Just a heads up that I've filed an RFCU about Jeeny (talk · contribs) and GeeAlice (talk · contribs). It does not look like previous disruptive conduct is about to reform any time soon. — Zerida 00:47, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see a notice on GeeAlice's talk page about this or the RFCU. —Wknight94 (talk) 00:57, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notified GeeAlice, though I suspect she knew given that she deleted these quotes from her user page [1] (which User:Jeeny also used to have on hers) after I filed the 3RR report. — Zerida 01:05, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted the quotes because of rude behavor by Zerida, and others. Zerida kept reverting a tag I placed on an image to be renamed, Egyptians.jpg to Egyptians collage.jpg. I posted to his talk page asking why, and he responded rudely. I was trying to explain the reason for this change, now this. ←Gee♥Alice 01:28, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note that I have indef blocked GeeAlice (talk · contribs) per the outcome of the checkuser. A no brainer since she logged out and started editwarring on the RFCU. -- lucasbfr ^talk 10:56, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Given that User talk:Jeeny was deleted because Jeeny claimed to want to execute the right to vanish, but plainly has not done so, should it be undeleted? -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 16:04, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lot of that going around lately, huh. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 19:38, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's only a matter of time before she creates her next sockpuppet--I've seen it before. It doesn't stop their pathological obsession or stalking either. However, I don't think it was a good idea to delete the talk page; with such abusive users, all the evidence goes along with it. — Zerida 20:07, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The talk page should definitely be undeleted. In fact, I seem to recall posting to this very board a while ago that Jeeny was going to be a problem user.....⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 20:15, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, problem users that use the right to disappear as a fast exit strategy should lose that right if they reappear. David D. (Talk) 22:08, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've restored it. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 14:46, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• As the bowl of petunias said, "oh no, not again". I confidently expect this to carry on through numerous further iterations. Guy (Help!) 16:25, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An inevitable outcome I am sad to say as long as there are editors/admins who feel the urge to provide support and protection to troubled and troublesome users. While it is quite clear to at least some of us that someone this disturbed not only should be nowhere near Wikipedia, but should have been blocked long ago, others apparently disagree! I have this vague memory of the project being about "building an encyclopedia", not running a social service clinic, or a forum where we "hang", keep each other company, and let people run roughshod over every policy and guideline to maintain our POV. — Zerida 03:11, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: RFCU resulted in indef blocking and tagging of all related accounts. ~Kylu (u|t) 04:37, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I was recently banned so I took a break and haveing been said that, I feel I should ask for help before it escalates. Here's the situation, I've been trying to edit on an article and I provided a reference in the form of a narrative from the video game itself, but there seems to be some people who don't feel I can interpret the narratives portrayals. I do believe the below adheres to my right to contribute to Wikipedia. Anyway, here's the page: [2]

"Secondary sources are accounts at least one step removed from an event.[3] Secondary sources may draw on primary sources and other secondary sources to create a general overview; or to make analytic or synthetic claims.[4][5] Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable, published secondary sources. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors." InternetHero (talk) 19:53, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The short version is, you personally are not a secondary source but rather an agent of original research. Find an appropriately published secondary source with the game narrative and you may have something to work with -- though simply having a source is not itself a guarantee that the material is suitable for inclusion (I make no judgment either way here). — Lomn 21:02, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Depends on what's being added: plot summaries are almost always sourced to the fictional work in question, because they are neither interpretive claims, analysis, or synthetic claims. But if you, InterhentHero, are doing any more than provided a straightforward plot summary, you should use secondary sources. Natalie (talk) 13:37, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, guys. What type of source is the games' narrative? I don't even feel I'm making synthetic claims at all. In a nutshell, my interpretaion of the narrative doesn't fall far from simple translation. The character obviously uses the words, 'feel', 'owww', and 'me', yet the other editors feel that this isn't sufficient evidence to interpret that the character does have some self-awareness. For all we know, the other characters could be all cross-dressors, but the only place-holder here is our reason telling us that it is logical that they're not. I feel I'm simply using logic. Does such an interpretation fall further from the narrative than I think? InternetHero (talk) 20:31, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The game itself is a primary source, and can be used to "make descriptive claims about the information found in the primary source, the accuracy and applicability of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge" (WP:PSTS). Unfortunately, if there is disagreement among editors about your representation of a narrative, it may be best to concede your point, whatever its merits (since by definition it is not therefore "easily verifiable" to them), and concentrate instead on finding a reliable source to support the information you wish to add. 86.44.6.14 (talk) 22:30, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds like your straying too far into interpretation to be using the game narrative as your only source here. While your claim does make logical sense, it is a synthesis of new material to claim that a character has self-awareness because it uses certain words. So finding secondary sources would be your best bet here. Natalie (talk) 02:31, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have blocked Zenwhat (talk · contribs) for what seems to be a bizarre pattern of disruption - odd "joke" edits such as [3], adding provocative discussion to Jimbo's talk page when Jimbo has nothing to do with it at all, edit warring with other users on their talk pages, making POINTy userspace pages that have been repeatedly speedied, among many others; all with very contribution to building our encyclopedia. Others have tried to reason with/warn him, such as at User talk:Zenwhat#Your purpose here and User talk:Zenwhat#Only warning, but it really just seems like he's only here for general disruption and trolling of the project and its community. I think it's clear that the community is at the end of its rope with him, and I have blocked him indefinitely; I welcome any further review or comments from the community. krimpet✽ 04:33, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

