively WP:SPAs looking at the article. Wapondaponda (talk) 18:03, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

<- I have to agree with Muntuwandi here. Slrubenstein is one of the few experienced editors remaining in the discussions. My own feeling is that an administrator experienced in mediation, such as Shell Kinney or WJBscribe, should be consulted about the current anomolous situation. Since Ludwigs2 (talk · contribs) is relatively inexperienced both as an editor and a mediator, he should certainly not be trying to suppress discussion, which involves his role amongst other things. Mathsci (talk) 18:46, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There also seems to be an inaccessible part of the talk archives result from this edit.[23] That is now in Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2009-11-12/Race and Intelligence/Archive 0. It contained the opening statements amongst other things. I have no idea how that can be corrected. Mathsci (talk) 19:49, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

okie dokie. feel free to continue this discussion and let me know if I'm needed. for my part, I will ignore this thread (and and any results it produces) and wait for you to open a discussion of the topic on the mediation page, where it belongs. thanks for sharing, though. --Ludwigs2 19:39, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For the record: Ludwigs did not "appoint himself" mediator. We held a discussion about Ludwigs taking over the role of mediator, and all of the then-active editors (myself, Ramdrake, Slrubenstein, Aprock, Alun, Mikemikev, Captain Occam, TechnoFaye) agreed to it. I think Ludwigs is doing just fine given the circumstances, and I don't think the hyper-criticism taking place here is helping anything. --Aryaman (talk) 19:54, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ludwig is not doing an unreasonable job, although he certainly has a hands off approach, and seems to be aligned with a specific faction of editors. This hasn't been a huge problem, but it does creep out from time to time. A.Prock (talk) 02:46, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So, you're saying that the mediator is not impartial, but aligned with one of the factions involved in the mediation, and he allows stuff to go into the article without check (just curious - is it stuff that's favored by the faction he's aligned with?), but all that is just peachy with you and he's doing a bang-up job, all considered? Is that the gist of what you've just said?

Who's in charge of that zoo? Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:45, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please assist Radiopathy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and I have a long history and he has recently been blocked and chosen to retire due to the latest dispute we had and a breach of his 1RR. Even though he has recently "retired", he monitors my edits and intervenes with the express purpose of having me blocked, banned, or simply causing me distress. The constitutes hounding and I would like an admin to intervene. See here and here for my most recent recapitulations of his actions. See here for his most recent sanction leading to his most recent "retirement." (This is behavior he has engaged in previously when he has been sanctioned, retires, and then waits for awhile and requests that the sanctions be lifted in spite of no proof that his behavior has changed, e.g. here)

Since he decided to stop editing, he has returned only to try to keep me from having a sanction lifted (he was not successful), posting a spurious edit-warring template on my talk, and inserting himself in a post I made on Wikiquette alerts that is unrelated to him (he also put in his perspective on that dispute encouraging other users to ignore me.) Although he claims to not have a personal issue with me, he watches my edits apparently for the sole purpose of encouraging other users to revert, ignore, block, or ban me. (Cf. 1, 2, 3, 4, and several instances mentioned in my previous links.)

Radiopathy's sole purpose on Wikipedia is to disrupt my ability to edit and to harass me in addition to his spurious claims and generally uncivil interaction with me. Please intervene to stop this behavior. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:33, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I won't go so far as to endorse the accusation of wikihounding, but Radiopathy does seem to be egging on the dispute between Justin and Rafablu88, such as by telling Rafablu88 that Justin "should simply be reverted and ignored"[24] and making what I would consider less-than-helpful comments at the WQA that Justin opened over the dispute. (Note: I got one of the unsolicited notices from Radiopathy about the WQA, and I've expressed my thoughts there on the underlying issue.) --RL0919 (talk) 03:20, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I echo every word RL0919 stated in his comment (including about receiving an unsolicited notice and expressing my thoughts there). Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:41, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to bring this edit by Radiopathy to the attention of my fellow admins. It was a uw-3rr, but added to an archive of a talk page, making it look like the warning was seen by Justin and then archived, which is clearly not the case. Not sure exactly how to describe this, but possibly disruptive. I think the warning should be struck through and a note added stating why it has been struck through because the warning was not correctly issued. Mjroots (talk) 06:28, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification I archive my talk page using the move method. Radiopathy put the warning on my "live" talk page. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:41, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The edit was clearly to the /Archive018 page not the talk page. This is what I have a problem with. Mjroots (talk) 06:45, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, Koavf is right, it was made before the page was moved from its live user talk position to the archive position. Thanks Koavf for clarifying this. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:51, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think you missed this and this. Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:54, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh, I see now. I was confused by Justin's method of archiving by moving the talk page itself to the archive and creating a new talk page. OK, my concerns have been allayed and this issue is now settled with no action being necessary. Mjroots (talk) 08:10, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've struck my comments on Radiopathy's talk page. Back to the original issue raised by Justin. Mjroots (talk) 08:16, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was another of the people solicited about the Wikiquette alert. I've looked over Radiopathy's contributions since he declared himself retired, and Justin's complaints seem to have merit. Every one of Radiopathy's edits were to take some kind of action against Justin. I rarely give credence to hounding complaints but this seems genuine. If Radiopathy wants to be retired, that's fine, if he wants to start editing again, that's fine, but it's not fine to devote your limited Wikipedia existence to taking down another editor. Just look at this comment, which seems like a promise to hound Justin. -- Atama頭 19:44, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Further concern Like my previous posts on AN/I and Radiopathy's previous sanctions, I am afraid that he will just wait until this blows over and resume his usual antipathy. Once this gets archived, I would not be surprised if he just reappeared two weeks from now interfering with my ability to be productive. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:10, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would like an administrator to review the Australian Capital Territory Debating Union.

It appears to me that User:JJJ999 (plus the IP's he uses 121.45.216.232 & 121.45.196.175) are acting as if he/she are owners of the article.

I have a number of issues with the article :

1. I question the notability of the ACTDU (it has been questioned before see Talk:Australian_Capital_Territory_Debating_Union#Article issues). Every time I have tried to tag it it gets reverted here or here.

2. It contains many 'refs' that are not in any way relevant to the article, that he insists on having in, for example in the lead :

• from hotfrog.com.au a directory entry for the ACTDU
• From the SA government - only thing that is relevant is a Link to the ACTU website.
• radford.com.au which is dead and no indication in the article as to what it was meant to help with,
• surch on an IP for "ACT debating team" that times out

At the end of the article, without any indication of why they are there or what they help with :

• Accessmylibrary.com - a extract from the Canberra Times that does not mention the ACTDU
• Accessmylibrary.com- a extract from the Canberra Times that does not mention the ACTDU
• Accessmylibrary.com- a extract from the Canberra Times that does not mention the ACTDU
• Accessmylibrary.com- a extract from the Canberra Times that does not mention the ACTDU
• ABC Stateline Home - transcript from a ABC radio show that also does not mention the ACTDU.
• Factiva.com a dead Factiva lookup with no indication of what it was or supports.

3. I believe that User:JJJ999 may have a WP:COI, as evidenced by the fact he has hard copies of the AGM minutes here also given the copyright statement in the two photos on the page here and here indicating he created (took) them along with a comment here where he says he can get the copy write permission sent in.

4. I think the article may be Over detailed and contain "excessive amount of intricate detail that may only interest a specific audience".

I have posted a RfC on the talk page about the first point but as of yet have had no response (Talk:Australian_Capital_Territory_Debating_Union#RFC : Notability tag)

I have also posted on the 3RR board as User:JJJ999 and the IP's made 4 reverts on Sunday (here) to which User:JJJ999 responded here but this was archived without attention - I dispute what he has written but have decided not to engage with him at this time. I have made attempts to point out my issues on the Talk page here and here.

So I am wondering the best way to move this article forward as I am sure that as soon as I start trying to fix the above issues User:JJJ999 will start reverting again. Codf1977 (talk) 07:27, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I find RfC a fairly uncertain step in dispute resolution, since you never who (if anyone) will show up. You may wish to withdraw the RfC and try one of the other methods of dispute resolution, such as WP:COIN or WP:CNB. If you are certain that there are only two of you involved, WP:3O can be a good forum to get assistance. I have generally found the volunteers who work there willing to discuss issues thoroughly. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:42, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I cant be certain, but am 99% sure the three are one. This edit confirms two are one in the same and the other one looks like a WP:DUCK. Codf1977 (talk) 12:05, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Then WP:3O may be your best bet. Typically, I'd list a problem like that and wait. If you don't get a response within a couple of days, then it may be necessary to seek help elsewhere. If you do, make it clear where else you've asked and why you're asking again, so it's obvious that you're not "forum shopping" but just looking for input. Having already interacted with the article as an admin, I don't think I should myself weigh in on content issues. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:08, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the advice, I do not want any appearance of forum shopping so will wait a few days to see if anyone else here has any advice, and if not will go to WP:3O and make sure I cross link to here and the RfC. Codf1977 (talk) 12:41, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I had a reply earlier, and it seems to have been removed. Basically, this is forum shopping, because you haven't been able to build consensus. Go to the talk page, and complain there. Anyway, this is not copyvio, this was covered. Next time wait for consensus and don't accuse others of bad faith and editing warring that you were only recently warned about yourself.JJJ999 (talk) 21:31, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is NOT "forum shopping" which is defined as "repeatedly asking for additional outside opinions until you get an opinion you like" as there was no response to either the RfC or the 3RR posts it can't be and secondly I made sure I disclosed and linked to those.

Also please refrain from making totally false claims about me being warned recently for editing warring as a way of deflecting attention away from your five bans for your edit warring (see here). - I have only been warned once in October last year here when my account was less than 2 weeks old and I had only 1 revert in 24 hours in any case - if you disagree produce the dif. Codf1977 (talk) 22:23, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, this doesn't look like forum shopping to me. It might be worth leaving a note at the Australian noticeboard WP:AWNB to get more eyes on the article. The article looks clearly problematic and I agree the notability is far from clear. It should probably either go through AFD or by merged into a parent article. I don't know what the factiva link is meant to link to but searching factiva for "Australian Capital Territory Debating Union" for all dates/all regions/etc brings up zero results. Sarah 12:30, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your suggestions, the more eyes that look at the atrial the better IMO. But to avoid even the smell of forum shopping and so as not to give JJJ999 yet another place to have a go at my motives I am not going to post there, but please don't let that stop anyone else. Codf1977 (talk) 13:18, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, I'm tiring of having to respond in so many different places/forums to your concerns. I've noted on the talkpage a number of sources, including some which were just temporarily removed during a BLP claim, and which can easily be brought back (even minus the subjects names being brought back, it's obviously easy to bring back the sources themselves). You haven't responded or built consensus on my talk page merge replies, so I suggest you go do that, and stop complaining in every place/forum you can find.JJJ999 (talk) 00:23, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

 – Things went all pear-shaped, user's access to email and talk page removed, don't think an unblock is going to happen any time soon. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:19, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ThomasK (talk · contribs) has emailed me asking to be unblocked. I looked at his talk page, where he has an unblock request -- or rather demand. He was blocked in 2006 and I'm not going to unblock him without an understanding of why he was blocked. And I wasn't impressed by his reason: " Lift this unfair indefinite block immediately. That´s my demand. I have a right to request so. I contributed enormously to Wikipedia and it´s more than four years since I last vandalized an article. I won´t do this anymore in the future.". But if the community thinks he should be unblocked... Dougweller (talk) 12:27, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well... he hasn't vandalised an article for four years because he has been blocked! I don't see how "look I didn't sock" is a legitimate reason to unblock... two cents. SGGH ^ping! 12:35, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ask him what he'd edit if he's unblocked. He's grown up a bit since 2006, I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 12:40, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. Reblocking if that turns out to be necessary only takes a few seconds. henrik•talk 13:10, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The phrasing of the "request" doesn't indicate any great amount of "growth". Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:25, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not opposed to an unblock, if ThomasK can put together an acceptable unblock request, demonstrating that he understands why he was blocked in the first place and undertakes not to repeat the behaviour that lead to the block. 4 years is time for some growing up, and if ThomasK has refrained from sockpuppetry then that should be seen as a plus point. Mjroots (talk) 14:14, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support unblock providing he accepts a suitable probationary period whereby any instances of incivility or disruption would result in immediate reapplication of the block. Prior to the RfA drama, ThomasK appears to have been a rather productive contributor. caknuck _° needs to be running more often 15:11, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Based on his recent edit summaries and unwillingness to follow procedure, it looks like 4 years wasn't enough. Bridge, I'd like to introduce you to Mr. Flamethrower. Torchy, this is Mr. Bridge. You two play nice. caknuck _° needs to be running more often 18:05, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Give another chance – I'd be willing to extend the proverbial olive branch and give him another chance. Of course, the block was a long time ago, and Curps has not really been around much at all recently. –MuZemike 17:06, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize. Please unblock my main account. Thanks --ThomasKsock (talk) 06:22, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Argh, and to think that I supported an unblock when all this stuff goes down. This is why I find it harder nowadays to AGF because they just take it a shove it up my, well, you know. –MuZemike 14:54, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Factsontheground has been the subject of scrutiny and controversy the last couple of days.Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive604#User Factsontheground using his talk page as a forum and to launch personal attacks should be reopened. Factsontheground has come back from the 24hr block inciting more issues with a user page[25] in violation of WP:UP#POLEMIC (as mentioned here). I understand she is frustrated. She has reason to be to some extent. There have been more allegations against her made since she has returned and of course the revisiting of past transgressions. This isn't about those though. Is her user page disruptive? Does it stir up the battlefield mentality already seen in a contentious topic area? Can it be blanked and the user asked again to stop?Cptnono (talk) 12:46, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

She imply that those who oppose her edits are rasicts (see Anti-Arabism and Wikipedia section on her user page). I think it's disruptive.--Gilisa (talk) 13:04, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, SarekOfVulcan has already warned her about using her Wikipedia page to make comments about the supposed racism of other Wikipedia users. I concur with the enforcement of WP:UP#POLEMIC. SGGH ^ping! 13:09, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Infact she was blocked for 24 hours recently for PA against editors (I'm among those) as well as removing two comments by two different editors (me for one) from article's talk page. Then she used her talk page in violation of WP:UPNOT [26] and her talk page was blocked as well.--Gilisa (talk) 13:14, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, have a look at the changes she made to her userpage since this discussion started. Clearly a disruption only disruptive account, and i propose we just RBI it. Seeing the recent complaints and ANI reports in such a short timespan I do not suspected that anything positive will come from user in the long run, unless behavioral changes are made. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 13:18, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am happy to enforce another block if we agree it is needed. She has removed the content having noted this thread, though. Same length as before? SGGH ^ping! 13:21, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I will admit that I would like to see her blocked, but blocks are meant to be preventative not punitive. If the threat of it alone was enough to encourage a better understanding then it would not be appropriate.Cptnono (talk) 13:26, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yet given past conduct it might very well be preventative. SGGH ^ping! 13:27, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

She has also just given this to Excirial and docked some more warnings from her talk (though she has the right to remove anything from her talk if she so wishes, but I suspect her motives for doing so.) SGGH ^ping! 13:30, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed in two discussions I was involved today she violate several of WP guidelines regarding the use of TP and attidue toward other users. As can be seen here [27] (clear PA-but I wasn't involved directly in this issue so maybe it's not relevant) and here [28] were I asked her to stop using the talk page for soap boxing and as a forum, but she only hush me in incivil manner. The problem is that she keep seeing herself as victim (as specifically can be understood from her UP) and unwilling to take any responsability for what she do. And it continue like that for a long time with everyday bring something new. So far she was only warned time and again or was treated softly. I don't have the time needed to that and I already spent much time in issues she was involved with, but I think that her relevant history should be reviewed and finally appropriate measurements to be taken.P.s. She just blanked her page at 13:20 [29], nevertheless, she was still editing its meaning shortly before [30]--Gilisa (talk) 13:33, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't aware of this rule. Now I am. I removed the content that was bothering people. This can be marked resolved.