About time someone stopped the trolling. β^_command 04:35, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, and endorse indef block. I think we've had enough. - Rjd0060 (talk) 04:37, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I fully support this block. I also posted to Zenwhat's talk page recently here; seems no amount of hinting is getting through to an obviously intelligent editor. --MZMcBride (talk) 04:37, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(ecX2):From what I can tell of the timeline, his only edit after the final warning was a reasonable discussion of "the Register" article on Jimbo's talk page which in itself isn't reason for block. Granted some of his edits have been "weird", he hasn't done anything block worthy after the mentioned final warning. - ✰ALLSTAR✰ ^echo 04:39, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This was an older one. I had been musing on what to do myself - [4]....cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:40, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Might be a little abrupt, but sometimes enough is enough. RxS (talk) 04:43, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse block per these edits: "inclusionism the force of evil," "inclusionism and deletionism are evil," [5], [6], "The inclusionist cabal," [7], [8], and [9]. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 04:47, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All of which happened before his final warning.. - ✰ALLSTAR✰ ^echo 04:51, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've been expecting this block for a while. Yes, there's a chance that he'll behave better if someone unblocks him, but more likely, he'll just be re-indef'd in two weeks or so. --Carnildo (talk) 05:00, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"For instance, I assume that your constructive PETA and WP:V are just a cover for your anti-Libyan POV pushing. " Joking or not, that's trolling. Endorse the block. — DarkFalls ^talk 04:50, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Been watching it since this [10]. Endorse the block, trolling needs to stop.--Ѕandahl 04:55, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't fully agree with the block, it just seems so sudden, from the look of his talk page the user was discussing about a warning concerning his behavior shortly before being blocked, perhaps it would have been wise to let that discussion continue (since he only edited mainspace once after it was started) or at least issuing a shorter block before the indef. - Caribbean~H.Q. 04:59, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly oppose this block - Zenwhat's mostly meta-editing, and a lot of it's silly, but very little of it crosses the line into truly disruptive.

Mostly or entirely meta-editing is an issue, which has been held to be something which isn't good and needs to be corrected. Crossing the line with silly stuff has also been held to be a problem.

But this block fails to AGF and fails to give the type of clear warnings and good-faith efforts to work with the user to correct problematic behavior that we expect.

I am strongly inclined to unblock. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 05:01, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You make a reasonable case, I think. From the support for the block it sound like many people find him annoying, but this in itself isn't reason for an indef block. Maybe people with serious concerns about his editing would consider an RFC? An indef block is a harsh step if other dispute resolution avenues have not yet been explored. Friday (talk) 05:09, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How are edits like this not disruptive? --MZMcBride (talk) 05:10, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also done before his final warning. - ✰ALLSTAR✰ ^echo 05:17, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's disruptive (on the disruptive side of being silly, but disruptive). No warning, no shorter block, straight to indef because of this? This exceeds the tolerance band for "exhausted community patience". Failure to provide adequate feedback to problem users and adequate opportunity for reform is a massive failure of administrator good faith. Mentor? Sure. Shorter block? Sure. Warnings? Definitely. Indef right now? I am wondering if it's necessary to file an arbcom case. Hopefully both the community and Krimpet see reason and adjust response accordingly.

If all he does for the next month, after being properly warned and helped and talked to and shorter blocked, is more disruption, then I stand aside. Lacking those efforts... this is wrong, here and now. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 05:18, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I endorse this block from the diffs provided and my interactions with the user. Lara❤Love 05:10, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(e/c)I've encountered Zenwhat on various pages and generally found his comments to usually be somewhere between comically strange and trolling. Unfortunately his comments have been mostly toward the latter lately. I endorse this block. Mr.Z-man 05:12, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would advocate that an unblock be applied only if he is mentored, otherwise remain blocked. I might be biased, as I have only seen the more negative sides of him, but the mere existence of blatantly POINTy requests and actions and trolling over an extended period of time is too poignant to ignore. AGF does not mean we don't react if we keep getting slapped in the face. —Kurykh 05:15, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An indefinite block is extreme overkill. Blocking itself is a last resort, and indef. blocking even more so. Do shorten this block, per the blocking policy. This user has gotten two blocks in their time here. Is there any reason to believe that a 24 hour block would not suffice? -- Ned Scott 05:16, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is exactly my point, no other blocks or anything of the sort, just jumping directly to the banhammer seems inappropiate, and I feel that the block was placed to get rid of him because he has a tendency of being "annoying". - Caribbean~H.Q. 05:24, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support block, though uncertain on length of time. Zenwhat has little to no understanding of our basic policies, and even when they are explained, he responds with nothing more than contempt. Here he refers to me as a single purpose account and POV-pusher. There is no doubt in my mind Zenwhat is a reincarnation of a former editor (banned or retired, again I'm not sure) and his edits do nothing to benefit this project. With that said, Zenwhat needs to immediately change his ways, but there is a chance he could be a productive editor if he does so. - auburnpilot talk 05:22, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, a block is in order, but we shouldn't conclude an indef block yet. -- Ned Scott 05:24, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Remember, indefinite doesn't mean infinite; it just means the length of the block hasn't been decided or will be determined by the future actions of the blocked user. Sancho 05:49, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I support the indef block given much of what I've seen over the last several weeks. But since I can reasonably guess it'll be shortened, I'd support a namespace ban, no edits to the project space/project talk space for 2 months, excepting Wikipedia:Bots/Status. Possibly extending to other "discussion" spaces, depending on a more detailed examination of his edits. MBisanz ^talk 05:24, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I think that might be too extreme. Give him a 24 hour, or even a week long block. He's only gotten one other block other than the one he has now. I've come across him in the project talk namespace, and while I thought his comments were a bit off the wall, I didn't consider it disruptive. -- Ned Scott 05:27, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Everyone, please do remember that "indefinite" does not mean "infinite," whatever precedent may indicate or imply. An unblock or shortening of the existing block is still on the table. —Kurykh 05:27, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd support a shortening of his block to a week or more and then a Wikispace ban after that, besides requests to AIV, RPP, and the like. I think that indef blocking is overkill in this case, but the trolling still warrants a block for a longer period of time. bibliomaniac15 05:27, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse the block. The user has been bordeline trolling at the Village Pump for some time; his discussions are unneccesarily provacative. I would support an unblock ONLY under the condition that he receive a ban against all non-article editing. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:28, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would people support a reduction to 48 hours with a further warning? He's had a 24 hour block, for a similar reason, 48 might be a good middle ground for a next step. RxS (talk) 05:29, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Only if that includes a temporary ban on project space. - auburnpilot talk 05:30, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The original indef block makes more sense than a reduction to me. _(1 == 2)^Until 05:31, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, well, too bad the blocking policy doesn't think that way. -- Ned Scott 05:32, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think he'll get the message enough that we won't need a project space ban. -- Ned Scott 05:32, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary limits seem silly. If we believed that the user was interested in stopping the problematic behavior today, then there would be overwhelming support to overturn the block. 48 hours is not a magic number, unless we are in the business of handing out "sentances" for "crimes", and last I checked, that was not part of an admin's job description. Unless the user agrees to abide by a Wikipedia: namespace ban, I don't see where any arbitrarily shortened block would serve any purpose at all. This block is not an attempt to stop an imminently disruptive behavior, this is a chronic problem and deserves a permanent solution. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:33, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Our procedure for handling chronic problems is warn, warn, warn, try to mentor, warn, block short period, warn, try to mentor, block longer period, warn, warn, try to mentor, block slightl longer period... and repeat a bunch until indef is the last option left.

If that procedure is followed and at the end of it, Zenwhat remains disruptive, then pull the plug. But this action has unacceptably foreshortened the endgame. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 05:39, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

INdeed. I agree with you 100%. I was questioning the wisdom of a 48 hour block for this. Again, we are not a court system, we don't hand out punishments. One of two things must be true: The user either poses an iminent threat that we need to stop NOW (i.e. edit warring or 3RR), or the user has exhausted the patience of the community and is no longer welcome. The debate should be about unblocking them NOW or leaving it as an indefiniate block. The inbetween stuff is pointless, as it serves no purpose. We're not lawyers working out a plea-bargin here. We're trying to decide if this user poses a net risk to Wikipedia. If they don't, unblock them now. If they do, leave it up indefinately. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:43, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, I don't think he should be blocked at all, but I figure 48 was something to make those who wanted indef something they could see as reasonable. -- Ned Scott 06:01, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just a bit concerned about the timing of this block relative to the arrival of an article critical of Wikipedia which Zenwhat claimed to have been a (apparently unwitting) part of. Feels like someone felt he borke the first rule of Fight Club Wikipedia. ThuranX (talk) 05:32, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do we have a link for this? -- Ned Scott 05:34, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This link? Endorse shortened block and project space ban. Franamax (talk) 05:42, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, not even 48 hours. His only edit after the final warning, was not a disruptive one and he shouldn't have been blocked in the first place until he violated that final warning. - ✰ALLSTAR✰ ^echo 05:34, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So he is allowed to disregard all previous warnings, but if he supposedly heeds the final warning, which shouldn't be needed in the first place, he should be unblocked? Every warning should be a final warning. —Kurykh 05:37, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Say what ???? Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 05:40, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No but at least that should have been taken under consideration before blocking, usually blocks are issued when a violation happens after the final warning. - Caribbean~H.Q. 05:41, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(ecX5): Considering it was given as a final warning, even named as such on his talk page, he shouldn't have been blocked until he violated it. - ✰ALLSTAR✰ ^echo 05:43, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(ecXmany) Endorse unblock (with extreme reluctance, because I think it's fair to say that Wikipedia's a more pleasant place without him) for several reasons, primarily those put forward by User:Allstarecho. If he violates his final warning after being unblocked, he should receive escalating blocks. He's just not a clear enough troll to warrant an indef. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 05:45, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Haggling

So, we've got quite a crowd endorsing the indefinite, and a few strongly objecting. How about a week? It's not at all obvious to me that dispute resolution methods short of the indefinite block have been exhausted. Friday (talk) 05:43, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would rather want a guarantee that he will change and his understanding of what the consequences of another such violation of our policies here will be, rather than an arbitrary block duration that is almost meaningless. —Kurykh 05:45, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You can't make someone turn on a dime. Lets ask for reasonable improvement. -- Ned Scott 05:59, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Zenwhat has an unusual contribution history. His very first edit (and 3 subsequent edits) were to his monobook.css file. His fourth was a revert on The Transhumanist's user page. Has anyone done a check to see if these users are the same person? Zenwhat is clearly not a new user when he signed up for his account. It's possible, of course, that he had been editing for some time under an IP address (which is allowed), but it's more likely that he is either a reincarnation of another user, or a sockpuppet. None of that is necessarily against Wikipedia rules, but this account has been used from the start primarily for disruptive and bizarre project-space edits. If the account is a sock, then it should be blocked and the user told to stop doing silly stuff and to edit from his main account. If not, the user should be restricted to editing only articles (no project space or user space) and put on vandalism parole. *** Crotalus *** 05:42, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He's admitted to being a previous user and having re-regged after forgetting his old password. He's not so much a sock as he is a nuisance. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 05:49, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the problem with a temp/indef project space ban is that we'd have no way to judge if he's gotten the message. I think he's proven he knows the behavioral guidelines well enough to know the effect he has by his editing patterns, he's gotten warnings...48 hours seems right. Can we get a general agreement on that? RxS (talk) 05:45, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, see my comments above. A any temporary length block is arbitrary. It would be punishment, and we do not punish. Either unblock now, or leave the block up. If we believe the user will cease the problematic behavior, then there is no reason to leave the block in place. If we believe the user will not cease the problematic behavior, then what is the point of simply allowing them to continue the behavior in 48 hours? What is magic about 48 hours or 1 week or any other number? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:49, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, not any amount of time. As I said above, his only 2 edits after the final warning, were not a disruptive ones and he shouldn't have been blocked in the first place until he violated that final warning. - ✰ALLSTAR✰ ^echo 05:51, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then unblock, we can't predict what pattern he will take if he only was able to edit the mainspace once after receiving the final warning. - Caribbean~H.Q. 05:52, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You'd have a point if this was a regular vandal, but we're talking about an experienced user who should know better. He's gotten enough feedback to know that his edits were a problem, whether they were official warnings or not. RxS (talk) 05:56, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No number is magical. But the answer is likely to be somewhere in between "unblock right now" and "never unblock". A few days block would help make it clear to Zenwhat that many editors find his behavior problematic. Friday (talk) 05:54, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will oppose any unblock that does not contain the guarantee that he will change his attitudes, behavior, and actions, and a method of dealing with him if such circumstances arise again. Enough of his disruption and trolling. —Kurykh 05:55, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indef block is way, way overkill here. Not appropriate at all. Bstone (talk) 05:57, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Zenwhat has retired per [11]. MBisanz ^talk 06:01, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would not pay that any mind. He's obviously upset (with a right to be), and so I don't think it's fair to say that his retirement is permeant. Regardless of that, his account should be unblocked. -- Ned Scott 06:10, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have not reviewed Zenwhat's edits and know him only from interactions on my talk page. Mostly he has come there and joked around, but not in any particularly bad way if I recall. We have had some tongue-in-cheek discussions that I enjoyed. However, article space joking around is of course Not Funny(tm), and I don't approve of that. But making fun of Cade Metz's bizarre rantings in The Register seems like a good thing. I would recommend and request that he be unblocked but under a very firm request not to joke around in article space. Of course I say this not having reviewed his contributions, so I could be wrong. --Jimbo Wales (talk) 06:10, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The issue seems largely NOT with his article-space edits, but with his unneccessarily provocative edits in the project-space, such as here at ANI and on the Village Pump. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 06:19, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But what is "provocative"? The blocking admin said that the last edit (straw?) to JW's page was "provocative", but clearly not everyone sees it that way. R. Baley (talk) 06:24, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was trying to be diplomatic. He's been trolling the project discussion pages for some time. That is the central issue. Again, leave the block up or unblock now. The rest of this seems like we're plea-bargining over a punishment, and that is not why we block people. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 06:27, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Has anyone looked over Zenwhat's recent contributions at Wikipedia Talk:IAR and Wikipedia Talk:WIARM since Miszabot'a recent archive? Scroll down some, it's hard to miss Zenwhat accusing, and harassing other editors as a first line of argument. Then the appeals to logic( a personal and solipsistic variety). Does Zenwhat wish to contribute to Wikipedia? In any meaningful way? The rants on these talk pages are contrary to efficient use of the Wikipediaspace talkpages, and these are policies. Not that Zenwhat is the only disruptive editor to show up on such pages, or the worst one ever, of course. Newbyguesses - Talk 15:06, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A ban is not the first step