Secondly, on the topic of polemics, Mbz1 is using her talk page to attack myself and others. She has a picture of dogs chasing a girl subtitled "Me and the hounds"; she continually calls me and other editors "Wikihounds". Factsontheground (talk) 14:04, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As can be understood from the links given in the opening, you were specifically noticed by Cptnono that you are in violation with wikipedia guidelines -but yet until ANI was submitted you choosed not to remove it from your user page. I can't see how Mbz1 is relevant in your defence, to put it mildly. Looking into your previous edits and your correspondence with other editors, it is quite clear that you are familiar with WP gidelines including these concerning with TPs-but even if you didn't know this specific one -you was warned by Cptnono and two days ago your TP was blocked for the very same thing.--Gilisa (talk) 14:11, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Permanent Ban. This very belligerent user spends a disproportionate amount of wiki-time on drama. It's most likely not his fault, but everyone else's, but this project would be better off without all the disruption. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 14:14, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ridiculous. She blaned the page after people complained about it. She has just come off a block where people taunted her on her talk page, one of whom was blocked for his edits. stop the witchunting and wikidrama. Go bac to editing an encyclopedia. Tiamut^talk 16:14, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support No signs of improvment for her are seen in the near future. So far she was treated way too softly. Some examples from the last 2-3 days are given here. Here you can see she stalked after user Breein1007[31] and reverted 6 of his edits in 6 different articles in less than 10 minutes. Here she did it again to Plot Spoiler[32] (5 reverts in 5 different article in less than 50 minutes). She is aware of WP:HOUN and this is a pattern. It's only the tip of the iceberg even if we refer only the last week-realy, I just don't have the time to run after her history now. --Gilisa (talk) 14:24, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• (ec)Oppose very strongly. This editor has already been treated much more harshly than other editors, for a relatively minor infringement. She has indeed been harassed and abused, including attacks on her user talk page when she was banned from replying -- attacks for which another editor has been blocked. I can understand FoG feeling aggrieved, and here sense of unequal treatment. This complaint reeks of a witchhunt, and should never have been submitted. RolandR (talk) 14:40, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved Marking this as resolved as the original problem is solved by Facts blanking of their userpage. There is absolutely no way this will can be stretched to a ban. This has already turned pile-on & general airing of grievences so lets just quit with the drama now. Misarxist (talk) 14:30, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Misarxist, I fail to see where the drama is and how self blanking her screen, after ANI was submitted and after ignoring warning, solve the problem-which is, as described, much larger.--Gilisa (talk) 14:49, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unreolved:Misarxist, I see no admin tag on your UP. Please leave it for an admin to come over it. That's the all meaning of this board.--Gilisa (talk) 15:22, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gilisa, put the stick down and back away from the horse. Factsontheground (talk) 15:35, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is the Administrators' noticeboard. Editors without admin authority have no right to add this tag here. --Gilisa (talk) 15:43, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's not true at all. An admin is just an editor with extra tools. They don't have unique authority to mark discussions resolved. <>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk) 17:47, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This ANI is call for admin intervention and not matter how you turn it, you had no right to put the tag. Certainly not less than an hour from case opening.--Gilisa (talk) 21:20, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're wrong, plain and simple. And I didn't place the tag, someone else did. <>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk) 18:13, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Oppose, This is becoming rather ridiculous and vengeful. The user has deleted all the messages that were deemed inappropriate, so calling for a "permanent ban" is simply outrageous. Yazan (talk) 16:11, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree fully. People are being needlessly vindictive here. Tiamut^talk 16:14, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm no admin either, but I agree with Misarxist that talk of a permanent ban is very premature here, and that the discussion had degenerated. The initial complaint does seem to have been resolved. I'm sure there are other conduct issues to deal with, but I wonder if ANI is really the best forum to discuss them in. Factsontheground does not seem to be running amuck right at the moment, so I don't see a great need to rush to judgement. --Avenue (talk) 16:21, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Avenue, premature, certainly very premature, are not the right words here. If you review her editing history you hardly can get to any other conclusion than that significan sanctions are needed.--Gilisa (talk) 21:20, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

{ec} *Comment The user has just come off a short block apparently just as disruptive as ever; certainly not taking it with grace. In fact, the hounding still continues with this diff [33], the personal attacks here [34], and the unwillingness to accept a verdict and learn from it here and here. I think [quite] a bit more cooling off time is required, with clear warnings about any continued harassment, and/or personal attacks on other editors and administrators. Agree that it is immature to seek a permaban at this time, but some real time off might well be appropriate. Stellarkid (talk) 16:25, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. There is no need to take such drastic measures yet - there is no vandalism which needs to be handled at once, so there is no direct need for measures. Just one thing: Fact, this kind of edit is known as canvassing. Best not to do it. :) Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 16:28, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong oppose Is this "Dump on Factsontheground Week"? Mbz1 gets off scot-free for her abusive behavior, and there's talk about perma-banning Factsontheground?!? People, you need to pull your heads out of your hindquarters. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 17:19, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MBz was blocked just 4 days ago, so I don't know where you get this "Mbz1 gets off scot-free" disinformation from. Other users' actions are irrelevant and do not excuse this user's grossly inappropriate behavior. And it would have behooved you to at least mention that your comment was solicited by the user in question, in violation of WP:CANVASS. All in all, not a great contribution from an administrator. We have higher standard here. My Canada (talk) 20:32, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(1) Mbz1 was blocked for one day for behavior that is at least as disruptive, and since this is the same noticeboard where her behavior was discussed, yes, it is relevant.

(2) Do you see the comment above mine? The one that says I was canvassed? — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 20:42, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(1) MBz was blocked for a day 4 days ago, for another day the week before that, and once more a month earlier, by none other than you. That's 3 blocks totaling 72 hours in less than 2 months, so she's clearly not getting off scot free. You obviously know that, as you were one of the blockers, yet you still posted a falsehood ("Mbz1 gets off scot-free for her abusive behavior"). Please, at a minimum, strike out that comment. An apology would not be out of place, either. And no, the fact that other users are misbhaving, and being reported on this noticeboard (which is where all such behavior is reproted) is not relevant to the issue at hand. Open a thread about MBz1 if you think her actions arein need of admin attention.

(2) No, I didn't see it, nor would most people, unless they bothered to actually go and click on that link. And having someone else call out the actions that led to your misbehaviour does not excuse your lack of disclosure. The fact that you did not disclose you were canvassed with a request to "put in a good word", and then proceeded to do just that is really beneath contempt. I am pondering if an Admin RfC is in order. I'll collect some more deatils and perhaps pursue that route. My Canada (talk) 22:03, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If my "misbehaviour" is "really beneath contempt", please feel free to bring it up in its own section on this page or start an RfC/U. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 22:22, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose per Malik Shabazz. I keep seeing these discussions about Factsontheground pop up here and in pretty much every case, there is no real clear right and wrong. And it's starting to reek of a gangup of people who have had disputes with Factsontheground against her. I do not support a block, but would support a decision barring these various editors (Factsonthegrund, Mbz1, and the others who keep filing these reports) from interacting with each other. <>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk) 17:47, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Multixfer, may I please ask you to be so kind and to provide few differences to confirm that I "keep filing these reports"? And If by any chance you would not be able to find that conformation, may I please ask you to be so kind and retract your words? Thank you for your time.--Mbz1 (talk) 17:53, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't drag me into this stupid fight. I did not accuse you of "filing these reports", I clarified that by specifying "others", whilst separating that portion from you with commas. I stand by my statement that everyone involved has significant culpability in this foolishness and that the community would be best served by barring them all from interacting with each other. <>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk) 18:17, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh well, I guess it is just a normal reaction of one, who states something with no evidences, as you just did, dear Multixfer. Okay. For the record: I have not filed any single report to AN/I for any user involved in I/P conflict articles editing. And you know what, I agree to be topic-banned on I/P conflict articles indefinitely, and in effect immediately as long as factsontheground would have the same editing restrictions because it is the only way of " barring" us from interactions. My proposal is absolutely serious. Please do consider this. --Mbz1 (talk) 18:41, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose as far too draconian for the alleged transgressions. Let's note that the only support comes from some of the hardened quarters of the I-P topic area battleground, re-mark this as resolved, and get back to business. Tarc (talk) 17:51, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. I think it is unwise to oblige editors by punishing another for behaviour that they are largely responsible for provoking. -- ZScarpia (talk) 19:22, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support some sort of topic ban on the user, not a permaban. The community should show its displeasure at revenge-type behavior and stalking other users. The fact that those other users get provoked into responding in an uncivil manner (if that is the case) is no justification for ignoring the type of behavior illustrated above. Stellarkid (talk) 19:49, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support a time-limited topic ban from I-P articles. Let's see some useful contributions from the editor in other areas of wikipedia. My Canada (talk) 20:32, 24 March 2010 (UTC) This template must be substituted.[reply]
• Support a time-limited topic ban from I-P articles per my comments below.--Mbz1 (talk) 20:52, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support a permaban as things will not likely improve. Kuratowski's Ghost (talk) 21:05, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support because enough is indeed enough. Broccoli (talk) 23:28, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I think that all involved parties need to reconsider the way they interact with each other and their willingness to seek punitive sanctions, but user:factsontheground has not deserved to be singled out in this fashion. Unomi (talk) 01:40, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Facts has more than adequately demonstrated that she is a destructive editor.

(1) Most recently, she has served a proxy for the banner editor Orijentolog, reinserting his/her edit’s without explanation: [35], [36], [37].

(2) Constantly edit warring. This is completely unconstructive. On the page of Martin Kramer, for example, Facts wantonly violated WP:BLP over and over again: [38], [39]

(3) Lastly, as more than abundantly observed, Facts is incapable of maintaining any sort of basic civility. She constantly violates both WP:Personal attacks and WP:Assume good faith in her accusations that other editors are racist and have an agenda and even worse, that there is a some sort of conspiracy on Wikipedia to persecute self-identified pro-Palestinian editors. As noted below, she also has stalked Mbz1 out of pure spite. Plot Spoiler (talk) 16:27, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support as per Plot Spoiler. --Geewhiz (talk) 16:44, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The two users factsontheground and me were discussed at this very board quite a few times already. Our editing style creates constant disruption to others. We both were accused in personal attacks and incivility, and we both were blocked in the last week. I believe we both should be topic-banned on I/P conflict editing for at least three months for the sake of the project, for saving other editors time and for saving space at AN/I

• Support--Mbz1 (talk) 18:57, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose --Mbz1 you can take a break whenever you want. user:factsontheground may require a bit more of a hint. Please relax a little!  :) Stellarkid (talk) 19:15, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, Stellar, I am very relaxed. I will not be upset by topic ban at all. You know why? Because I have so many different interests around wikipedia and commons that I would never be bored, on the other hand FOTG is practicaly a WP:SPA.--Mbz1 (talk) 20:17, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose topic ban on Mbz1 Support topic ban on Factsontheground: Please note that Mbz1 is not the subject of this ANI and her overall behavior don't justify topic ban. FOTG behavior on the other hand, certainly does.--Gilisa (talk) 20:52, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So you want to sacrifice a pawn for a queen? I don't think so.

Just. Stop. It.

I haven't done anything wrong. I blanked my user page. There is nothing to discuss. This issue is resolved. Factsontheground (talk) 19:31, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This "I havn't done anything wrong" you refrain on is one of the main problems.--Gilisa (talk) 20:48, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• • For the attention of the community: The following are only few edits of our "queen" that were reverted in the last few days: [40];[41];[42]; [43]. If the "queen" is proxy editing for banned user user:Orijentolog, the topic ban is well over due.--Mbz1 (talk) 19:57, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any basis for accusing Factsontheground of proxy-editing, or is that just another insult thrown at her? — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 20:23, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I said "if". The edits I reffer to was not reverted by me, but by other editor. BTW while we are at the subject. Did factsontheground have any basis in accusing me in using socks at the article discussion page, or it was just another insult thrown at me, and where were you, when factsontheground did not even let me to remove those PA from the aricle disussion page? Any more questions?--Mbz1 (talk) 20:50, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And if my grandmother had wheels, she'd be a wheelbarrow. Since you don't have any reason to assert that Factsontheground is proxy-editing, you're just engaging in more of your insults. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 21:00, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Malik, I don't know regarding the proxies issue but it change nothing on FOTG overall behavior, which is bvery disruptive. To remind, Mbz1 is not the subject of this ANI.--Gilisa (talk) 20:48, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gilisa, I bet Shabazz knows that, but with all his fairness he brings me up everywhere he can. I was not even going comment on the thread at all, if it was not for the comment by administrator Shabazz, who as always brought me up. As a matter of fact I was rather surprised by his statement because just the other day he explained to the user [44] waht WP:NOTTHEM means. Looks like Shabazz responding to canvasing got a litlle bit confused as usual :)--Mbz1 (talk) 21:02, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I love you too. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 21:08, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I know that, you've told me that already few weeks ago. Remember? I guess you do not, confusion you know...:) Malik, please stop bringing me up every time you need to deffend your friend, and I will love you too :) --Mbz1 (talk) 21:13, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - this is a discussion that screams out for an admin to archive, there is nothing happening here but gutter-sniping all around. Tarc (talk) 20:58, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

_{No, it doesn't--Gilisa (talk) 21:21, 24 March 2010 (UTC)}[reply]

As one of the instigators of this mess, forgive me if I don't put much stock in your opinion. Tarc (talk) 01:00, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All 3 primary participants in this have variously stepped across multiple lines in our user behavior policy over the last 24 hrs. They've all had prior warnings and are all aware of the policies; as it's escalating again, I have blocked all of Gilisa, Mbz1, and Factsontheground for 12 hours to push the sniping away long enough to start a proper longer term solution serious discussion here. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:56, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am proposing the following interaction ban:

Editors User:Mbz1 and User:Gilisa are collectively and individually banned from interacting with editor User:Factsontheground, and Factsontheground is reciprocally banned from interacting with Mbz1 and Gilisa.

This editing restriction shall include a complete prohibition from comments on the respective user talk pages, filing reports on admin noticeboards, reverting edits on articles, commenting in other venues about the other party, or directly responding to each other's comments on article talk pages. This restriction by itself does not prohibit mutual participation on articles, as long as the editors stay away from each other. The restriction is to be interpreted broadly.

If any of the parties feel that the other party has violated this ban or other Wikipedia policy, and no uninvolved administrator responds to the violation within a reasonable amount of time, they may notify 1 uninvolved administrator of the incident on that administrators' talk page 12 hours after the original perceived infraction, and if that first administrator does not respond by at least acknowledging seeing the report within 24 hrs they may notify a second uninvolved administrator in the same manner, but in no case more than 2 notifications on-wiki. Repeated spurious reports to administrators using this mechanism shall be grounds for blocking for disruption.

This would be logged at the edit restrictions page if enacted by community etc.

Clarification (requested below) - this restriction would be indefinite, until the community choses to revoke it, not fixed duration. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:38, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support as proposer. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:56, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes, that should reduce drama at source and remove any ambiguity about who's the guilty party. Guy (Help!) 22:06, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, with caveat. I believe these editors have been interaction banned for short periods before, and while it seemed to help cool things down, I also seem to remember one or more (minor) violations of those interaction bans. I support an interaction ban, but I'd like to see it given some teeth, and strongly enforced. ← George ^talk 22:09, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Question: It isn't clear what you mean by "This restriction by itself does not prohibit mutual participation on articles, as long as the editors stay away from each other." Mutual participation is likely to lead to two editors modifying one another's contributions, isn't it? How, then, could two editors mutually edit an article and stay away from one another? Could you clarify? — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 22:13, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If they non-constructively modify each others contributions, particularly reverting, then they're in violation and will be blocked. If the community believes that there's no chance that they could possibly be mature enough to handle avoiding that, that they'll necessarily violate it, then the topic bans (and I'd extend it to all of them - they're all at fault to some degree) should be enacted separately alongside this. I want to pose the two questions separately, not in one unified solution, as we have had luck in the past with interaction banning other editors without topic banning them. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:29, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 22:44, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 22:44, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Question: just to clarify, are you proposing that this interaction ban be permanent? I gather so, from your comments on their talk pages, but I think it would be good to specify this above. --Avenue (talk) 23:25, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify - I propose indefinite duration, until the community choses to review and revoke. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:38, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification. -- Avenue (talk) 23:41, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- samj _in^out 23:26, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support as a measure to prevent disruption yet attempt to preserve those edits that are constructive to topics, such as they are. SGGH ^ping! 23:27, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Conditional Reluctant support. I think a permanent interaction ban may not be necessary. I would prefer one that is reviewed after 9 months, say (and expires if not reviewed), but something needs to be done, and this is the best solution proposed yet. -- Avenue (talk) 23:37, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Given the amount of time and energy this trio has been sucking up, this seems more than reasonable. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:10, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• What a mess this group has been generating. Support this proposal. Tony Fox (arf!) 03:27, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Unomi (talk) 04:23, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment This is the second interaction ban that would be imposed on Mbz1, within the last week. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:05, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Another way to look at it is that Mbz1 would be banned from interacting with two other editors, and so would Factsontheground, so they'd be even. Keeping score (however you count it) doesn't seem that helpful to me, though. --Avenue (talk) 08:51, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I'll make myself more plain, seeing you've misread my comment as "keeping score" (perhaps as a result of inadvertantly ignoring the last 4 words in my comment). This appears to be a recent issue with Mbz1 and perhaps had the user been more ready to take a temporary break, it might not have been necessary to impose blocks, and interaction bans (within the space of a week) on the user. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:39, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support as solution most likely to gain broad consensus. Daniel Case (talk) 06:13, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Enough time and effort has been wasted over this silliness. <>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk) 18:02, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question - do we want to topic-ban any or all of these editors from the conflict area, Israeli/Palestinean topics? Proposed as a question, not a proposed edit restriction (at this time). Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:56, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Per my comment above, I'd say yes with regards to FactsOnTheGround, yes with regards to Mbz1. I have no first hand experience with gilisa to say anything about him one way or the other. My Canada (talk) 22:05, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There was another user that I was involved with at ANI who was topic banned from the same topic, for editing on Israeli Zimbabwe relations or something like that. I'll just check its not the same person. SGGH ^ping! 22:11, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, that was User:Gilabrand with whom FOTG appears to be familiar. I think I ran into Mbz when dealing with him too. Not sure if this is called connected, someone more familiar with User:Gilabrand might want to check. SGGH ^ping! 22:12, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Gilabrand is a woman, not a man. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 22:19, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