A ban is the last step in the process, not the first one. The first step is giving this user specific ways he/she can improve, possibly through an RFC. He's come across my radar before and I've raised an eyebrow, but he's obviously a good faith user and it's worth taking a chance on trying to help him improve. --B (talk) 05:58, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No one is banning him. We just want to see a commitment to improvement. How hard is it to achieve that? All I see is whimpers of "too harsh" and "should be unblocked" and "blocked after final warning," yet I see no genuine attempts or proposals of committing Zenwhat to get his act together by the naysayers here. —Kurykh 06:01, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Or maybe that final warning did what you're wanting? We will never know since he was blocked anyway, will we? Especially since he's now retired from WP. Shame too. - ✰ALLSTAR✰ ^echo 06:08, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it's just me, but I have lost any good faith on Zenwhat heeding warnings, given his prior responses to them. —Kurykh 06:14, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(to Kurykh) No, that's not how it works. We don't care if he says sorry and gives us puppy eyes. This block is extreme overkill. We have other ways to deal with this, and any blocking is seen as a last resort. If you don't like that, Kurykh, take it up with the blocking policy. -- Ned Scott 06:09, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not the only one who doesn't want the unconditional unblock, as you can see from this thread. And I don't need him to give puppy eyes and say sorry. I just want an explicit commitment from him, and a detail of consequences were decorum be breached again. This is common procedure in these cases. I just don't see why we are allowing this one to be the sole exception. —Kurykh 06:16, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to me that he was given a final warning, he did not cause any further violations and yet he was indef blocked anyways. That is plainly disturbing. Bstone (talk) 06:17, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this is all over the place. How about an unblock for now with a strong warning that there are serious concerns about his behavior. The point has probably been driven home effectively over the last hour. It also has to be made clear that Jimbo's comments above do not sanction his editing habits. Let's head off any more drama, and see how he reacts to all this? RxS (talk) 06:33, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. - Caribbean~H.Q. 06:35, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would support an unblock now. I know I said something different WAY back there, but yes, the point is made. If the problems return, the block can return. He's hardly "under the radar" now. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 06:36, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have grave concerns about due process here. It seems to me that several possible steps in dispute resolution and blocking procedure were skipped. As much as Zenwhat irritates me, this is a miscarriage. I'm discomfited by it. I would support a week's block, but indef is far too extreme. - Philippe | Talk 21:28, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unblocked and put on probation

See User talk:Zenwhat#Unblocked - I have unblocked Zenwhat as there is clearly disagreement here as to the appropriateness of the block. I have also left a more clearer and wide-ranging (and less bitey) warning and probation statement there.

I invite admins to work with him with friendly discussion and cautions as appropriate. As I noted on his talk page, further serious disruption should be met by (short but increasingly long) blocks as per policy. I am not giving him a pass - I have applied longstanding user sanctions policy here. If he continues to be disruptive act appropriately. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 06:37, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of the block, I think there is something special about this user. The user is over active, intelligent and very aware of the wikipedia policies and its history. The user knows the system from a high level perspective: See how the user responded to me at [12], it closed my mouth to some extent. I am mostly interested to know this user, admittedly the strangest user I have ever seen on wikipedia. I originally thought that the user is over active because he wants to become an admin, and tried to check this hypothesis, but as of now, I think the user is just active in nature. --Be happy!! (talk) 06:54, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And this is [13] worth seeing. --Be happy!! (talk) 06:58, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whoa! That [14] is extremely clever! And of course has some insight, inasmuch as it simply applies the eightfold way to Wikipedia. Leaves me with a grinding sense of envy that I didn't do it. Anway, what are you guys doing blocking this guy, whose major contribution seems to be to make you think when you're rather not? Ignore him if that is the case! Banning or indef blocking (too little difference these days between the two given editors dislike of going against each other) is very harsh. And should be reserved for clear vandals, not gadflies. Definition of Clear Vandal, in case you've forgotten: ISP user who erases article or part of one, and inserts "Johhny suuucks *&%$." SBHarris 00:35, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He's Back

[15] Charles Stewart (talk) 07:31, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am against issuing any blocks against against this user whatsoever . As I mentioned above, this user is special and the above diff provided by Charles proves this further. This user may have things to say and I for one want to listen if there is anything to be learned. --Be happy!! (talk) 08:14, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for one week

I have now blocked him for one week for his behaviour since his unblock. You can see my explanation on his talk page[16]. Feel free to extend, unblock, or whatever else is appropriate and has some consensus here. Fram (talk) 09:46, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with the block. What was wrong with village pump post? --Be happy!! (talk) 09:49, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That it was trolling / stirring up drama by alleging secret information right after a warning against trolling? It was a pretty good own goal, though, as the financial statements had just been published less than an hour before Zenwhat's post. I don't know if one week was the proper block length, but some block was probably necessary if we want "probation" to mean anything. Kusma (talk) 10:11, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

... And that he removed comments by others when he removed the thread he started. You are not allowed to remove the comments by other people just because you change your mind for whatever reason. Doing this when one is only just unblocked and put on probation was not the best move. Fram (talk) 10:14, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about the validity of his claims but why was it trolling?

And removing the section he had started does not create sufficient ground for a block; all the other comments were responses to his original comment after all. The proper way was to archive it, though, but this is a minor thing after all... --Be happy!! (talk) 10:19, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is ridiculous. First, while the terms of Georgewilliamherbert's probation do preclude the use of Wikipedia primarily for meta-discussion, and Zenwhat did post a meta-discussion post. But he later removed it. It should be apparent that the removal of the post was an indication that Zenwhat regretted the post or at least realised it would cause disruption; or that, instead of immediately blocking Zenwhat, he should at least be engaged on his talk page. By removing his post he has, at the very least, proved himself somewhat reasonable and sensitive to the terms of probation.

Zenwhat is already on a short leash, and realises that now. He also realised that posting the thread was disruptive, and in his realisation removed the thread. And now we are blocking him for his actions upon realisation, as opposed to reinstating the thread, archiving it and counseling Zenwhat? Ridiculous. --Iamunknown 15:01, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Zenwhat recognises that he should have archived rather than removed. However, the notion of this being a "1 week blocking offence"-type disruption is ridiculous. The discussion was still preserved in the history (an argument that Jimbo Wales has used to justify courtesy blanking of ArbCom pages). The edit summary makes the fact that the intent was to prevent disruption clear. Fram should reverse this block. Failing that, and even in the absence of an unblock request from Zenwhat, another admin should step in and rectify Fram's mistake. Fram's decision to restore the section - unarchived - appears not so much an attempt to preserve comments as it was an attempt to hold Zenwhat up to ridicule. I base this on the comment Fram made on Zenwhat's talk page (now stricken) that the section in question made him look a fool. This was not a cool and dispassionate use of tools based on an objective look at the situation, and the block should be reversed on that basis alone. Jay*Jay (talk) 15:47, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. This is just a case of someone wanting him blocked and using the terms of his probation as an excuse. Georgewilliamherbert's stipulations do not prevent Zenwhat from meta-discussion. Georgewilliamherbert only pointed out that Zenwhat's meta-discussion are considered controversial and objectionable. He didn't outright say "don't post meta-discussion". The Village Pump post was not in violation of the probation terms nor was it disrupting. In fact, many users were engaged in the conversation. He does have the right to remove something, especially since he felt he put it there in the first place out of anger. He even had the best possible edit summary explaining his removal. This block as well is foul. - ✰ALLSTAR✰ ^echo 16:20, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I must have missed the policy change where it is allright to remove posts from other users just because you initiated the thread... And the best possible edit summary? He didn't want a flamefest, so he removed a post that was (according to you) not disruptive, and where no flames or even smoke were apparent... Fram (talk) 19:32, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

After all the discussion about his first block, and then an unblock and a warning he writes Based on a certain inside informer I know, I have learned that in 2007, the Wikimedia Foundation has been squandering your donations?? And spamming it on editors talk pages. I think a week is fine....that's pretty dang close to a classic case of trolling, no matter if he did remove it later. Endorse re-block, if someone wants to adjust the length that's fine, but it's clear he learned nothing from the first go around. RxS (talk) 16:30, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What is this block supposed to be preventing? Blocks are, after all, preventative, not punitive. Given that he deleted the thread himself, he sort of seems a low risk of re-offending. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 23:15, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It prevents the exact type of behavior the user would continue in if left unblocked. that is what it prevents. _(1 == 2)^Until 16:02, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It seems he undid the offending post. If this sort of behaviour or other behaviour breaching the probation was to continue then there would be merit for a block, but a single offence of questionable intent doesn't seem to cut it. I'd rather see how this travels before we get a decision. Have unblocked per the discussion here and on Zenwhat's talk page - does not preclude further blocks if he offends again, but I think he's got the message that change is expected of him. Orderinchaos 17:08, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are far worse users who get a bye here at Wikipedia

Interesting how this particular user seems to have gotten the goad of some of the *ahem* usual suspects. Sure, this user is rough around the edges (kinda like me) and has done some things that are provocative -- perhaps even to the point of trying the community patience. But that you guys would see fit to block Zenwhat indefinitely and then hold the hand of many of the other argumentative weirdos that use Wikipedia as their personal playground for disruption is beyond me. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:15, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Zenwhat's announced retirement has quite possibly closed this matter. I personally hope that there will be no need to return to it in the future; a satisfactory solution looks unlikely, and Zenwhat's approach makes it doubtful that his work could have the intended positive effect on the community. --Kizor 15:50, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some of his comments are kinda crazy, but I've found some his input to be helpful and positive. So no, you are wrong. This block is unnecessary, and should be undone. I'll give a standing offer to Zen that if he wants anything posted, I'll do it for him. -- Ned Scott 06:01, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. There was some well-intended bits in there but the tin-foil hats required made much of it, ironically, static which they seemed to object to. Benjiboi 07:49, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

...or do Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oxford Round Table and the talk page of the article nominated for deletion appear to have more socks than a branch of Sock Shop? _GB^T/C 17:08, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not just you, and the whole thing has been giving me an itchy block finger from the outset. I found "one or two" SPAs when I first responded to an OTRS complaint about this:

• Obscuredata (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Tepid1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Academic38 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Nomoskedasticity (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Drstones (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• OrionClemens (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Amelia9mm (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Franknfair (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Academic2007 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Coligny (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Clearly we can add a few more to that inglorious list:

• Billingsworth (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Slintfan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• InformationKey (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• LAstride (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Jrichardstevens (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

What say, block the lot? Guy (Help!) 17:50, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. AfD a pointless mess, being used to continue some pointless vendetta. Not that the article talkpage is much better. Relata refero (talk) 18:17, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would another admin please review this huge number of blocks? While it seems likely that some of them are either sock or meat puppets (I even filed an SSP report on some of them), I think others have demonstrated a willingness to work within Wikipedia guidelines. Blocking the lot of them as "disruptive SPAs" seems excessive. Pairadox (talk) 23:45, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is overkill. I'm looking at Jrichardstevens (talk · contribs), who is requesting unblock. His explanation of how he found the AFD seems reasonable and he is a long-time, though infrequent user. Unless someone can offer a really good reason for this block, I'm inclined to remove it.--B (talk) 02:33, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please include Nomoskedasticity (talk · contribs) in your review, since nobody else seems to be looking at these. Pairadox (talk) 07:34, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