my bad. SGGH ^ping! 22:20, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose No topic ban for any of them, at present. The problem is not primarily POV editing, but edit-warring. There really is no reason to prevent any of them from contributing to articles in this area, so long as they do so within the normal rules of Wikipedia conduct. RolandR (talk) 22:14, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also opposed to a topic ban at this time. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 22:19, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose -- samj _in^out 23:26, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm opposed for now too, per RolandR. --Avenue (talk) 23:29, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Support I support an indefinite topic ban on any Israel/Palestine related topics for Mbz1. I've witnessed enough over the last few weeks to know her political agenda is certainly not for the good of Wikipedia. She should stick to photography. Vexorg (talk) 04:43, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I would support a topic ban for facts, but not mbz1. I admit to a bias. I believe that mbz1 is the wronged party and I don't see any "justice" in simply throwing up one's arms and saying, "Well we can't decide who's at fault so ban them all." That isn't justice, that is laziness. If you aren't willing to investigate and evaluate the facts in this case (no pun intended) then I don't think you should vote or comment here. I think the interaction ban is a good idea, and one can avoid a topic ban simply by saying whoever was at such-and-such an article first can edit it... the next one to show up can't. Stellarkid (talk) 05:08, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that is very much unclear that mbz1 is the wronged party in this, no one seems able or willing to present evidence to this effect. Unomi (talk) 06:26, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Facts has been stalking Mbz1 purely out of spite. See this childish attack [45] on a featured picture candidate vote. Note that this was the first time Facts commented on a featured picture and of course it doesn't even have any relation to the I-P conflict! This edit clearly shows Facts inappropriate, malicious behavior. Plot Spoiler (talk) 13:45, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Georgewilliamherbert's interaction ban proposal should prevent that type of conduct being a problem, hopefully. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:02, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are agreeing that the misbehavior is that of Facts, and yet you are willing to impose a topic ban on the other user (wronged party) as well? No one is presenting evidence of that because the topic is supposed to be Facts and his misbehavior. How exactly would Mbz1 have invited opposition to her photographs? Misunderstanding, my apologies. Stellarkid (talk) 14:57, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Last comment on this ANI and in my defence: Just wanted to ask Georgewilliamherbert when exactly I was officialy and specifically warnned by admin on I-P issues? The last time ANI was submitted against me, which is also the first, (excluding one I-P relatively recent wikialert case which was resolved with nothing) was about half year ago over edit warring on a totaly different and unrelated artilce. I can't see how from this ANI my name was raised to topic ban and interaction ban. What, because I made too many comments? I realy have no intend to comment on this page again-just asking for an answer. If this comment violating any policy of WP that I'm not aware of, please remove it.--Gilisa (talk) 16:10, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support topic ban on Factsonground. She has more than adequately demonstrated that she is a destructive editor and on topics related to the I-P, she is unable to maintain any pretense of neutrality or civility. At minimum, it is appropriate that she be banned from this subject. Evidence below:

(1) Most recently, she has served a proxy for the banner editor Orijentolog, reinserting his/her edit’s without explanation: [46], [47], [48].

(2) Constantly edit warring. This is completely unconstructive. On the page of Martin Kramer, for example, Facts wantonly violated WP:BLP over and over again: [49], [50]

(3) Lastly, as more than abundantly observed, Facts is incapable of maintaining any sort of basic civility. She constantly violates both WP:Personal attacks and WP:Assume good faith in her accusations that other editors are racist and have an agenda and even worse, that there is a some sort of conspiracy on Wikipedia to persecute self-identified pro-Palestinian editors. As noted below, she also has stalked Mbz1 out of pure spite. Plot Spoiler (talk) 16:32, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support - POV editor who uses every trick in the book to push her agenda and then sics her buddies to gang up on anyone who opposes her. --Geewhiz (talk) 16:51, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Far too much of the !voting in this discussion seems to be from POV warriors backing people on their side of the I/P debate and callign for blocks or topic bands for those on the other. "Geewhiz" for example is User:Gilabrand who not so long ago cluttered the Israeli art student scam article with anti-Palestinian propaganda. The original article had POV problems, but this does suggest that Gila is approaching anything related to Facts, the article's creator, with a battleground attitude. Rather than any precipitate action prompted by the baying and partisan crowd here, it would be better to have things done in a more considered way.--Peter cohen (talk) 20:37, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your question, the article was created by Factsontheground as a POV nightmare, and it had to be completely re-written and moved to a new name to solve the problems with it. Here's a comparison of her version with the post-AfD version:http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Art_student_scam&action=historysubmit&diff=350260171&oldid=348721554

There's almost nothing left of what she wrote. And even then Factsontheground edit-warred over it, e.g.: [51] [52] Plot Spoiler (talk) 00:06, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Agreed for the most part that there is some taking sides going on. I believe topic bans can be avoided for all three. They know they are on a thin line now. I have seen Mbz1 and Gilsa say too much when sitting back and watching would keep it a little cooler. Both neither strikes me as malicious in their intent here. And I don;t consider them the wronging parties in several of these recent disputes. Regarding Factsontheground, she has repeatedly been a handful and still has some inappropriate stuff on her talk page User talk:Factsontheground#Wikipedia is openly racist against Palestinians but some guidance from a few people chiming in on her talk page could keep her straight. Unless she really is retiring, then it doesn't matter. As someone who would like her off the project, I couldn't whole heartedly be for it without a last final really mean it this time warning. Admittedly, part of this is based on seeing two other editors getting blocked but who knows what this last day off cooling off from FotG could bring.Cptnono (talk) 23:17, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've promised myself and others to stay away from unfairness of AN/I, where admins are too busy or too involved to get to the bottom of the conflict, and some regulars like to add the fuel to the fire. I should have followed WP:BAIT, but I did not.
I did not initiate the thread at AN/I. As a matter of fact I have never ever initiated any thread at AN/I about any editor involved in I/P conflict editing. I was not going to comment here at all, but, when not just one, but three different users mentioned me [53]; [54]; [55] I took the bait. I guess I am too weak to ignore those kind of edits, and I need administrative help to stay away from this place please.Here's my new proposal.<bt>

• Support--Mbz1 (talk) 14:59, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment "...feature notice"? LessHeard vanU (talk) 17:41, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose you are proposing to ban yourself from ANI to stop you from coming here? I would think this an overreaction. Firstly, Wikipedia users have the right to come to ANI to give their side when a thread is raised against them, secondly, I am sure you are capable of not coming to ANI if you really don't choose to (Wikipedia is not as important as realife - there must be an essay or policy on that somewhere!) Thirdly, I think you might be reacting without taking time to think this over. SGGH ^ping! 18:06, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Stop Grandstanding - Now you're really being disruptive. You're playing some kind of WP:IDINTHEARTHAT game. I never said you intiated an AN/I discussion, I said other people had and I clarified that above. You conveniently chose to not understand. Whether or not you initiated a discussion here has nothing to do with your participating in the overall disputes. You're playing up this idea that you're somehow a victim here and everyone is just attacking you and baiting you. I have not baited you and do not appreciate you trying to use me as a pawn in this game of yours. This subdiscussion should be archived, however I'll leave it to an admin because if I do it it will be unarchived and will incite more drama from certain quarters. <>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk) 18:12, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Withdrawn I see you'd be bored without me ;) Sorry.--Mbz1 (talk) 00:10, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Support - It's clear Mbz1 is not only on Wikipedia to promote a political cause but is also a serial disruptive attention seeker. For weeks now it's been 'The Mbz1 Show' - Can't people see MBz1 is playing childish games with Wikipedia here and is completely wasting the time of the administrators who have to wade through reams and reamsof this crap. No we wouldn't be 'bored' without you we'd be glad to see the back of you Vexorg (talk) 02:43, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are we getting to a consensus then? Appears to be some support for interaction ban, little for a topic ban, and I'm disregarding Mbz1's entry above as grandstanding. SGGH ^ping! 23:06, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with User:Cptnono's comment above that there seem to be sides taken here and no real(objective) looking into the problems that the user:Factsontheground has precipitated. This is not an "all sides are equally guilty" situation and I feel that a mere interaction ban does not lay blame where it ought. I believe that at least a short topic ban should be imposed on User:Factsontheground so that she feels admonished for her harassing behavior with respect to User:Mbz1 and her personal attacks on others. Such a ban is not appropriate for Mbz1 as she has mainly reacted to this provocation. An interaction ban to follow, with "ownership" (for lack of a better word) to the editor who can prove she was at the article first. Agree that the above constitutes "grandstanding" and should be ignored. Stellarkid (talk) 23:42, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The big problem you have Stellarkid is that everyone knows your unquestioning support for MBz1 and your ridiculous and tediously repetitive claim that Mbz1 is the one being picked on. And why are you asking for a topic ban as a punishment for some claim of harassment of Mbz1. That doesn't make sense and it's clear you want a topic ban on User:Factsontheground becuase her edits conflict with you and Mbz1's political crusade on Wikipedia. And Mbz1's childish grandstanding above should not be ignored. It's a significant expose of her attention seeking and disruptiveness on Wikipedia. Vexorg (talk) 04:48, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In answer to your question, SGGH, yes, I think there is a consensus that the three editors should be banned from interacting with one another. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:26, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I also believe such an interaction ban would be a good tool going forwards, we have now had 3 ANI's with largely the same pool of editors involved in a matter of as many weeks. I would also suggest, time permitting, that SGGH or another uninvolved admin follows the edits of the discussed editors. Unomi (talk) 02:45, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah and who is the common editor on these ANI's ?? Mbz1 Vexorg (talk) 04:48, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For the third time, Karunyan is trolling and wikihounding me. On March 9th, Karunyan went on a revert spree of my edits in retaliation for one of his edits to the Inuyasha character list being reverted. He then filed a falsified report here after I reverted his continued reverts at this article. It was agreed he was, in fake, wikihounding and administrator EdJohnston asked him to revoke the report and cease the behavior.[56][[57]] Karunyan instead went offline for while, then on march 21st, he returne and began again reverting my edits on the same article from the previous incident, List of The Clique series characters. He reverted five times. During that time, I I left him a note asking him to stop, then left him a 3RR warning noting again that he was warned to stop this and that I knew he did not really care about the wording, so much as he was reverting just to revert. He later removed that note claiming "I DO care NOW!!!"[58], which I take to mean he cares only because its a way to continue his reverting. I also filed a Edit warring report, which resulted in both of us being blocked by User:Sandstein, myself for 48 hours, him for 72.[59]

I made an unblock request on my user page, explaining the previous history again, and there was heavy disagreement from several users over my being blocked in this matter. User:Jéské Couriano reviewed my unblock request and lifted the block a little over 12 hours later.[60]. Karunyan's block has expired, and his first edits were to once again begin trolling and reverting the Blood+ character list (which another editor had reverted back to the pre-edit war state), with a summary of "not trolling anymore"[61], He also is now going around and doing the same to Jack Merridew's edits, who was the one who restored the Blood+ list, including doing one with a summary of "Using a troll puppet to deal with a troll, huh? Admirable.."[62][63] I reverted his edit to Blood+ once (and will not do so again until this is dealt with), and he restored it stating "I have repented from my errant ways and no longer click the "contribs" link; but I do watch pages that I edit."[64] However before this, he never edited that or any of the other pages he hit. He is also now going back and randomly reverting other edits I've done on the InuYasha character list, where this apparently all started[65]

I have left notes with JC and ,[66] two admins involved in the discussion of my unblock, but neither are online right now, and this guy seems determined to just continued this disruptive behavior. So please, someone deal with this guy! -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 14:32, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I left the appropriate ANI notice on his talk page, but he removed it with a summary of "Don't care; you're welcome"[67] -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 14:38, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Account blocked for 1 week by Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) for 3RR violations - whether this relates to this matter, I do not know. Anyhoo, this gives you time to contact the previously involved admins (and Cml,I'mtC). LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:15, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I unblocked Collectonian. Not sure what that was about. From looking through everything, there was absolutely no reason to block her. --Smashville^talk 18:48, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Blocking Collectonian was unacceptable. Karunyan is clearly the one causing the problems here, and I actually think Karunyan should be blocked indefinitely until a promise to stop this edit warring can be extracted. Then, if he breaks the promise, the block can be reinstated permanently. We don't need such disruptive individuals "helping out" here. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 18:56, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There may be more here - jpgordon rejected the unblock request; in his decline he indicates Karunyan's been socking. —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Dittobori)} 19:49, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That would be Kagome1977 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) —DoRD (talk) 20:35, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Whoa, seriously??? I never even suspected they were the same. I know the Kagome editor has had a few other accounts (under claims they keep losing their password)....-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 20:57, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: Kagome1977 is now editing under the IP 59.92.120.74 (talk).[68][69][70] —Farix (t | c) 00:42, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further Note: Above IP blocked, he's now moved on to 59.92.114.224 (talk) as seen here [71]. Dayewalker (talk) 01:08, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is getting ridiculous. I've blocked 59.92.112.0/20 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) for one week and reset the block on the main account. Haven't looked at this in more detail yet w/r/t the indef suggestion. Tim Song (talk) 02:20, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Given the socking, I'd say indef him. —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Dittobori)} 02:36, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree; the type of socking here warrants it. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:52, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• indef Karunyan and any further socks and block any IPs he's using for a month. Stop feeding this troll. Sincerely, Jack Merridew 17:55, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kagome1977 appears to be on a new IP range, 117.97.177.126 (talk)[72][73]. While I certainly am not inclined to defend them with this behavior, I am curious as to what lead to the connection between Karunyan and Kagome1977, as there doesn't appear to be any SPI report on it (which could also be used to record these IPs)? -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 03:24, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from WP:AN

67.216.243.127 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) keeps on inserting File:Zrocrack.jpg into Z-Ro, even though he has been told that this is unacceptable. He has also been resorting to uncivil edit summaries. Please intervene. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:39, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A bit stale now, but he did receive a warning for the personal attack: [74]. I think if he continues with the personal attacks or edit warring to insert the NFCC-violating content, a short block may be in order. –xeno^talk 14:50, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Warned user. Report the IP to WP:AIV if the disruption continues. -FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 03:12, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

 – Will monitor. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:18, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from WP:AN

ElEditordeWiki (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfa · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · socks)

This user made some controversial edits in es:wiki today. He along with his IP 24.201.16.139 (talk · contribs) removed or changed information in several articles based solely on his personal opinion and POV of history. I've noticed that he is a native user of en:wiki, according to SUL and apparently he made similar POV-biased edits here. Please, review this user and his edits. Thank you. KveD (talk) 15:20, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've noticed that this user was warned in en:wiki before about POV pushing, but he deleted the warnings. See: [75] [76]. KveD (talk) 19:02, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If I understand you correctly, you are saying that this same user has gotten in some trouble at the Spanish Wikipedia, so we should review all his contribs here? I don't think that's too likely to be done. If you would care to comb through his contributions and identify any problems you find, you are of course free to do so, but you should try discussing the matter with the user before asking for action here. You should also have informed them of this report, as the edit notice that opens every time you edit this page says quite clearly. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:22, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Another way of looking at it is that Kved is trying to help out by warning us of a potential problem. ElEditordeWiki's edits do appear somewhat problematic. I've left them a message, and will try to monitor for a while. I don't think any other action is needed at this time, so marking resolved. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:18, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

 – Edson Rosa (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) blocked for 1 week. -FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 03:07, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from WP:AN

Edson Rosa (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfa · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · socks confirmedsuspected)

This user is consistently uploading images without proper information. All attempts to engage user in discussion have failed as the person refuses to use talk pages at all (in the past 500 edits, the only 3 edits to any talk pages were to move the talk pages). I request a block until this person is willing to talk about such edits/uploads (blocks are corrective in nature, not punitive). — BQZip01 — ^talk 15:02, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, this user has been very busy uploading material. Some random clicking through their contribs shows numerous blatant copyright infringements (e.g. company logos marked as self-made). Previous blocks (24 and 72 hours) have done nothing to help here. I agree that a block is unfortunately necessary here until the user agrees to help us out with the copyright issues. Blocked for 1 week. Papa November (talk) 15:54, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

 – No further administrative action necessary; apparently Off2riorob has not done anything wrong. If you have a problem with sources, consider making a report at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. -FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 03:09, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Off2riorob (talk · contribs) continues to revert my edits without explaining why on the talk page. This is the second time I have posted about this. Can somebody just block him already?--Sinistrial (talk) 21:21, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Unlikely, because he's right. Posting contentious information on a BLP and referencing it only to foreign-language sources - in one case a video - without providing quotes with English translation goes against both WP:BLP and WP:V. Black Kite 21:31, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't notified the other editor about this discussion as you are required to do, so I have done it for you. —DoRD (talk) 21:33, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An English translation was provided, but nobody said anything about quotes.--Sinistrial (talk) 21:35, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You can't just post contentious information by providing a link to a foreign-language video. "When quoting a source in a different language, provide both the original-language quotation and an English translation, in the text or in a footnote. Translations published by reliable sources are preferred over translations by Wikipedians.". Frankly, if you post it again, there's only one person that's going to be blocked here. Black Kite 21:42, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How the hell am I suppose add content if this same user refuses to give me details on the problem with it but keeps hitting REVERT REVERT REVERT anyway?--Sinistrial (talk) 21:37, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Even if I did provide translations and quotes, this user would still revert anyway because he won't say what's is wrong with the source.--Sinistrial (talk) 21:47, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If anyone wants the utube link to see how poor it is I will link it for them. This is the second thread this single purpose IP account has opened here about this, he is refusing to listen to multiple editors and is repeatedly reinserting contentious poorly cited content to the article of a living person, he has no support at all from anybody, imo it is time he was restricted. Off2riorob (talk)

(edit conflict) This was all explained to you the last time you brought it here. —DoRD (talk) 21:41, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple editors? Who? Only you are the one who refuses to explain why this isn't a reliable source, but just keeps reverting anyway.--Sinistrial (talk) 21:42, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Try posting at the reliable sources noticeboard -- maybe they'll validate the use of the documentary. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:52, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Looks to me like this has been thoroughly explained via Talk:Marina Orlova, the previous ANI discussion, and in edit summaries. Please stop pretending otherwise. —DoRD (talk) 21:55, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Eh, its not really a documentary. Its a Russian Entertainment Tonight type show. There has been discussion on the talk page, but no consensus that this contentious material is well supported enough to be added. Off2Rob seems to be reverting Sinistrial based on those discussions. I don't know when "3RR" kicks in exactly here, but they've gone back and forth a few times rapidly in the last few hours.--Milowent (talk) 21:59, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Off2riorob does not want to discuss it because he knows it belongs in the article in some form or another. He refuses to show how the source is unreliable. So no, this is not resolved.--Sinistrial (talk) 23:28, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can some editors take a look at the Africa article at the arguement on the talk page please? I believe there is a quite a severe lack of WP:NPOV on the article. Personal views amongst some of its editors is getting in the way of NPOV. I'm interested to get users unassociated with the article involved. Yattum (talk) 07:09, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is a content dispute about the caption of a map. The Africa article has just been locked. Yattum (talk · contribs) is being disruptive by forum shopping at two other noticeboards. [77][78] Mathsci (talk) 07:44, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is not disruptive to attempt to gain attention to the article on relevant noticeboards. As I explained I was seeking editors who are unassociated with the article for their input. You comment was bad faith. Yattum (talk) 07:52, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry, but you're wrong there. Forum shopping is frowned upon. Mathsci (talk) 13:30, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

• AfD for a deleted article that is still open. Erpert (let's talk about it) 07:40, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Heaqwe (talk · contribs)

Whether or not they are a sockpuppet of Serafin, they should be blocked permanently for

• nationalist comments on their user page [79]:
  • I beleave you Germans are suprised that evrybody dislike you.
  • German character which of course is known best in Poland. This is the main reason I opose the bargan/manipulation. The bourder is on Oder and Nyse do not allow one foot step over it - it will be the same like many times before. They will keep the foot arogantly and atempt to put second at nearest occasion.
  • chauvinistic German attempts it cannot be allowed. And you help them pretending that you a Polish. 4) As you perfectly know Silesians were originally a Slavic tribe and were part as well as creators of Polish nation. I think you and Germans should be ashamed after what II WW cost Polish nation to attempt steel what historically belong to Polish heritage
  • This is propaganda of German separatists who call themself often Silesians.
  • Krasicki was a Germanized Pole – in my perception a snake.
  • Germans!!!!! Stop insolting Dzierzon as he dislike you.
• similar comments on their talk page [80]
• and contribs focussing exclusively on WP:THE TRUTH about the nationality/ethnicity of a bee keeper.

User is notified of this thread. Skäpperöd (talk) 09:09, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Content removed per WP:USER#NOT and WP:SOAP. Only question remaining is, "Is man descended from angels or apirists?" LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:58, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - yes, this user seems pretty intent on pushing some irrelevant and unsupported nationalist views, though I don't see that the actions of his German counterpart (who does much the same thing in the other direction, but has learned to be a little more subtle with his conversational style) are any better. I would like to see all those who have been using this innocent biographical article as a nationalist battleground to be compelled to stay away from it, and from similar topics.--Kotniski (talk) 13:15, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

From Heaqwe's userpage, I thought his opponent was you, but from the article's edit history, I guess "German counterpart" refers to Matthead? If you are certain about Matthead likewise "pushing some irrelevant and unsupported nationalist views", then please provide evidence, as this is a pretty strong claim to make without supporting diffs. That aside, I agree with you that prejudist POV pushers who are sophisticated enough to game the wiki-bureaucracy are a WP:PLAGUE, but that won't be solved on this board.

What can be solved here is to at least block the openly nationalist accounts. And maybe have a Serafin expert comment, since Serafin abused the article ever since, and has used similar account names earlier? Regarding the underlying ethnicity dispute, I agree that the article is in bad need for outside input, this seems to be going on ever since too, involving Serafin, the EEML and several other sanctioned users. Best Skäpperöd (talk) 14:29, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of things, firstly, we don't block accounts for having nationalist views - we block them should their nationalist viewpoints become disruptive to the general project (but not because they offend the sensibilities of other nationalistic viewpoints), and, secondly, the issue of disputes regarding East European articles is covered by WP:DIGWUREN and other ArbCom related decisions, so these should be taken to Arbitration Enforcement. Finally, there appears to be an ongoing SPI case, so perhaps that should be concluded before other concerns are investigated. As far as I am concerned, I removed the soapboxing on the accounts userpage per policy; there are other avenues for dispute resolution. LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:06, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am not aware of any ongoing SPI case, just of the "suspected Serafin sock"-tag on Heaqwe's user page (and from the article's edit history, and the account's name and behaviour that makes sense, but I am not a CU). If you could link the respective SPI that would be great and render this thread moot.

I agree that in theory, nationalism alone does not make an account disruptive. In practice, the nationalists who register accounts here do so not because they want to edit funghi taxonomy. Heaqwe is an openly Polish and anti-German nationalist solely editing a German-Polish ethnicity dispute and judging the editors by nationality and not by strength of argument. That is disruptive, reasonable discussions are not possible on that basis. Skäpperöd (talk) 16:25, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The "soapboxing" was just a discussion between me and him (we just happened to have it on his user page rather than the talk page). A similarly unproductive attempt took place between Matthead and me at my talk page (User talk:Kotniski#no real doubt). Other than that, it's been Heaqwe and Matthead alternately making edits to push their respective lines (only Poles can be natives of Silesia vs. there were no Poles when there was no Polish state), and me and one or two others trying to curb their excesses. Last time I looked the article seemed OK (there isn't any underlying reason why it should be controversial), so maybe the problem would be solved, as Skap suggests, by having a few sensible editors with their eyes on the page.--Kotniski (talk) 15:34, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

From the edit history, it seems that the dispute goes back at least to 2007 (I did not look it up any further). You said "last time I looked the article seemed OK" - does that mean that there actually is a revision that has the consent of all involved editors (excluding Heaqwe)? Skäpperöd (talk) 16:25, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, possibly excluding Matthead as well, I'm not aware of anyone who has a problem with the current version of that page.--Kotniski (talk) 16:35, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Serafin apparently has worn out all admins, as noone seems to be willing to look after the Dzierzon article anymore. On the other hand, Polish editors often find an admin willing to block me. As for the article, it's current state and title is a shame. It is WP:UNDUE to start the intro with "was a Pole from Silesia." It's like opening a bio on Abraham Lincoln with "was an Illinoisian from Kentucky. He became a Republican politician and a distinguished president." How childish is that? Apparently, Serafin/Heaqwe, veteran edit warrior Space Cadet and Kotniski like it - no wonder, as it starts with "Pole", which is their highest priority. BTW, I've just expanded the German article with some Polish sources (mis-)quoting him in German, and with a link to a pic of the tombstone of "Johann Dzierzon", with the Polish plate added in 1966(!) pronouncing "Jan Dzierżon" an "ardent patriot and defender of Polish Silesia". P.S. did you know that in 2003, Jan Dzierzon had been a vice-voivode in Opole Voivodeship[81], until a media campaign had forced him to resign? [82] [83] The problem for the Poles was that Dzierzon represents the German minority there. -- Matthead  Discuß   04:16, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm raising this here as it's a bit outside my area of knowledge, and to try and centralise discussion. Three editors have contacted me over the last couple of days concerning an issue with articles about places in Romania which have a different name in Hungarian.

The first contact I had was from Umumu (talk · contribs), who wrote:- Hello

I would like you to ask you to express your opinion about the format that should be used for the localities from Romania where Hungarian has co-official status (where at least 20% of the population speaks Hungarian)

Variant 1. Romanian_Name (Hungarian: Hungarian_Name)

Variant 2. Romanian_Name or Hungarian_Name (Romanian: Romanian_Name; Hungarian: Hungarian_Name)

Variant 3. Romanian_Name(Romanian) or Hungarian_Name(Hungarian)

There are used different formats on different articles and I think it should exist a standard format used for all of them

Thanks in advance for your answer. Umumu (talk) 11:10, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My reply on Umumu's talk page was:-

I'd say that if the location is in Romania, the Romanian name should occur first, with the Hungarian name second (option 1). Similar to how the name of the Dutch city of Leeuwarden is treated in that article. The city is in the Netherlands, so its Dutch name is given and is the article title. It is the capital of the province of Friesland, so its name in Stadtsfries (a dialect) and West Frisian (a recognised provincial language) are also given. Mjroots (talk) 11:20, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Iadrian later contacted me with this message:-

Hello, i am contacting you to try to resolve a certain problem with Hungarian names in Romania. In Romania official language is Romanian therefore names of the certain towns etc should be in Romanian and then in brackets in other language names. I think that is the standard wiki policy, please, correct me if i am wrong. Now some users are trying to change this, ex [here]. Can you please help me to solve this problem? Thank you in advance. iadrian (talk) 16:19, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't reply as for much of last evening I couldn't access any Wikipedia website due to getting an "unable to contact server" message until about 21:30 UTC. This morning, Rokarudi (talk · contribs) posted another message on my talk page.:-

I can only repeat myself. Please look at the compromise reached many years ago on this subject(see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Odorheiu_Secuiesc)

It was clearly agreed that >20%, Hungarian names should be bolded and put into the infobox, too. Everywhere else in Transylvania, even if the Hungarian population is less than 20%, Hungarian placename should be in brackets.

Please also study the recent opinion on this issue of neutral and undoubtedly impartial editors here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:S%C4%83rma%C5%9Fu

Please stop wikihounding and vandalizing hundreds of articles.

Kind regards:User:Rokarudi Rokarudi 09:02, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thus it would seem that there is a dispute about the inclusion or otherwise of the Hungarian name for a place in an article about a place in Romania. This has the potential to develop into an edit war, with the inevitable results of blocks, topic bans etc. In an effort to avert this, it seems that a centralised location for a discussion would be in order. If anyone feels that there is a better location, please feel free to copy this post over to the new venue. My personal view is that if the infobox has a space for an alternative name, then that name should be added, with the necessary annotation as to the language. Both should also be mentioned in the lede, per the example of Leeuwarden that I used in my original reply to Umumu. I will notify Umumu, Iadrian and Rokarudi of this post. Mjroots (talk) 09:27, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We never denied the necessity of including the Hungarian names too. It would be ridiculous to ask something like that for localities with absolute Hungarian majority

We just want to respect the standard naming policy WP:PLACE, Foreign language names and first sentence usage rule (Umumu (talk) 09:37, 25 March 2010 (UTC))[reply]

All three now notified. Mjroots (talk) 09:39, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your help with this matter. I never said that Hungarian names should not be present, just not in the form Rokarudi is presenting it, as we can see the changes i made on some of the articles, i am just for respecting the standard naming polocy, since in Transilvania Hungarian language has no legal status and no form of autonomy we should use the standard form EX: Satu Mare (Hungarian: ------; etc)... like explained on WP:PLACE and here iadrian (talk) 09:45, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To be precise, form 1 Variant 1. Romanian_Name (Hungarian: Hungarian_Name) , as standard wiki policy implies. Yes, this example is OK. iadrian (talk) 09:47, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

From the Romanian Constitution: http://www.cdep.ro/pls/dic/site.page?den=act2_2&par1=1#t1c0s0a13 "In Romania, the official language is Romanian". Also, According to Local Public Administration Bill (promulgated in 2001): "Where over 20 of the population is of an ethnic minority, all documents of a legal character will be published in the ethnic minorities' mother tongue.". My opinion is that Hungarian names should be listed before for example German names, but still in parantheses, in Italics: Romanian_Name (Hungarian: Hungarian_Name, German: German_Name) (Umumu (talk) 09:52, 25 March 2010 (UTC))[reply]

If there is more than one foreign language (non-Romanian) name, the order should be by size of minority, so if there's a large German minority than Hungarian, then the German name should come first, and vice versa. Mjroots (talk) 10:02, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's exactly what we think. But it looks messy to make such lead sections:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frumoasa,_Harghita (Umumu (talk) 10:08, 25 March 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Yes, in this case, the Hungarian minority, the first other language names should be in Hungarian and then in German , etc.. iadrian (talk) 10:11, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, with this example here, The villages should not have Hungarian names in this form. On the page about that particular village other language names can be present (Hungarian) but not in every instance this location is mentioned, since we should use the official names only when talking about that location/village. EX: 

• Bârzava/Csíkborzsova
• Făgeţel/Bükklok
• Frumoasa/Szépvíz
• Nicoleşti/Csíkszentmiklós

iadrian (talk) 10:17, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What we speak about is not a simple discussuion on proper editing, but are facing:

1) Sockpuppetry by User:Iadrian yu, User:Dicocodino and User:Umumu as sockpupets of recently blocked editor Iaaasi, 2.) Act of large-scale vandalism, deleting long established and accepted content, 3.) Challenging accepted practices confirmed by a compromise in the very delicate subject of placenaming in Transylvania.

I must remind everyone, who is not very familiar, with the topic, that in 2007 there was a long discussion here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Odorheiu_Secuiesc

The status quo ante discussion was this:

Romanian titles, Romanian and Hungarian names in the infobox (if ≥20), Romanian names in bold and Hungarian ones (for anywhere in Transylvania, even if <20%) in italics, and also German names if applicable.

In the compromise Hungarians resigned of trying to move article titles of places with Hungarian majority to the Hungarian name, while Romanian accepted that Hungarian placenames will be bolded whenever the Hungarian population >20%.