These are all single purpose accounts with an agenda of either promoting or knocking a marginally notable company. We can do without them. All of them. Guy (Help!) 08:58, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please note the newly created User:Athoughtforyou, another SPA. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:59, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just looking at Nomoskedasticity, I see no reason for this account to be blocked. It's focused on a single article, yes, but it is not being disruptive about it in any way that I can see. Sandstein (talk) 09:28, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, unblock that user then. The rest can stay blocked, at least until the deletion debate is finished, and forever if the article is kept. They are bringing an off-wiki dispute to Wikipedia, and that is all they are doing. We simply don't need that. Guy (Help!) 16:04, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

With your agreement, I've granted Nomoskedasticity's unblock request. Sandstein (talk) 16:10, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Review of three of the above blocks

I agree with B that this is overkill. Three are quite clearly not single-purpose accounts. I agree in principle with the blocks of those editing the article and AfD disruptively, but I don't agree with the lengths. The Oxford Round Table situation needed sorting out, but some of these accounts are new (only 2-5 edits), and probably arrived here to take part in the AfD, but, if handled correctly (a stern warning, for example), could learn their lessons and (in time, after learning how things work around here) contribute to Wikipedia. They could be, for example, American or Oxford academics, who, if properly guided and introduced to Wikipedia, could really provide some good contributions - this at least argues for a warning and guidance, rather then being labelled SPAs after only 2-5 edits (sockpuppets excepted, if we can identify them).

One of the three accounts that are, in my opinion, examples of collateral damage is: Special:Contributions/Amelia9mm.

I also looked at this thread from Guy's (JzG's) talk page, about the block of Jrichardstevens:

• [17] (Revolving Bugbear raises concerns)
• [18] (the account holder also objects to the block)
• [19] (Guy's reply)

I've urged Guy (by e-mail and on his talk page), to look again at:

• Special:Contributions/Jrichardstevens
• Special:Contributions/Amelia9mm

These are as far from being single-purpose accounts as it is possible to be (remember that the Oxford Round Table article was created on 13:10, 9 December 2007):

Jrichardstevens: Account created 4 November 2005

Eight innocuous edits to unrelated articles over a period of around two years. Not the greatest of contributions, but the potential is there for someone who was interested enough to register an account to (one day) start contributing more. Indeed, the foray into Wikipedia namespace showed someone who might well have started contributing more. But given his reaction to the block Guy placed, that may no longer happen.

Amelia9mm: Account created 25 May 2007

Two minor edits to the article in question. Absolutely no reason to block.

If we look at the account creation dates for the accounts listed in that ANI thread, we see that all the accounts, except three, were created in the period from December 2007 to February 2008. Two of those created before that period are the ones I've mentioned above. The other one is Drstones (who created the article in question):

• Special:Contributions/Drstones
• Account created August 2006.

And indeed, when we look closer, we see that the initial edits of this account are fine:

• [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25]

And from later:

• [26], [27], [28]

For Guy to say the following in the block log "Disruptive single purpose account", is incredibly frustrating, and a flagrant abuse of the SPA label. I understand fully that he was acting out of concern that this conflict, which apparently includes an off-wiki legal case, was being brought on-wiki, but that doesn't mean he or we have to suspend judgment on these issues. These three accounts are clearly not a single-purpose account, regardless of whether it was disruptive or not. The Drstones account is a bit different, because he created the article, but it is still clearly not an SPA. Maybe disruptive, but not an SPA.

I think Guy owes all three of these accounts an apology for incorrectly calling them "single-purpose accounts" in the block logs, and I think he should apologise in this ANI thread as well. I am incensed that blocks like this are still being handed out, and that the SPA (single-purpose account) label is being abused like this.

And there is more.

Look at the sequence of events in the ANI thread:

• Gb posts at 17:08, 8 February 2008 - with an initial query
• Guy posts at 17:50, 8 February 2008 - long list of alleged SPAs
• Relata refaro posts at 18:17, 8 February 2008 - a brief agreement
• Guy blocks 15 of the accounts between 19:46 and 19:48

What does that brief timescale (less than 3 hours), bad blocks, bad advice, and small amount of input remind anyone of? It reminds me of the recent MatthewHoffman arbitration case. The difference here is that the objections to some of these blocks are slowly but surely arriving, and as far as I can see, Guy has provided no justification for his incorrect labelling of three of these accounts as "single-purpose accounts". If there is OTRS or Foundation or checkuser concerns specifically linking these accounts, then that needs to be made much, much clearer.

Oh, and there are actually 17 accounts listed there: Franknfair was blocked earlier for legal threats (so why did Guy list that account as one to be blocked?? Surely he should have looked into the account history before listing it at ANI?). And Coligny seems to have slipped through the cracks - looks like Guy forgot to block him at all. That is not the mark of someone doing a careful and thorough job. Getting things this badly wrong is not good.

I'm left asking myself - was I the only one to bother reviewing all the accounts that Guy blocked? How can ANI be so bad at doing a review like that? Why did Guy take a single reply in that thread, after it had been up for three hours, as an OK to indefinitely block the lot of them?

Note that two of the blocks have already been lifted: Jrichardstevens and Nomoskedasticity, but one of the blocks, the most unjustified of the lot, had a block review declined! See the next bit below.

I've been following this on and off all day, along with e-mailing several people to ask them to review Guy's blocks, but the last straw was the following hideously unfair review process, where the reviewing admin is not being independent, and is just accepting without question what Guy says:

• [29] (unblock request)
• [30] (Trusilver answers)
• [31] (asks Guy for a reason)
• [32] (Guy supplys reason)
• [33] (Trusilver declines unblock request by parotting reply from Guy)

Guy said: "A group of people have brought an off-wiki dispute to Wikipedia, this dispute includes real-world legal action and has prompted complaints to the Foundation. This user is one of a group of single purpose accounts with no history outside this subject. I blocked the lot."

Trusilver accepted that reason without so much as a murmur, and went back and declined the unblock request. It is clear that Trusilver looked at the edit history in question, so why didn't he point out to Guy that his claim of "accounts with no history outside this subject" was patently wrong?