The established format was:

Odorheiu Secuiesc or Székelyudvarhely (Romanian: Odorheiu Secuiesc, Hungarian: Székelyudvarhely, German: Oderhellen) is…

--Rokarudi 12:23, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Rokarudi i ask you again to be CIVIL and respect the WP:CIV. Don`t avoid the discusson by your accusations. The discusson you are talking about is no standard naming policy and the format you personally try to implement over the official wiki policy is against the rules. iadrian (talk) 12:32, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here we talk about wikipedia rules, not about individual opinions expressed by specific editors 3 years ago. We ask only to apply wiki policies, namely WP:PLACE, Foreign language names and first sentence usage rule (Umumu (talk) 12:30, 25 March 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Rokarudi, if you have evidence of sockpuppetry, then WP:SPI is the place to head to. I'll remind all parties, this is the Admin's Noticeboard. You can be sure that a number of admins are keeping a weather eye on this situation and those involved. I facilitated this discussion in order that consensus could be gained on the issue, and to keep the discussion in a centralised place. Those who hold the view which does not gain consensus would do well to acknowledge the fact and let the issue lie. Edit warring over this will lead to administrative action being taken. I'm sure all involved would rather that didn't happen if at all avoidable. Mjroots (talk) 13:01, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The main issue here is really not proving sockpuppetry. What I know is this: there was an order how to represent these particular placenames for more than 3 years, and the above mentioned editors neglected it by systematically editing more than 100 articles according to their ideas against consensus. Under changing names, they go around wiki and try to get a favourable opinion from good faith editors . When they fail to do so, they go to the next one: First, User:Dicocodino failed to get what he wanted one here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Editor_assistance/Requests, Then User:Umumu was not given the expected answer here: http://en.Wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:AlexiusHoratius#Question Now, User:Iadrian yu has put up the same question here (to delete bolded alternative names). --Rokarudi 13:50, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I sent this question to many admins and there was no expected answer. I asked them to choose which is the most appropriate format and I got 2 answers: one is the one you listed, and the second (from User:Mjroots) was that Romanian_Name (Hungarian: Hungarian_Name) is the best format)(Umumu (talk) 14:01, 25 March 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Rokarudi, I don`t understand what that has to do with official wiki rules? If we take a look at that "order" you are talking about, there is also clear that the "order" is not like you are implementing it, also we can see that it is a clear violation of the WP:PLACE and First sentence usage. Rokarudi, i ask you again to be Civil and to stop with your attempts/accusations to discredit me. You don`t see me accusing you of anything even if you are avoiding this matter to discuss until now, i hope. I don`t see a point repeating myself anymore because you are ignoring me as you ignore the WP:PLACE policy. I have explained everything in my previous posts here. Stop inventing a custom policy for Hungarian names in Romania.iadrian (talk) 14:07, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ANI isn't the right place for a centralized discussion of something like this. It's for user conduct issues. If there's not clear enough consensus on the naming issue, use a content RFC. This is basically a miniature Balkan-like nationalistic dispute. And the Romanian constitution certainly isn't the final arbiter of such questions, given that some parts of Romania are basically 100% Hungarian and would be happy to break away and join Hungary, and wouldn't consider the .ro government to speak for them. Under NPOV the question might only be resolvable with a careful study and weighing of all available sources. Gdánzig anyone? ;) 66.127.52.47 (talk) 00:16, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As I stated, if anyone knows of a better venue feel free to move the discussion. Edit warring is a user conduct issue. In this case, I feel that prevention is better than cure - i.e. if we can prevent an edit war breaking out then it is better for all than admins wielding banhammers. Mjroots (talk) 01:39, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Misusing AFD page for personal attacks and unrelated personal "disputes" after several explanations and warnings. I think she has reached a limit that warrants a strong warning or even a short block if that is what it takes to stop the disruption. User is currently also discussed at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts# user:Zlykinskyja. Repeated violations of civility in edit summaries and talk pages (conserning Murder of Meredith Kercher but stale right now. The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 20:29, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I kindly tried to ask her to refrain from assuming bad faith, here, but she first shifted the topic here and, then, one minute later, she erased all, as can be seen here. Salvio giuliano (talk) 20:50, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that Zlykinskyja seems to be assuming bad faith in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Delayed grief and is making a lot of accusations against Magnificent Clean-keeper for things like alleged "wikihounding". I raised concerns about Zlykinskyja's previous personal attacks on me in the Wikiquette discussion mentioned above. I am concerned that, in response, she seemed extremely reluctant to take responsibility for her actions and instead suggested that the remedy for the problem would be some sort of mediation. She received some good advice from independent editors, there, but does not seem to be taking note of it. However, I'm not an independent editor: I have disagreed with a lot of her edits in the Murder of Meredith Kercher article and, as mentioned, have been on the receiving end of a lot her personal attacks. Bluewave (talk) 22:13, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This latest attack against me by The Magnificent Clean-Keeper comes after a few days ago when he and Salvio Giuliano agreed that they would start using "vinegar" against me after I failed to respond to their "honey". What this "honey" has actually been involves a long pattern of harassment and hostility against me by The Magnificent Clean-Keeper. He has recently engaged in trying to instigate incidents by WikiHounding me --following me to other articles. This is against Wikipedia policy. He has also made the threat to "get rough" with me. He used profanity against me, although he would know that most women would be offended by the "F" word. He refers to my comments as "B.S." or rants. Most annoyingly, he has engaged in a pattern of repeatedly deleting my work, over and over in a most unreasonable manner, trying to instigate an edit war. I feel that he should be sanctioned for harassing me and WikiHounding me. Under WikiHounding policies, it is considered harassment to follow someone to another article to interfere with another editor's enjoyment of editing. That he has certainly done to me on the Linda Carty article, and now in another manner on the new Delayed Grief article. I feel that he is trying to instigate and provoke disputes, intimidate me and bully me from participating in writing on this website. He has the support of some biased allies, including Bluewave and Salvio Giuliano, who support him in his efforts to cause difficulty for me in having my edits included on the Murder of Meredith Kercher article. I did report this on ANI several days ago, but the report was ignored. I hope that ANI will provide me with some assistance so that I can participate in Wikipedia without feeling intimidated by him and the allies who support such wrongful conduct. I have said that this started as a content dispute on the Murder of Meredith Kercher article, but he is now trying to make it personal and extending things beyond that one article. He has made it clear for a while now that his intention is to get me banned or blocked as a form of intimidation in connection with the editing disputes on the Murder of Meredith Kercher article. Zlykinskyja (talk) 22:36, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And again, like she did at Wikiquette, she keeps on accusing me and other editors w/o any diff's to proof. What she is basically doing is making accusations to try to turn the sword against me (while doing quite the opposite at the Murder of Meredith Kercher's article). Although the latter seems somehow funny, It is not to me. I was hoping for some minor difference to her usual response but I guess I expected to much as she just replied with the same old unfounded accusations like she has it still saved in her mouse. I would like to remind everybody, that this thread that I started is about Zlykinskyja's behavior problems, not mine, and I told her on several occasions that if she has a complain against me she can file one at several available boards, including here at ANI but instead, her preference still lays in engaging in unfounded complains and incivility on her talk page (where she constantly deletes and changes headings although only the ones that doesn't suit her well) and elsewhere.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 23:16, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I did raise this issue at ANI a few days ago, as a comment in a complaint someone else filed against The Magnificent Clean-Keeper, but my issues apparently were overlooked. I am not someone who goes around filing complaints about people and trying to intimidate people, as he does. I have never filed an official complaint against anyone. But looking at the official ANI records, his name comes up as someone who seems to go after people a lot. Well, that isn't my style. I tried to raise the issue as a comment on ANI, but the information was overlooked, and then things with him only got worse. But I do think his conduct which is provoking my distress should be considered. If you look at the article deletion page he refers to, I was trying to raise the same issues I tried to raise previously on the ANI in the complaint that was promptly closed. His behavior is a problem, a BIG problem for me. Zlykinskyja (talk) 23:25, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Let me help you out. This was the "incident" that was closed rather quickly and for good reasons. If you have a complain, file it or leave it.

This was the ONLY incident I ever filed at here (and it was about you under your old user name).

I'm not aware of ANI other report I filed regarding you or any one else. Any diff's to proof me wrong? Guess not as always. So proof it or loose it.

And stop trying to make this thread about me and respond to your conduct which is in question here.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 23:47, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• BTW. About the ANI thread you mentoned and commented on: If you jump on a wagon make sure it goes in your direction.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 23:55, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Then why does your name come up 28 times in the ANI records when I put your name in? You seem to have been in a lot of these types of disputes, even if someone else filed the complaint. Your name must be popping up a big number of times in the official records for a reason. Zlykinskyja (talk) 00:06, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Put an admin's name in the search box and you'll get plenty of hits too. Can you please start making sense and respond to the thread or just stop commenting like this and waste editors time as their time is at least as valuable as yours (and they don't have a SPA-account [single-purpose account] like you) but don't complain about it as you constantly do?The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 00:24, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[ He moved my Comment out of time sequence] So that is what you meant when you said you were going back to the "old type of editor that no one would want to see", and that you intend to "get rough" with me? You intend to very agressively go after me, swear at me, WikiHound me, post on my Talk page over and over even though I pleaded with you to leave me alone, over and over I asked you to please leave me alone. But you just won't do that. It is not acceptable conduct. As I told you, I am taking care of an extremely ill family member. I just can't put up with your horrible conduct towards me while I am under a lot of stress and have to put the care of a terminally ill person first and foremost. But you just continue on and on stalking me. I have asked you over and over and over and over to please leave me alone. Zlykinskyja (talk) 00:21, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I'll not respond further to your accusations. Talk to my hand.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 00:28, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am confused. Are you now saying that you are an administrator on Wikipedia? Zlykinskyja (talk) 00:30, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a link to a Talk page discussion in which he tried to provoke a distressed response from me by: 1) following me to a new article in which he had never been involved; 2) deleting a large number of my edits without justification; 3) then deleting more of my work without justification; 4) posting helpful hints on my Talk page without acknowledging that he had just deleted most of my work; 5) thereby prompting my distressed response to his continuing pattern of deleting my work, while he deceptively looks like he is just trying to post helpful suggestions on my Talk page; 6) then linking the incident that he intentionally schemed and provoked to a discussion page (about my supposed lack of civilty towards him) on the Wikette page, and falsely using the incident to claim continuing uncivility by me. This is just one example of the nonsense I have to put up with, and why it is unreasonable to demand that I continue to assume "good faith" when dealing with him. [84] Zlykinskyja (talk) 01:02, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Further comment (having had time to think carefully about why I'm contributing to this). My perception (just one person's point of view, of course) is as follows. Zlykinskyja's main interest in Wikipedia has been the Murder of Meredith Kercher and it is clear that she has passionate views about the subject. I think other editors actually respect this and have shown Z quite a lot of tolerance, though she probably wouldn't believe me. The article itself is quite controversial and Z herself has a history of making controversial and tendentious edits. A good example would be a recent case where there was some discussion, and an apparent consensus on the talk page, about a rewrite of a section of the article.[85] Although, Z did not contribute to the debate, she set about making some 20 edits to the text as soon as it was in place in the article. When her edits were reverted, she immediately started making personal attacks on the editors concerned, including labelling me as an "anti-Knox" editor.[86] So this is a good example of unwillingness to participate in creating a consensus, making controversial edits and then making personal attacks on people who disagree with Z. When I suggested that she raise her concerns on the talk page, so that they can be discussed, she responded by saying "take the material that I tried to include as my comment": in other words she tends to push the debate out of the talk page and into article space, where it turns into an edit war.[87] Magnificent Clean-keeper raised the issue of Z's conduct at the Wikiquette noticeboard. I thought that this might lead to some advice from an uninvolved editor and I raised my concerns there too. It did indeed lead to some good advice but there was a great reluctance by Z to accept that she is responsible for incivility that others find quite unpleasant. From Z's contributions to the AFD and recent edits to the Kercher article, I don't think she has taken on board the guidance that has been given. Hence, I think there is the need for someone who has the power of sanctions to examine the case. Bluewave (talk) 12:50, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bluewave's comment discusses an incident which reflects the ongoing problems over the content of the Murder of Meredith Kercher article. There has indeed been a big problem on the article in terms of having both sides of the story included, BLP respected, and NPOV achieved. This is why I had suggested mediation, but it seems that there has recently been an attempt to make things "personal" so that the conflict now looks like interpersonal disputes, when the underlying dispute has been over the content of the article. (I do not think that is the case with The Magnificent Clean-Keeper any longer though. I think he has an anger towards me that has become personal and that his intention now is to give me a very hard time and ultimately to get me banned or blocked.) In terms of the content dispute, the problem is that most of the editors edit in a consistent pattern that can be described as the "pro-prosecution/anti-Knox/pro-guilt" side of the story. In terms of the "other" side of the story, which can be described as "pro-Knox/anti-prosecution/pro-innocence" side, it is primarily just me. Another poster named Wikid77 sometimes edits on that side as well, but sometimes edits on the other side too. He does not seem to contribute on a regular basis any longer due to the disputes. Because it is often just me up against Bluewave, Salvio Giuliano, The Magnificent Clean-Keeper and a few others on the other side of the case, I have been given a very difficult time and my work is often deleted or challenged and then deleted. But BOTH sides of the story need to be included in order for NPOV to be achieved and BLP to be respected. The defendants in the murder case are still "presumed innocent" until the judicial process is completed and their guilt or innocence finally determined, which will take a few years. In the meantime, both BLP and NPOV require that BOTH sides of the story be included--which means that information both as to their possible guilt and as to their possible innocence should be included. But most of the editors will allow only information tending to show their guilt to be included. So we have a struggle as to including both sides of the story, achieving NPOV and complying with BLP. But for Bluewave or any other editor to say that this dispute is all my fault is not truthful or sincere, since my struggles are to try to include the information which they do not want in the article--which shows the "other" side of the story. Without my lonely struggles to include the "other' side of the story, this article would read like Amanda Knox was a terrible person who sexually assaulted, stabbed, strangled, beat, stabbed and killed her roomate, when none of this has been finally determined. Knox stands innocent until proven guilty and she faces another trial in the Fall in which she could be acquitted. Large numbers of people in the U.S., including public officials and public figures, believe that she has been unjustly accused and never harmed her roommate. Until her guilt or innocence is finally determined, BOTH sides of the story, including the possibility of her innocence should be allowed in the article. It would be helpful if an administrator could help emphasize that NPOV and BLP require that these editors allow BOTH sides of the story in the article, and that they cannot reach a "consensus" to do otherwise. Thank you. Zlykinskyja (talk) 16:50, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, this is not about the content of the article; it's about the way you behave towards all those who don't agree with you; that can be seen on the AFD page, but I can provide tons of diffs if needed. Please, try not to shift the topic, here. Salvio giuliano (talk) 20:42, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment from User:Wikid77 - I have been very busy on other articles (and fixing complex calculations in Template:Convert), but I noticed that User:Zlykinskyja has been warning people of WikiHounding activities. I did not realize, until today, that WP:Wikihounding (formerly called "wikistalking" until 27-Oct-2008) is part of WP:Harrassment and is a formal behavior problem that can quickly result in users being blocked. User:Zlykinskyja has been a part-time user, someone working on relatively few articles, and now working to improve articles on legal topics, such as the convicted Linda Carty. I think the claims of wikihounding are correct, and User:Zlykinskyja is in need of protection, at this point, at least in warning other users to not follow along, not hound, and not revert corrections to the next article being edited. Some users seem to have crossed the line, such as User:The Magnificent Clean-keeper, by twice reverting major improvements/corrections to another hounded article ("Linda Carty"), perhaps at the suggestion of another user to target that article, as a form of collusion in hounding. I'm not sure that any of them knew about policy WP:Wikihounding, but User:Zlykinskyja certainly asked them to stop, multiple times, both on article talk-pages and on their user-talk pages. They can't pretend they haven't been warned. I realize evidence is needed to support my views, so I suggest the history of article "Linda Carty" (the British/American woman on death row in Texas). I finally took time to review the many improved edits made by User:Zlykinskyja, who corrected errors in that WP:BLP article (ranks #2 in Google, with 46,000 hits about Linda Carty), and then added sources, and then expanded the text. However, User:The Magnificent Clean-keeper decided to revert most of the improvements to article "Linda Carty", 2 times, and restored glaring errors, such as Linda Carty charged with "Capital Punishment" which, of course, is a punishment, not a criminal charge. Those erroneous reverts to "Linda Carty" were shocking:

• 1st revert re-adding errors (18:14, 13 March 2010): diff@revision 349650340
• 2nd revert re-adding errors (19:47, 13 March 2010): diff@revision 349666236

I was shocked about anyone wanting to de-correct a WP:BLP article, anyone wanting to re-introduce errors 2x, when User:Zlykinskyja had improved the notable article about this dual-citizen (of interest to both British & American readers) and had described her fate at Mountain View Unit (women's death row), on that very real hillside midway between Houston and Dallas, Texas. Why would someone risk scrambling and hacking such an article, twice, on Wikipedia? Articles about British-American citizens on death row should not be hacked and have errors re-added. So, if perhaps User:Zlykinskyja seems a little upset, please understand the prior massive rescue to a high-profile article on Wikipedia and having to correct problems 3 times, in total, to make Wikipedia seem a better source about such an important legal issue: the execution of a British citizen when capital punishment has been banned in the UK. I advise: tell other users to stop the wikihounding, stop reverting improvements to high-profile articles, and stop submitting frivolous ANI reports about User:Zlykinskyja. The future contributions of User:Zlykinskyja are incalculable to Wikipedia, and I've worked on many thousands of articles, so I think I know whereof I speak. Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter. -Wikid77 (talk) 22:02, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Wikid77. I do feel that I can contribute a lot to Wikipedia in the long run, if only those pushing their own obvious agendas on the Murder of Meredith Kercher article--to present Amanda Knox as guilty of a violent sexual assault and murder--would stop trying to block my participation with these unfair and unethical tactics. These tactics of reporting me on trumped up charges, WikiHounding, intentional provocations, making threats, repeatedly deleting my work over and over and over, are really all aimed at one thing---preventing me from adding the "other side of the story" to the Kercher murder article. The aggressiveness that has been used to try to block and intimidate me from including the "other side of the story" has indeed been shameful. And it needs to come to a stop. Amanda Knox, a young student from Seattle, Washington, is a real person, a living person who is entitled to the protections afforded by the BLP policy on Wikipedia. Yet, there are a few editors who have gone to great lengths to block me from trying to provide some control on the article in terms of defamation. I have had to remove, modify or correct a great deal of information in the article that has been false and defamatory towards her and Raffaele Sollecito and in violation of BLP policy. I have tried to add information that tends to show that she is innocent until proven guilty in a final judicial proceeding, and that no final determination of guilt has yet been made. For this effort, a huge number of hours of my time has been taken up trying to stop these same editors from removing my corrections and edits. Yet, my editing has been in compliance with BLP policy, while some other editors are working against BLP policy. Now they have gone to the next step of aggression by trying these personal attacks to get me blocked or banned. It is not a coincidence that the edits of The Magnificent Clean-Keeper, Salvio Giuliano, and Bluewave and a few others of their group have been virtually ALL tending to show Amanda Knox in as negative and GUILTY a light as possible, and they object to most all my edits adopting a more tolerant view of her---and now they are trying to say these disputes occur because of my "conduct." No, the overriding "conduct" in this situation is that a clique of editors is trying many tactics to block me from participating, so that they can write up Amanda Knox in the article to look as guilty as possible, and that article will be on display for the world to read as she goes for her second trial this Fall. This whole thing, in my opinion, is morally and ethically wrong, and could end up violating the rights of Amanda Knox to be free of defamation and adverse unfounded negative pre-trial publicity, and violates many Wikipedia policies including NPOV and BLP. There should be no such thing as a criminal Trial by Wikipedia. Amanda Knox remains innocent until her judicial proceedings are concluded and her guilt or innocence is finally determined. I respectfully request that these editors be admonished to cease trying to block my participation on the Murder of Meredith Kercher article, and from WikiHounding me to any other article as further intimidation against my participation. Thank you. Zlykinskyja (talk) 00:36, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Trying to bring this discussion back to the subject in hand...namely Zlykinskyja's conduct...I think some of her posts above illustrate very well the points that I was trying to make earlier.

• It appears that Z thinks she is on a mission to insert a particular point of view into the Meredith Kercher article: she says, for example, In terms [of editing] ... the ... "pro-Knox/anti-prosecution/pro-innocence" side, it is primarily just me.
• She assumes bad faith on the part of most other editors: most of the editors edit in a consistent pattern that can be described as the "pro-prosecution/anti-Knox/pro-guilt" side of the story.
• Whenever incivility is mentioned, she cites content disputes as the cause. This suggests that, based on her belief in the bad faith of other editors, she thinks she is justified in being uncivil.
• She assumes consensus will go against her and doesn't accept the need to engage in the consensus process [policies] require that these editors allow BOTH sides of the story in the article, and that they cannot reach a "consensus" to do otherwise.

All these things are driving other editors to despair. Bluewave (talk) 10:34, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not 100% educated on this discussion, but Zlykinskyja, as far as your arguments, I think you might want to read WP:TLDR. Erpert (let's talk about it) 11:46, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Summary: this editor has been assuming bad faith on the part of other users ever since she started editing the MoMK article — a few examples out of many here she immediately assumes censorship, after her edit was reverted; "Now this is really disgusting. Someone, likely FormerIP, has gone and had this article locked so that only certain people can edit the article. That is truly disgusting. The locking of this article was NOT due to any vandalism. It was due to an attempt to block alternative viewpoints. This is the most extreme form of censorship."; claims of defamation; "The bullying and rudeness going on with this article has to stop."; claims of "Conspiring to Obstruct another Editor"; "The rules for this article are more: 1)if it makes Knox look good, it must be deleted; 2)if it makes Knox look bad, it stays."; "But wouldn't something like that be best to do all off-line so the Knox-haters can't trash it?"; "The anti-Knox editors should not be deleting, censoring and blocking contributions by pro-defense editors"; "Efforts by Anti-Knox Editors to Restrict Participation By Pro-defense Editors"; "They have the "consensus" and it does not include US. "They have the "consensus" and it does not include US."; "I guess rather than mediation, Magnificent Clean-Keeper would rather fight. It is all such a waste of time."; do I have to continue? BTW, sorry, if I have been verbose, here ;) — was blocked for sockpuppeting and legally threatened the admin who had blocked her [88], after wikilawyering. She thinks that all those who don't agree with her are wrong, trying to censor her or wikihounding her. The episode of alleged wikihounding took place a week or so ago, but she was lamenting our censorship way before then; she is apparently confusing the correct succession of events.

Here she clarifies her "agenda". Salvio giuliano (talk) 14:23, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see that in response to my sincere statement on the extended content dispute over the Murder of Meredith Kercher article, the same editors who have been part of the improper effort to obstruct my efforts to participate to present the "other side of the story" in the article are now throwing the kitchen sink at me. This is part of their continuing effort to divert attention from the major problem with the article--their own efforts to allow only one side of the story in violation of the fundamental policies of NPOV and BLP. It will take me a while to do the proper research to respond to these additional accusations: I am still trying to learn how to do diffs, but will try to collect some to provide further information. I intend to return to provide a response as soon as I can reasonably do so, given illness in the family and other real world obligations. Thank you for your patience. I will just reply briefly now that there is nothing that I have ever said or done that excuses the WikiHounding that has occurred. WikiHounding is a form of harassment under Wikipedia policy, and trying to cast the person who was subjected to it as the wrongdoer can never be justified. It is not improper to object to WikiHounding, it is the effort to engage in WikiHounding that is wrongful. Zlykinskyja (talk) 15:28, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So, now I am one of the baddies? It's not what you wrote three days ago "Salvio has not harassed me by repeatedly deleting my work on the Kercher article." Anyway, for me, this stops here. I will try to avoid you in the future and all will be well, hopefully. Salvio giuliano (talk) 17:47, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry. She said that I'm the leader of the so called anti Knox crowd so I'm the vampire who bit every one and therefore I must be held responsible for everything ;) The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 22:59, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've reinstated this discussion which had been archived (I hope I've done it right). The issue has not been resolved and I think the recent lack of activity was because Zlykinskyja asked for additional time to respond to the allegations. Bluewave (talk) 09:47, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kindly take the notice what going on on this article, as administrators seems biased one party is blocked and other is free to do anything.--116.71.22.90 (talk) 10:59, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

nowt much has happened there recently.  rdunnalbatross  11:40, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is Iamsaa (talk · contribs) again...I'm off to block the IP. — Scientizzle 12:34, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

New IP blocked as well. — Satori Son 16:31, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from WP:AN

I'd report this on the holding pen instead, but it involves multiple pages, and I'm still trying to wrap my head around what happened. Before the moves: HTC Bravo was a proper article, and HTC Desire was a dab page. If I'm reading the histories right, somewhere along the line, Darth007 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) decided to make HTC Desire the article. So we have a huge series of cut-and-paste moves. Looks like HTC Bravo was moved to HTC (Bravo), and HTC Desire was moved three times: to HTC Desire (Disambiguation), then to HTC not Desire, and finally to HTC Bravo and Eris. The contents of the old HTC Bravo page were cut-and-pasted into the redirect left behind at HTC Desire. Some people really shouldn't have move permissions. As a side note, Darth007 is now trying to own the page and delete all disambiguation notices. Now if you'll excuse me, I need to down a bottle of rum... jgpTC 08:46, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've notified Darth007 of this thread. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 13:22, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• What a mess. I can't find the original genesis of the page! –xeno^talk 13:25, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Found it... HTC Desire (Bravo) histmerged to HTC Desire. No comment on the appropriate pagename or whether there should be a disambiguation there. WP:2DAB may provide guidance. –xeno^talk 13:32, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just saw Trueyoutrueme (talk · contribs), do this and automatically blocked indef with no talk page or email, instinct after so many socks and trolls. However I'm not so sure this is a vandalism only account. Was removing talk page access and email too harsh?--Jac16888^Talk 14:58, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like a possibly compromised account. Reasonable edits through August 6 2009, no edits for over 6 months, then bad page moves and page move vandalism. I would've indeffed, but maybe without the other restrictions. —DoRD (talk) 15:07, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Per Dept of Redundancy Dept, I would allow them the opportunity to explain themselves - such privileges may be removed if they are subsequently abused. LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:09, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with DORD and LHvU. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:10, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I've given back their talk page and email. Too used to whacking socks--Jac16888^Talk 15:15, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please see this thread Wikipedia talk:Administrator intervention against vandalism#Jim Hawkins. DuncanHill (talk) 15:20, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I just replied there that there was a report here (and there is, it is reporting that there is a report there...) I see the article is sprotected, so keeping an eye on the article for kamikaze autoconfirmed accounts is likely sufficient, and WP:RBI as necessary. LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:27, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For some reason, I had User:JI Hawkins on the brain when I saw that post. Had me worried their for a second that our "Kentucky Fried Vandal" was back. –MuZemike 17:32, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

User:Kintetsubuffalo has repeatedly re-inserted image files that DASHBot had removed from the Graphic Lab. DASHBot automatically removes non-free images because they can only be used on article pages (WP:NFCC#9). I left a polite message on the user's talk page, but they deleted the section. Am I out of the loop on something, or is there something not OK here? —Mono·nomic 15:20, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've come across this user before. They like to have their talk page kept clean (see the message at the top). I've left another, more diminutive message that doesn't seem like a template to see if that brings a response, and have also informed him of this thread. SGGH ^ping! 16:00, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a problem with him keeping the talk page clean (it's his to do what he wants with) but the fact that the user is unwilling (for the time being) to discuss this is a little unnerving. —Mono·nomic 16:14, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"I like and respect you, so I do owe you a note explaining why I don't owe a note elsewhere ... ANI is an awful big stick to wave at such a small gnat, and that user should be embarrassed that their ego is so easily bruised. Ridiculous." (italics his) Not crazy about the tone. And it's not like he hasn't worked with me before—we've interacted before on the Graphic Lab without a hitch. I'm not here as a threat, but just because I can't get a response any other way without my posts being deleted. I don't think I'm being unreasonable—please let me know if this is sounding inappropriate. —Mono·nomic 16:23, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, you know what? You do amazing graphic work and I respect you for that, it's a great help to Wikipedia. Yes, we've had some positive interactions before, and I hope someday we do again. This is not one of those. It's inappropriate for you to keep beating and beating this one. I post on lots of talkpages, some answer, some ignore me, some delete my post outright and some tell me to fuck off outright. It's the way Wikipedia works, and it is the way life works. I have too much on my plate to deal with this silliness. Please go back to making splendid graphics, improving those we've got, and being diligent about real problems. I dislike the bots and I don't want my requests overlooked because they don't grab someone's attention. I believe that the current Graphics Lab pages should be exempt from any removals on current requests, but I won't undo the bot anymore. I have good faith that you are big enough to let this go. I wish you joy in your life and fun at Wikipedia. Please wish me good night and put this to bed. --Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 17:04, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think that reading User:Kintetsubuffalo reveals a bit about his attitude towards Wikipedia's copyright policies. "...I feel the same about rules-only commies as I do about copyright-paranoiacs ..." should be taken into account in deciding what, if anything, to do about this.—Kww(talk) 16:55, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He stated in his reply that he understands policy. He may not agree with it, that is his right, however if he abides by it then perhaps with a little impoliteness aside the message is received. Obviously if he forgets that and carries on, well, that's something that might have to be looked into if/when that happens. (Just to clarify for User:Mononomic, the "threat" I mentioned on his talk page was actually a typo - meant to say "thread". Unfortunate!) SGGH ^ping! 17:02, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not a problem! Thanks for the note. —Mono·nomic 17:19, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"... I won't undo the bot anymore." Works for me—thanks for your time. —Mono·nomic 17:19, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Ramnareshyadav1982 consistently uploads images lacking appropriate licensing information or questionable claims of fair use as well as the addition (and re-addition after warnings) of copyrighted text to webpages. Most recently re-uploaded a file that was just deleted this morning for lack of license. They appear to not understand that we simply cannot accept copyrighted material. VernoWhitney (talk) 17:28, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think he claims to be the owner of the material. Should be direct him to WP:OTRS so he can release said material from copyright and placed under a free license? –MuZemike 20:06, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Links to what he needs to do have been repeatedly included on his talk page with all of the copyright violation and fair use rationale templates. I can put a new hand-typed one on if you think it would help. I just haven't already because I doubt it would be any different than the notices he's already gotten. VernoWhitney (talk) 21:06, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Warned user. Consider reporting the user to WP:AIV if the disruption continues. -FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 03:58, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think I'm right in thinking that changing your username is not the same thing as retiring, since you are still here and the edits are now attributed to a new username, and it's deceptive to pretend otherwise. Also, they are somehow still logging under the old username. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:22, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not an admin, but I agree with everything you did. If they wanted a clean break then they should retire the old name and start a new account. If they just wanted a name change then they should move the user/talk pages (which is what they did). They can't have it both ways. VernoWhitney (talk) 20:51, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You've got it correct, Beeblebrox. Accounts don't retire, editors do. If the person behind the account is still editing then they aren't retired, and tags indicating such are misleading. With a rename, the old account should redirect to the new one. Anything else is terribly confusing. Let's say that someone sees an old comment made by Secisek on an article talk page and wants to ask a question about it, if they click their user talk page link and see "retired" then they've hit an unnecessary dead end. If they are instead redirected to the new account, then they know who to ask. Another problem is the user page, which continues to declare the editor retired. It seems like the editor wants to cut ties between the old name and new name, which is wrong for any number of reasons, for one the policy for alternate accounts. -- Atama頭 21:14, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CLEANSTART specifically allows for cutting ties, but that's just not what they did and it's a little too late for it now (at least without retiring both old accounts and making yet another one). VernoWhitney (talk) 21:36, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

 – Sockpuppet investigation opened. ~ mazca ^talk 21:56, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The users User:Msa1701 and User:Zippyandgeorge have strikingly similar editing styles (almost all edits marked 'minor', the occasional edit war, both contribute to an article on a relatively un-noteworthy British town) but most worryingly if they are the same user have recently both made similar edits to British Airways that look as if they will develop into an edit war. The reason I'm brining this to AN/I is that the user does not really appear to be using the two accounts to hurt the project so am unsure if there is grounds to throw accusations around (although, obviously, I have informed both users of this post). raseaC^{talk to me} 21:07, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Editing the same article with two different accounts is abuse according to WP:ILLEGIT. You should bring your evidence to WP:SPI to see if your suspicions are confirmed, and then a reviewing administrator can determine what action would be appropriate. -- Atama頭 21:17, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've submitted an SPI so will wait and see what happens there but, like I said, I'm not sure the user is using either account maliciously (if it is the same person). raseaC^{talk to me} 21:31, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looks to me like they're the same person...very similar interests, very similar editing patterns, and they just made the same disputed edit to British Airways. I was going to file an SPI myself before I saw this thread. Bobby Tables (talk) 21:42, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It looks suspicious, and if it is one user they're definitely being disruptive. This is now at SPI and the discussion is probably best continued there. ~ mazca ^talk 21:56, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

So I could use some assistance. There is an IP that is going around making vulgar and violent statements and leaving vulgar comments on talk pages. Can someone block this IP, or at least leave a warning that might stick? J DIGGITY (U ¢ ME) 21:14, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They've been blocked 72h. –xeno^talk 21:22, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah someone blocked him. WP:AIV would have resulted in it being dealt with sooner, for next time. :) SGGH ^ping! 21:23, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I blocked for 72 hours (same length as last block) because those edits were particularly aggressive and threatening. However, this comment was not helpful at all. It doesn't help to egg on a vandal, and you're countering harassment with some borderline comments yourself. -- Atama頭 21:26, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The page Jarvis PLC

User:Snow storm in Eastern Asia and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/86.29.128.77 appeared to be making enthusiastic but slightly amateurish edits to the article.

These were reverted diff with this message diff - response - diff ?

The IP editor (probably the same person) then reinserted info diff re-adding some copyright violations I had already pointed out to the signed in editor Talk:Jarvis_plc#Copyright issues - eg "Jarvis plc was a small and struggling publicly held construction firm that had been hit hard by the building bust in the United Kingdom in the late 1980s" cf external link

All minor issues - but the re-additions include this:

In the late 1990s, they even made an abortive attempt at buying out there housing namesake [[Jarvis Group Ltd]].<ref>[[www.fungus rail.com.ch]]</ref>

Note the URL : www.fungus rail.com.ch ???

It's not even an address - can someone else look at this sympathetically - possibly approach the editor or whatever - I can't make head or tail of what they are doing.Shortfatlad (talk) 21:38, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Snowstorm seems to be open to communication on their talk page, AND you haven't notified them of this thread. Suggest you go back to talk page and ask them what they meant to type when they actually typed fungus rail. Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:13, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:UCLAcdemic is trolling the page Islam in Denmark by in short adding irrelevant information in his quest to "show" how bad Danish people are by adding blatantly irrelevant information and POV. It is a real mess actually, I don't know quite were to start. But the latest is this comment: "By the way, thanks for giving me your IP address. I have run a whois query and forwarded who "you is" to the Southern Poverty Law Center, a U.S. organization that investigates hate groups worldwide. BTW, they sued the "imperial wizard" of the IKA and have virtually bankrupted them... Good luck! I hope you look good dressed in a barrel and suspenders... " Please just read the talk page of the article and so to get a grip on what's happening here. It is quite disturbing. User:Gabagool/sig 21:53, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I have blocked UCLAcdemic for 1 week, initially for 5RR on Islam in Denmark and then extended to a week after reviewing all the talk page contributions. This is a brand new account, but not looking hopeful so far...

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:19, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the threat and their inability to see that they had made one, Wikipedia:No legal threats#Perceived legal threats, I would have blocked them until they retracted it. something lame from CBW 00:25, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Their remarks both on that talk page and their own show a clear refusal to acknowledge even our most basic policies, and they have announced their intention to evade the block, as well as adding a hearty "FUCK YOU" message to their talk page. Block extended to indefinite with talk page revoked. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:04, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Despite the efforts of three other editors, anon IP User:199.175.219.1, who is apparently the subject of the article Rick Schmidlin, continues to make disruptive edits that violate multiple Wikipedia policies, despite multiple warnings on this section of the IP talk page. He will not enter discussion at Talk:Rick Schmidlin, and appears to be obstinately attempting to use Wikipedia to post a resume article, even after multiple warnings that disruptive behavior could lead to a ban. Thank you for any help. -- Tenebrae (talk) 22:11, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I considered it vandalism as the user removed tags after 4th warning. I reported the user, and the IP has been blocked. Regards, PDCook (talk) 22:21, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I do believe the IP is really trying to make the article better but is just completely lost about how to do it Wikipedia style. A few other editors have taken notice and I've set up a sandbox to work through it. We have all tried to communicate with the IP via the edit summaries, the article talk page, and the IP talk page but obviously to no avail. Still, I do not think his (assuming it is Rick Schmidlin as claimed in one of his edits) efforts are in bad faith. That said, we do need a break from his constant reverting as this will give us some time to rewrite the article. Even though it'll probably be pretty stubtastic it will be well-sourced for the information it does have (see sandbox). In other words I don't think the IP needs a year-long block as I'd like to think that once the new version is finished he'll be able to contribute in a useful manner. SQGibbon (talk) 22:34, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Would it not just be best to userfy this "article" until it's fixed, because at the moment it's just an unsourced BLP. Black Kite 01:10, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy where? Not to an IP's area. Woogee (talk) 01:27, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

 – Blocked for a week. Black Kite 01:06, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to write up a report on the spreading disruption and insulting behavior of User:FkpCascais. Regardless of the fact that he thinks himself the very image of neutrality (as indeed, most Balkans nationalist accounts do), this user is undoubtedly in the middle of a campaign to promote Serbian nationalist POV. I say "POV" because his position and his edits are obviously contrary to truly numerous university sources, while he of course, has yet to present a single source for his disruptive editing. In addition, his behavior towards me has just reached a stage at which I feel it needs to be reported to you guys. Not that I am holding this against him in some way, but his English skills, and thus the quality of his edits, are also noticeably sub par.

• On Template:Yugoslav Axis collaborationism, User:FkpCascais has repeatedly removed half a dozen university sources along with the information they supported in spite of warnings and discussion. [89][90][91] When inquired as to the reason for this vandalism, the only answer was that he personally disapproved of one of the authors (a professor of history at Stanford) on the grounds that the person is of Croatian ancestry [92] (also conveniently forgetting that this is only one of the sources). I am Croatian as well, and taking into account his hostile behavior towards me, I can't help but feel this user has a problem with Croats. Balkans ethnic hatred.

• On the Draža Mihailović article, the user repeatedly entered numerous badly written alterations, and then proceeded to edit-war in order to keep them in. He was successful. I won't go into the details, suffices to say that he edited contrary to a great many references in the article. He wrote-up the ethnic ancestry of any scholar who's origins he did not approve of, implying their bias along national lines for no other perceivable reason. He inserted the word "communist" at every conceivable opportunity, and most interestingly, he actually altered the text of quoted documents because he felt it needed "clarifying". All in plainly bad English. [93]

• On the Chetniks article, he engaged in an edit war to rearrange the alphabetically sorted "See also" section the way he felt was more appropriate, and kept removing a template linking to the article.[94] The number of articles affected by the disruption is bound to rise.

As for his behavior: 1) He stated that I am "shitting out my words", which would be the closest (and probably most polite) translation of the extremely vulgar Serbo-Croatian term "sereš". [95] This was because I was doing my best to explain WP:V to him and he, in his words, perceived my tone to be too "paternal". 2) He continuously insinuates that I am mentally ill, referring to my "complexes" [96][97] (he is probably unaware of the irony in that my medical training has an emphasis on psychiatry :). 3) Most recently, he insulted my origins by calling me an imbecile and instructing me to "learn some education, or go kick some rocks in your village...". [98] This of course, is the brief account. I am leaving out all the less obvious insults ("ridiculous", "stupid", etc.) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 22:51, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In future, please notify the user involved that you have opened this thread. I have done it for you this time. SGGH ^ping! 23:03, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize, the user instructed me not to address him. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 23:34, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for a week, this is fairly obvious even in the minefield that is EE politics. [99] and [100] are exceedingly obvious, without even going into the attacks on other editors. Black Kite 01:06, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

 – Article deleted

Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 00:32, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bit of a dispute in this article over AFD and speedy. I have been told countless times that AFD and speedy can overlap if the speedy fits. I have had a speedy removed thrice now on the basis that the article is in AFD and therefore can't be speedied EVER EVER EVER EVER. This looks like a definite WP:REICHSTAG, given that the first speedy was removed by someone who came out of a more than yearlong hibernation just to rip out the speedy... then it was removed twice by someone who used only the basic "undo" edit summary without explaining their deeds. I don't wanna turn into an edit war; I just want this speedied because it clearly fits A7 yet I have two editors who refuse to believe that you can speedy something that's listed at AFD. Can someone just put this article out of its misery so I don't have to break 3RR? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 23:10, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, I've agreed with TPH and his Otters on this one, and added the db-band back, it can be speedied thus avoiding the need for a 7 day or longer AFD to be drawn out. I've also added a hidden comment in the edit asking users not to remove the csd till it's been dealt with one way or the other. BarkingFish ^{Talk to me} | _{My contributions} 23:24, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~I've been trying to find where it says "CSD supersedes AfD" but I can't find the wording I remember. SGGH ^ping! 23:45, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. I usually take the dual-deletion tags on a case by case basis, if it's borderline I feel it's best to just let the AFD run, but this was not borderline. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:08, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This user's block was upheld by consensus here last year. They are asking now to be unblocked. They have admitted to disruptively editing before the block, and to block evasion afterword, it doesn't look like they've caused any issues since early October of last year. Since they were essentially banned by a discussion here I am bringing their request here. I'll also be notifying previously involved admins. Below is the the full text of their unblock request. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:56, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Roughly a year ago a number of disputes began on articles relating to the 2009 Major League Soccer season. Before, during, and after those arguments I behaved in a way that I deeply, completely, and utterly regret. Looking back at my attitude going into those discussions, I clearly took an ownership attitude over most of the MLS and American soccer articles. In the cold light of day, I can see that now. While I regret that attitude, it honestly stemmed from my deeep passion for the sport in the United States, which had been an asset to the encyclopedia in years previous, when I had been a productive member of this community. That being said, I do recognize that it was inappropriate, and I really am sorry. If given the opportunity, I promise to be more humble and to work in a more constructive way with others. During those discussions, I took on an unnecessarily aggressive, demeaning, and most importantly unwelcoming attitude toward both newers members to the community and established members who had recently taken an interest in MLS and American soccer. Again, I deeply regret those actions. I wish more than anything that I could go back and unsay some of the things that I said, or at the very least the way that I said those things. If given the opportunity, the first thing I wish to do is apologize to each of the members who I offended and made feel unwelcome in this project. Finally, after being banned from editing the encyclopedia, I engaged in utterly indefensible behavior to attempt to evade my ban. This behavior was disruptive to the encyclopedia, and I can only apologize and ask forgiveness with the promise that it would never happen again if this community sees it fit to reinvite me into the fold. While I can honestly say that the initial suspicion of sock puppetry was really my brother and I both engaging in the discussion from our home in Dayton, we were at the very least guilty of meatpuppetry, since we did not make it clear who we were from the beginning. Again, I can only apologize for this behavior, ask for forgiveness, and attempt to prove that I can be a valuable member of this community once more. I am so very sorry and ashamed of the things that I did over the last year, and I ask to be given another chance to rejoin the encyclopedia.

I would support his unblock request as he seems sincere that he has learned his lesson. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 01:03, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What would happen if we unblock him and he continues his old ways? Kingjeff (talk) 01:58, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We reblock him. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 02:28, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Would that reblock be an indefinite block as it is now? The only way I could say unblock him is if we put in stipulations stating that his current indefinite block would come into effect after lets say 2 or 3 blockable incidents or maybe reinstate that indefinite block immediately after the first blockable incident happens. Kingjeff (talk) 03:23, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I've had a quick look at the user's contribs and unblock request, and I'd cautiously support an unblock, provided that the user abides by a double-strength good behaviour commitment; on the first sign of trouble, they're indef blocked again, permanently this time. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 04:30, 26 March 2010 (UTC).[reply]
• While his last sock incident (that I know of) was actually only 6 months ago I would support giving Grant another chance. If there is concern that not enough time has passed or that he may revert back to his bad behavior, I'd suggest unblocking him with a 0RR probationary period or something along those lines. I'm willing to forgive the disruption and frustration he caused myself and other editors and I encourage the administrators to do the same. I agree that if his contributions become unproductive or problematic as they were before, he should be swiftly banned again. --SkotyWA^T_C 06:09, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On January 7th, I made a conditional proposal[101] for GoRight's unblock after a lengthy WP:RFU request. He had previously been blocked by 2/0 for multiple breaches of policy which culminated in a de facto community ban.[102] I took responsibility for acting as an uninvolved third party to monitor GoRight's edits and provide guidance where necessary.

Presently, I'm less than happy with GoRight's progress in overcoming the behaviors which led to his indefinite block. Specifically, I'm seeing incidence of disruption,[103] harassment,[104][105][106][107] wikilawyering,[108] and failure to assume good faith.[109][110]

At this point, I would like to bring the issue for community review and input. Whenever I have blocked or unblocked in the past, my criteria has always come down to a certain formula: Does this editor's positive contributions outweigh his negative ones? I believe that everyone deserves second chances, and that's exactly why I offered to unblock GoRight after his RFU. However, at this point I'm having a very hard time justifying his continued presence. His helpful edits since the time of his unblock do not outweigh the additional time and effort that his less than helpful edits have posed on other editors. I would much rather see a change of editing patterns than another community ban, but at this time I feel that greater input is needed as that that dysfunctional editing pattern seems to be escalating rather than improving. Trusilver 01:11, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure what I am expected to say here. I believe that all of my edits are defensible in that there is a story behind them but if the community agrees with Trusilver's assessment of them then the best course of action is to block or ban me. I will respond to direct questions otherwise this is all I really have to say. I appreciate Trusilver's assistance in the past and I accept that he is acting in the best interest of the community. --GoRight (talk) 01:22, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

History shows a recurrent pattern: (1) GoRight gets blocked; (2) GoRight promises to do better and gets unblocked; (3) GoRight behaves quite well for a while; (4) GoRight gradually lapses back to his former provocations, bad-faith assumptions, etc; (5) eventually GoRight crosses the line; return to (1). We are now in phase (4). Whether GoRight continues to steps (5)->(1) is up to him, though my understanding is that the terms of his unblock allow others to short-circuit the loop. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:30, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The overwhelming majority of GoRight's edits are in talk and project space - this month alone disrupting existing disputes and filing frivolous ones, ignoring arbitrators, encouraging problematic editors, spraying talk pages with distracting requests, making thinly veiled threats, proposing sanctions against other editors, telling people to mind their own business while refusing to do so himself, ridiculing and annoying people, atrocious wikilawyering, etc. Those that aren't tend to be minor reverts of vandalism (and warnings for same). Indeed I've just scanned his contributions all the way back to the start of the year (over 1,500 edits) and was unable to find even a single substantive edit in main space.

While I would support restoring the community ban, I would equally support an MYOB sanction as suggested by TenOfAllTrades, likely modeled after Abd's editing restriction. This would be his third and final opportunity to prove himself by taking the Swiss Family Robinson option and finding somewhere quiet to edit in main space. -- samj _in^out 02:05, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I just kind of stumbled across this discussion and checked a few things and want to make a statement. The pattern that Short Brigade points out is fact and in my estimation will probably continue. but I like the suggestion of Samj, and I would make sure GoRight understands this is his LAST option. I suggest the the Swiss Family Robinson option and finding somewhere quiet to edit in main space. Just an outsiders thought. Mlpearc MESSAGE 02:44, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Agree with comments from Mlpearc. There's a lot of work that could use the help of editors like GoRight. Would GoRight be interested in working on non-admin maintenance tasks? What about creating requested articles or helping cleanup articles? Viriditas (talk) 03:22, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  This is a possibility for sure. Do you have some pointers to the types of things you mean by "non-admin maintenance tasks"? Creating requested articles may also be an option, but where does one go to find such requests? --GoRight (talk) 03:36, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Wikipedia:Requested articles exists, but perhaps a more important task that needs doing would be [111]. If you worked on those articles (I probably should be taking my own advice), I am sure that the community would be very grateful. NW (Talk) 04:06, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is tons of copy editing to do at Guild of Copy Editors; if you have good English skillz this is a place where wikignomes can thrive. Any help would be appreciated. Diannaa ^TALK 04:29, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Something also that I've been doing a little of, and not even scratching the surface, is checking school-related articles. These have a much higher than usual tendency for vandalism, and that vandalism very often gets by the recent change patrollers. Trusilver 06:05, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

 – Edit warring report has been filed here so interested parties or uninvolved admins can weigh in there, no need for action here.

--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 03:03, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

At reincarnation research today, ScienceApologist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has performed five reverts. Furthermore, he has performed a "delete by redirect" of an article which was kept as a result of an unsuccessful AfD he filed. He furthermore has edited quite combatively, attacked me for putting in language he himself first added, denied removing material he did remove and threatened me with a ban or block when I brought it up. Here is the full story:

A month ago, ScienceApologist nominated this article for deletion. The result was keep.

In the last two weeks, there have been numerous changes made to the article, and dozens of posts to the talk page, mainly mine. I carefully explained my changes, in particular why I was adding a certain sentence attributed to Kurtz, which I did two days ago. I have explained it here. ScienceApologist ignored, this, instead reverting the sentence back to the way it had been before my changes (prior version here). The sentence is at the top of the criticism section in the prior addition.

In this same string of consecutive edits, he restored material to the introduction that I had removed, having carefully explained my reasoning (in the “Described as pseudoscience” section of the talk page).

He furthermore undid the addition of a new section break that had been added by User:Sacca here. In this string of edits, notice that he added the wording “The late Carl Sagan and the late Arthur C. Clarke had supported the kind of rigorous investigation that Stevenson pursued,” he would later attack me for restoring this information, when I restored it in a spirit of amity, and he also added a large and unnecessary warning tag to my talk page at the same time.

This string of consecutive edits is his first revert.

I posted on his talk page politely asking him to join the discussion instead of reverting. He did not respond or post on the talk page until the next day.

User:Sacca undid his changes, the next day, noting that ScienceApologist had not reacted to the reasoning on the talk page. ScienceApologist reverted this, with an edit summary that does not make sense or address the fact that he has not participated in the (very lengthy) discussion. This is his second revert.

I then undid this, asking him to participate on the talk page, and leaving in a negative tag for a subsection he had added until he had a chance to explain it. I also posted on the talk page asking him why he had removed reliably sourced material (this is the material he removed during his first string of reverts on the basis that it was “speculation”). I also posted the question about his removal on the talk page here (the link is to the current state of that thread). For those of you keeping track, this is my first revert. There would be two total.

He responded by posting on my page that I was “tag teaming” with an editor who was not active on the talk page. He was referring to Sacca, who had at that time made more posts to the talk page and edits to the article than ScienceApologist. ScienceApologist furthermore denied that any reliable sources had been removed (they had), and threatened me with banning or blocking in a highly confrontational manner. He in fact, on the talk page, denied that any content at all had been removed (the statement is still there), and threatened me again: “No content was removed. Mischaracterizing user's actions like this is very problematic behavior. You are treading on very thin ice, Mitsube. Down this road, blocks and bans can be seen”

I then restored one of his changes with a partial self-revert, with the edit summary “I think the language here was fine, but in trying to foster a spirit of cooperation I will restore most of SA's language with a clearer and better supported statement for the second half.” This was done here.

He then put another large disruptive tag on my talk page, and attacked my use of the very language he had added, writing writing “Neither Clarke nor Sagan called it "rigorous". As I pointed out above, he first added the “rigorous” part of that paragraph. I pointed this out to him, and asked him if he was sharing his account with someone else. He posted another large warning on my talk page accusing me of a personal attack, saying “Accusing an account of being used by two people is a personal attack in light of Wikipedia rules about sockpuppetry and meatpuppetry” Isn’t sharing an account the opposite of these things? In any case I apologized, and said he must have just forgotten.

However, as I had restored his language in a spirit of cooperation I also removed the offending word (which he had originally added).

His next edit did two things: it reverted again the changes to the introduction, and again removed the statement he had initially denied removing before with the “no content was removed, you are treading on thin ice” comment. He also deleted a large section of the article. I had already stated on the talk page that I opposed this removal.

This is his third revert. I then told him that this was his third revert, and noted that we were in the middle of a discussion about the regression material, which was true. I also posted on the talk page that this was his third revert and he should stop reverting.

I then undid this revert (and wholesale deletion), with the edit summary “Undid revert. You have yet to address my concerns on talk. Also restored two sections. As I said on the talk page, I oppose this removal. Let us discuss it there.” For those of you keeping track this is my second and final revert. In all ScienceApologist was reverted by three editors total.

He then deleted all the content of the article, thus ignoring the result of his unsuccessful AfD, and redirected the article. He also used the combative and insulting edit summary “how bout this?” With this edit, he removed numerous additions I had made to the article, including the second sentence of the introduction (Most mainstream scientists have ignored or dismissed this work.^[1][2]) which used a new source I had found, the new content I had added about Clarke and Sagan (who by the way had negative opinions about reincarnation: I added it early specifically to address another user’s concern that there were too few opinions expressed in the article). He also removed two other large chunks of material I had recently added and carefully explained on the talk page, one about the boy in Beirut, and another about Almeder’s responses to certain criticisms.

This is his fourth revert, and moreover this edit ignores the result of the community’s decision to keep the article. He may use as an excuse that I had said on the talk page that the title of the article could be changed to something more accurate, noting “I don't think that this article really describes reincarnation research. It is research into a class of cases of children who remember previous lives and have birthmarks matching wounds on the deceased, which is suggestive of reincarnation.” He used my statement supposedly as permission to ignore the results of the AfD. Clearly, I indicated no support for such an extreme and destructive move. As WP:PMW states, “The right way to deal with page name disputes is to stop moving the page and trying to get a consensus on the talk page of the article.”

Hours later he wrote that he did not consider this wholesale removal to be a revert, because it was a change to a “totally different” version. That is not what a revert means. “Reverting means undoing the effects of one or more edits, which normally results in the page being restored to a version that existed sometime previously. More broadly, reverting may also refer to any action that in whole or in part reverses the actions of other editors”. So in the broader sense it is certainly a revert. And I don’t think that extreme, destructive, and counter-consensus reverts should be excused simply because of their extreme, destructive, and counter-consensus (including community consensus with the keep) nature. In any case, he has made five reverts total including this one. So for the 3RR case this one isn’t necessary. However, I think it is the worst one and warrants a block in- and-of itself

I noted on the talk page that this was his fourth revert. Silver seren reported him for edit warring soon after.

He stated on the talk page “I tried redirecting the article to the only book ever written on the subject. We'll see how that goes.” This is utterly untrue. There have been many books published by Stevenson and others and many more articles in prestigious journals.

User:Silver seren undid ScienceApologist’s deletions. Then a user who had posted opinions which were highly critical (and irrelevant as regards writing the article) about Stevenson’s research showed up and deleted a large chunk of the article himself. There was then some back and forth that did not involve either myself or ScienceApologist.

He did show up again: here are the edits he did next, two of which involve reverting. He first reverted away yet again my ““Paul Kurtz believes that deducing”, with the same reasoning (which is, for the record, not a very good one). This is his fifth revert, but he did revert again in this string of edits. More below.

In his next edit, he alters (neutral) language which I had recently added to the intro, and replaced it with highly pointed language (“much deprecated”, “generally derided” the last not supported by the source he cited). This edit is not (technically) a revert.

In his next edit, he again removes the subsection divider that had been added by Sacca and restored by me. These last three edits were consecutive, and all involved reverting recent changes to the article.

He also again reverted away the material he at one pointed claimed incorrectly to have never removed (the “speculation”). In his next edit he restores some of it, but not the following: “although it is possible that only some, but not all, people reincarnate, or that the conditions necessary for remembering a past life are specific enough to narrow the population which can do this.” which he has not yet demonstrated on the talk page to be unsupported by the sources cited, as he claims it is not. I myself did not add this material and I do not know about it.

This again is in sum his fifth revert. And the time between his first and fifth reverts is about 22.5 hours.

I hope that he will be blocked for a considerable period for the edit-warring and combative edits alone. Furthermore the fact that he cannot respect the results of the AfD for this article shows that he should be topic-banned for a considerably longer time. Mitsube (talk) 01:15, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could you perhaps shorten your request for those of us whose attention spans don't reach this far? Also, if you haven't already, you should also notify ScienceApologist of this section. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 01:31, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(ec, FYI ScienceApologist was notified) First of all I'd advice you to try to limit the verbosity of statements at ANI (or indeed anywhere) as many admins will be understandably reluctant to read through (I actually did it though) a post as lengthy as the above (a rough summary rather than a detailed blow by blow is a better way to go).

More importantly, I'm unclear as to why you are bringing this here. As you acknowledge above, ScienceApologist has already been reported at WP:AN3 and that report is still open. The basic concern here seems to be edit warring, so that is the appropriate place to handle this. From what I can tell it does not seem we are in topic ban territory as yet, and WP:AN would be the appropriate forum for that anyway (please don't refile this there though, we can deal with the edit warring accusations first). The details of the content dispute are not particularly relevant, but edit warring is cause for concern (I'll let an admin more versed in the edit warring noticeboard judge the report filed there). I suggest that this ANI thread be marked resolved and that the matter be pursued at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Also we'll ideally want to hear from ScienceApologist before any admin action is considered. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 01:41, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I thought it was too complex for the edit-warring noticeboard. Should I place a link there asking admins to come look here? A huge problem with wikipedia is that only edit-warring is punished, and then, for established users, only rarely. This user has done much more than just the five reverts today. Isn't this the place to address this behavior? It should be addressed somewhere! Mitsube (talk) 01:44, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I give over control of my report to Mitsube, as he knows more about the situation. He can fill in the other diffs that I missed or didn't know about. Silverseren^C 01:47, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think you should simply say what you need to say at the edit warring noticeboard, just keep it succinct (redirecting admins back to this thread is not going to help much I think). As I said the core issue seems to be edit warring, so I think you should just focus on that for now, and this is the wrong page. Once the report at AN3 is actioned (or not) you should continue working on the article. If additional problems continue it would probably be more appropriate to bring it back here. Also one of you needs to be sure to inform ScienceApologist that he was reported at WP:AN3 as I don't believe he has been as of now. Do you mind if I now mark this thread resolved with a link at the top to the edit warring report? Someone will take a look at that in the near future. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 01:55, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It will take me some time to write a AN3 report. Please do not mark this as resolved until I am done. And when experienced users are reported at 3RR admins usually take about a day to respond and then usually find a way to avoid blocking. That's another reason I posted here. An admin over there could just easily say "content dispute" and lock the article. Then ScienceApologist will do something like this again next week. Mitsube (talk) 02:11, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But you don't have to write an AN3 report—it's already there. You can add more info (for example a fourth and fifth revert), but there could be an admin looking at it right now. I can't speak to what admins do or don't do with experienced editors reported at that board (I rarely look there), but that does seem to be the place for your concern. Fear that you will not get the result you are looking for is not a reason to file a complaint somewhere else, and I'm still inclined to mark this resolved unless you present some pressing reason why this cannot be handled at the appropriate place. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 02:24, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The last time I filed a complex edit-warring related report I was told to come here next time instead. I have now filed a report at AN3 like you asked. Thanks for your time. Mitsube (talk) 02:53, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, marking resolved now. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 03:03, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lately, Yugiohmike2001's constant reverting has became a major issue. He was even blocked on the 21st for his editing. However, even after constant attempts by myself and other editors to get him in provide an edit summary or revert less, he continues to just ignore everyone. I'm not going to provide diffs, since there are so many, so I will ask that you look at his contributions. I think that if does not comply, he should either be blocked for a long time period (six months) or permanently topic banned from anything pertaining to wrestling. His edits have become a major problem that I know no one else feels like cleaning up. –Turian (talk) 01:59, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notified. –Turian (talk) 02:01, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The user has been inserting poorly source material into Al-Muizz Lideenillah. The user has since been canvasing other editors to support the material in question, see [112], [113], [114], [115], [116], [117], [118], [119], [120], [121], [122] (all of these users self-identify as Copts). The user also urges another user blocked for socking to come back as another username, see [123]. Could somebody do something about this user? nableezy - 02:17, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly the reporting user is trying to retaliate for having been reported for edit waring and reverting referenced material 8 times on the same article here. To my knowledge, none of what I have done is against any Wikipedia policy. --λⲁⲛτερⲛιξ^[talk] 02:24, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is not why I filed this report, in fact if an admin properly reviews your 3RR complaint you should be blocked for repeated violations of WP:BLP. I was glad you filed that report. nableezy - 02:27, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I'm happy you're glad I filed the report. We shall see who is in violation according to the admins. --λⲁⲛτερⲛιξ^[talk] 02:29, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to start a thread about Lanternix myself. I find it very disturbing that he is encouraging a blocked editor to evade his block. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:38, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not asking him/her to evade the block. My understanding, and I was told this before, is that if a user is blocked indefinitely - as is the case here - then he/she can come back with a new username as long as they no longer repeat the same behavior that got them blocked in the first place. It's not like an indefinite block is a block for life! What if the person took the time to rethink their actions? I would appreciate an admin's comment on this. --λⲁⲛτερⲛιξ^[talk] 03:04, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is that what you did? nableezy - 03:23, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is exactly what I did. All I told him was Please come back with another username. Your contributions to Wikipedia have been extremely helpful! Why is that such a big deal? Is there a Wikipedia rule against this? --λⲁⲛτερⲛιξ^[talk] 03:28, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was asking if you came back from an indefinitely blocked account as this username. nableezy - 03:29, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you ask that, and why is that of any concern to you? Not that it's any of your business, but the answer is no. And the question is completely out of line. --λⲁⲛτερⲛιξ^[talk] 03:33, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re "Is there a Wikipedia rule against this?"; a person is is blocked indefinitely for socking, and you encouraged him to, um...make another sock. In what alternate reality is there not a rule against this? Tarc (talk) 03:34, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying that Wikipedia rules state that a user who is blocked indefinitely can never come back to edit on Wikipedia as a different user until the day of their death? I'm sorry, but is that what you're calling common sense??? --λⲁⲛτερⲛιξ^[talk] 03:37, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While I sympathize with Copts always being in the minority against Arabs, said user was blocked just a few days ago. The "fresh-start"-thingie you're referring to won't fly after such a short time. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 03:40, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, I did not look at the date of when that user was blocked. Second of all, it's never too early for someone to rethink his/her actions and start all over again with a different attitude. And thanks for sympathizing with the Copts. We need it. --λⲁⲛτερⲛιξ^[talk] 03:42, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Let me explain this in simple language, Lanternix. When a user is blocked, the person is blocked, not just the Username. Using a new Username to evade a block is called sockpuppetry. See WP:BLOCK and WP:SOCK for more information. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:57, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Malik, thank you for trying to explain this to me. But please bear with me and answer my 2 following questions:

1. Is a Wikipedia user who has been blocked indefinitely never allowed to come back to edit on Wikipedia in the future using a different username?
2. In case the answer to question number 1 is negative, is there any rule on Wikipedia that prohibits other users from encouraging a permanently blocked user from coming back to edit? --λⲁⲛτερⲛιξ^[talk] 04:01, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1. A blocked user may ask to be unblocked. A user should not come back using a new Username unless she/he has been unblocked.
2. There's no rule against encouraging a blocked user to appeal her/his block. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:12, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Great, so in light of what you said:

1. What if the user's appeal to be unblocked has been denied? Is the user who has been blocked indefinitely never allowed to come back to edit on Wikipedia in the future using a different username?
2. Technically I did not do anything wrong by encouraging the user to come back. --λⲁⲛτερⲛιξ^[talk] 04:29, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Um, no. If a user's unblock request is turned down, she/he can wait a while and make a new request (or find a new hobby and give up Wikipedia). You may not have realized it, but you encouraged Toothie3 to violate Wikipedia policy and create a sockpuppet to evade his block. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:36, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I did not encourage anybody to create a sockpuppet. I only encouraged the user to come back and not give up editing on Wikipedia because their contributions have been invaluable. There's no rule against encouraging a user to come back and not to give up! At least I'm not aware of any. I will hereby repeat what I said earlier: "My understanding, and I was told this before, is that if a user is blocked indefinitely - as is the case here - then he/she can come back with a new username as long as they no longer repeat the same behavior that got them blocked in the first place. It's not like an indefinite block is a block for life! What if the person took the time to rethink their actions?" --λⲁⲛτερⲛιξ^[talk] 04:48, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What we have here is a failure to communicate. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:19, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Earlier this morning, Koolabsol (talk · contribs) made a couple of minor edits to Anime and Manga. However, in the process, Koolabsol removed several editorial notes, an template image, as well as changed some optional styles.[124][125] I initially assumed good faith with the edits, but reverted them to restore the editorial notes and the image.[126][127]. Koolabsol reverts the restorations[128][129] to which I restored them again.[130][131] At this point, Koolabsol initiates a discussion about the edits.[132] So far, no harm not foul.

However, he/she insists on the frivolous edits even after I pointed to the WP:MOS and the ArbCom ruling about optional styles.[133][134] Dandy Sephy (talk · contribs) becomes involved in the discussion and agreed that edits were trivial an unnecessary and removing things because Koolabsol "see not [sic] reason not to remove it" is not sound reasoning.[135] I also added that Koolabsol should just move on.[136] and stop making a big fuss over the reversions.

Not getting anywhere, he then makes what was apparently a threat to edit war the issue[137] and then restores his edits to the two articles.[138][139] and has since edit warred to maintain his preferred version after the initial edits were reverted for being deliberately disrutpive.[140][141] —Farix (t | c) 02:47, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've requested full protection of the page in the meantime.Dandy Sephy (talk) 04:00, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Access to Twinkle for both involved editors has been temporarily revoked due to using it for edit warring (both of them did, very clearly, see their talk pages for the diffs I provided them). I will restore it once both promise to not use Twinkle to edit war. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 04:17, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, both pages have been protected for the time being (one by me, one by Cirt). ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 04:18, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Another note: it looks like Farix also reverted four times on each article, which technically breaks WP:3RR. Koolabsol made the initial changes, then reverted three times on each, so came close to breaking 3RR. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 04:42, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Over the past few days, there has been a concerted effort to insert BLP vandalism into Lil' Mo. On 24 March there were a large number of IP addresses inserting nonsense; the users were reverted and I sprotected the article for a day, but unfortunately it seems that as soon as the sprotect expired the vandalism started up again. This time, I have blocked the main account (User:Realiytking (talk · contribs)) who was doing a fair chunk of the vandalism. Based on the fact that there a variety of different ISPs evident in the IP addresses used, I'd say that there are multiple vandals at work here, (probably kids from an internet forum or IRC room with nothing better to do, I'd say, based on the content of the edits) For this reason, I'm not all that confident that an autoblock will do much, but at the same time that the article seems relatively stable for now, so I'm hesitant to actually block.

If people could add the article their watchlists or otherwise keep an eye on it that'd be great. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 04:11, 26 March 2010 (UTC).[reply]

If I didn't know better, I would say that was a coordinated attack by 4chan, but I don't see anything really to indicate that it's them. Is this a popular subject recently or something? The Thing // Talk // Contribs 04:43, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]