Please look at the account creation date and look at the two edits this account made to the article (early on in the history and with no apparent connection to the later conflict). If Guy had any other evidence (eg. checkuser) then he needed to actually say this. Amelia9mm has made a total of 12 edits in the nine months since she registered an account. I made a total of 6 edits in my first six months here. Please don't bite the new editors!

For some questions arising from this, see the next section below. Carcharoth (talk) 23:25, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Questions arising from these blocks by Guy

To sum up, my questions would be:

• (1) Blocks: Which accounts should be unblocked or have their blocks shortened? Jrichardstevens and Nomoskedasticity have already been unblocked. Franknfair was blocked in January for legal threats. Coligny was never blocked. I think Amelia9mm should be unblocked straightaway, with full apologies and the incorrectness of the block noted in the unblock log. Drstones, who is more involved as the creator of the article in question, although not an SPA, should be reviewed along with all the other editors (including Nomoskedasticity) for the "legal concerns" Guy mentions, but I don't think indefinite blocks are appropriate. Two of the editors: Billingsworth and InformationKey blocked for sock puppeting - more sockpuppets may exist.
• (2) Blocking reasons: Why did Guy block all these accounts without checking their history properly? Even a brief look at the account creation dates and the contributions shows us that three accounts (Special:Contributions/Jrichardstevens, Special:Contributions/Amelia9mm, Special:Contributions/Drstones) are clearly not single-purpose accounts, and were created and were editing before the article even existed.
• (3) Speed of blocking: Why did Guy act so quickly (3 hours) instead of waiting for more input from ANI?
• (4) Advice given: Why did Relata refero give the advice he did? Does he stand by his comment?
• (5) Responsiveness and defending blocks: Why did Guy continue to insist they were all single-purpose accounts when objections began to arrive? Why does he object so strongly to his blocks being overturned? Do people sometimes think it's not worth challenging a dismissive and confident block handed out by Guy?
• (6) Other reasons: If there were other reasons for blocking the accounts, why did Guy not say so?
• (7) Role of ANI: Why did no-one reading the ANI thread spot that some of the accounts were not single-purpose accounts? Did anyone even bother to review all those blocks, or did they just trust Guy's judgment?
• (8) Failure of block review process: Why did Trusilver not carry out an independent block review of the Amelia9mm account and instead parrot the reason he was given by Guy?

I really hope it is possible to get proper answers to all eight of those sets of questions. I've already posted to Guy's talk page, and I'll notify Trusilver and Relata refero now. I have already e-mailed Guy and Trusilver, and several others (communicating by e-mail because of some silly wikibreak I was trying to stick to), but I'll keep everything on-wiki from now on (other than replying to the e-mails I sent earlier). I've also notified the three accounts in question: [34], [35], [36]. I've also notified Nomoskedasticity and the previous participants in this thread. Carcharoth (talk) 23:25, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what to make of these. They need to be reviewed by a checkuser with OTRS access. At least one (that I removed) was a flagrantly bad block. JzG says there is OTRS evidence that needs to be reviewed so I don't have enough information to make a decision. --B (talk) 00:36, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Even after reviewing the evidence by Carcharoth above, this looks awfully like a meat puppet ring which sprang into joint action over this particular nomination. I don't believe JzG has done anything monumentally wrong. If we start getting mindlessly bureaucratic such as the above, we are giving trolls a free pass to take over the encyclopaedia and AN/I becomes even more useless than it already is. We make people admins in order that they can deal with crises - this AfD qualified, in my view. Orderinchaos 01:45, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

...and the terrorists trolls win! You remind me of what the Bush administration, and other like-thinking politicians, keep saying as they flush civil liberties down the toilet. *Dan T.* (talk) 02:24, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've got no problem with due process. Those who follow my contribs on here will see I've unblocked quite a few people, sometimes controversially, because the case built against them here is a house of sticks based on speculation. I was merely commenting that I don't think the above 8 questions help the encyclopaedia and just introduce more bureaucracy. A real life example - when a suburban party gets out of control and the neighbourhood's getting trashed, the police will typically arrest and detain most of the people they find at the scene - even as many as 400 or 500. As the following hours proceed, it will follow that most of those people (all but maybe about 10 or even less) will be freed as the investigation proceeds, usually after a couple of hours. Does that mean the police should rewrite their rule book? No. I'd be sympathetic to the blocks being struck off the accounts' records in such cases if a review finds them to have been totally mistaken (as I believe was the case with Jrichardstevens) but I think in general policy is being managed acceptably. Could be better, but so can most things. Orderinchaos 02:36, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dan, I agree with Orderinchaos here - he has unblocked Amelia99m, so he is being fair here. Orderinchaos, the reference to a meatpuppet ring is fair enough, but I was focusing on three accounts in particular - all of which predated the creation of the article. I hope you would agree that Amelia9mm shouldn't be accused of being a meatpuppet. It seems that Jrichardstevens was aware of the offsite debate (though I haven't checked that yet), but he should be seen as some who was already contributing to Wikipedia, who decided to try and help out - Guy accusing him of being an SPA was way over the line. I'll repeat what I said before - it is a common pattern to see sporadic contributions for the first year or so at Wikipedia before people dive in deeper. We can't assume that this sort of pattern of sporadic edits over a few years means anything more than that, and I hope you would agree with that. No, actually, I know you agree with that. I hope that those who currently disagree will change their minds, and that Guy in particular will hold his hands up, swallow his pride, and say he got these two blocks wrong. Carcharoth (talk) 07:02, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd agree that these two were not SPAs or meatpuppets - in fact JRS voted the same way as JzG on the AfD, and Amelia didn't vote at all, so if they were aware of the debate from outside, they exercised either independence or restraint. Like I said it's been a sweep of a thoroughly nasty situation that caught up some people who were unlucky enough to be in the wrong place at the wrong time and have few other edits on the encyclopaedia but who were likely good faith editors, much like my police analogy above. I still am of the opinion there should be a transparent mechanism to nuke incorrect blocks off the record, as whether we like it or not, people come to assumptions based on the block record. Orderinchaos 07:18, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As a person marginally involved in this (someone called me in to Oxford Round Table when it was getting a bit out of hand and I secured consensus for removal of the worst of the poorly sourced material), I think JzG acted in a timely and sensible manner. --Tony Sidaway 01:52, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't about assessing blame. It's about determining the disposition of these users. At least one of them is a professor at a major college - SMU. We have a real problem on this encyclopedia with chasing away experts. If the blocks are 90% right and 10% wrong, we need to identify and unblock the 10%. The best way to do that is if someone with checkuser and OTRS access could take a look to see which ones are socks and which ones were making edits for which there is evidence of problems in OTRS. --B (talk) 01:55, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Who mentioned blame? I gave up OTRS access a few months ago, but the activity here has been particularly egregious and blatant. The evidence is on the wiki. --Tony Sidaway 02:14, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tony, are you seriously saying that Amelia9mm was involved in all this? Are you seriously saying that the block of Jrichardstevens was justified? Carcharoth (talk) 07:02, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have made no statements about the activities of either editor. I refer to JzG's timely and sensible actions. If there are editors in that long lists who were not involved in the abuse, they can be unblocked. This is in fact what these discussions are for. --Tony Sidaway 17:13, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but do we expect outsiders to know how things work at wikipedia, and when they oh-so-suprisingly fail to do so, block them for it? Viridae^Talk 02:05, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If they come to abuse Wikipedia, yes they must be blocked. --Tony Sidaway 02:14, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How the hell do they know they are abusing wikipedia if they don't know what rules they are breaking? Seriously when it comes to the academic establishment, we might want to try and educate them about how wikipedia works before breaking out the banhammer. Viridae^Talk 02:45, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, and I said this earlier in the thread. Some academics are particular prone to 'fighting' against restrictive Wikipedia polices, but some are perfectly reasonable, and we mustn't scare those ones off. I am going to quote in full what Jrichardstevens said on his talk page:

"Thanks for the attention to whose looking into this. I am trying to be patient (perceived injustice is difficult to swallow, even in the short-term). I do understand the rules here, but I have to say that the invitation for non-regulars posted at the top of the page that led to my block does seem to invite exactly the the type of comments I left. I weighed in as a person being talked about in the third person (one of the justifications for deletion was that academics would get the wrong idea about the conference. I weighed in and spoke as one of those academics who had found the site). I do not see how an editor can block users who leave comments like mine when there is a clear invitation for such comments at the top of the page. Right now, I am rather disgusted with Wikipedia. I know that there are checks and balances underway, but it seems I lost access as one person who expressed a particular view, and so was judged by the "company" I keep in opinions. Guilt by association is alive and well, it would seem. The thought that my first (and only) interaction with "Guy" could be his block of me (with me having no recourse to even speak to him directly about his decision) doesn't speak well for how the Wikipedia community has developed over the years. Again, thanks to the editors arguing on my behalf. Sorry if I seem touchy." - Jrichardstevens

I still think Guy needs to go and apologise here. Carcharoth (talk) 07:02, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have reviewed and in my opinion:

• Amelia is most likely a good faith user. Needs to be educated re our RS and BLP policies re other edits.
• Jrichardstevens is fine and should be unblocked.
• Drstones is clearly an SPA and the block should stand.

Orderinchaos 02:12, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Drstones edited other articles before creating the one in question. He edited two other articles after creating the one in question. In any event, even if he were an SPA, there's nothing that says we block all SPAs - we only block those that are disruptive. On the surface, I see someone who doesn't understand our policies and practices, but I don't see someone who is intentionally disruptive. --B (talk) 02:20, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article he created, battled to defend and has invested more than 90% of his edits in is now being handled by OTRS. Those who have reviewed that evidence have said there is a strong case. That's good enough for me - we should show some responsibility as a Top 10 site here when outside bodies take the trouble to bring these things to our attention. Orderinchaos 02:29, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Has a Checkuser reviewed the situation? --Akhilleus (talk) 02:35, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe so, but I can't say for sure. I'd run with the assumption that they haven't, though. Orderinchaos 02:41, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think Amelia9mm should be unblocked, she's not a SPA and she doesn't have any obvious connection to the sock/meatpuppetry affecting the article and the AfD. Jrichardstevens is already unblocked. For the rest, a Checkuser request might bring some clarity. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:31, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, Amelia9mm has been unblocked. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:35, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, forgot to notify here. I agree with the Checkuser request idea, not sure how to raise it though! (Normally it's by username, but there's so many here.) Orderinchaos 02:39, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've checked this out for myself - #2008012410015146 is the associated OTRS ticket. Basically, these users are coming in from an outside forum - this diff from a now-blocked user sums it up pretty accurately, and this appears to be the forum thread in question. A CU should be able to see if any of these accounts are sockpuppets, but I suspect at least some of them are separate users of this (fairly highly trafficked) forum who are only barely familiar with how WP works. I'd suggest looking into unblocking the non-disruptive ones, though of course they should still be considered as a bloc for matters related to this article and AfD, and the AfD closer should take that into account. krimpet✽ 02:55, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Krimpet, thank-you for quoting the OTRS ticket number - here is a question for you - if any of the blocks were based on an OTRS ticket, should Guy have quoted the OTRS ticket number both in the block logs, the ANI thread and the AfD? That would have made things a lot clearer to anyone actually carrying out a review, as ANI is supposed to be for. As it stands, I've looked through Guy's contributions, and comments like "What say, block the lot?" and "the whole thing has been giving me an itchy block finger from the outset". Guy mentions OTRS once, as far as I can tell, in this ANI thread, and mentions the off-wiki legal actions once or twice, see here and here, as well as the AfD. My problem is that Guy seems to have combined a nebulous OTRS complaint with a (seemingly justified) suspicion of sockpuppets, and then indefinitely blocked everyone in sight without checking things such as account creation dates or actual edits. He may have been relying on people filing unblock requests to overcome wrong blocks, but I was gobsmacked when the Amelia9mm unblock request was denied on the basis "no history outside this subject" - which is plainly wrong - it you are going to unhold an indefinite block like that, please get your facts straight. Regarding the Drstones block, if, and only if, OTRS confirm this legal threat involving Drstones, then I endorse the block of Drstones, though I do wonder whether our WP:LEGAL document means he would be allowed to edit other articles or not? I would also urge people blocking on the basis of an OTRS ticket to quote the OTRS number (surely that is not too difficult?). Carcharoth (talk) 07:02, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can confirm that the litigation as outlined in that diff by Franknfair is in fact true. However the ticket isn't really related to any of these later sockpuppetry concerns, it was over the content that Drstones and others were adding to the article, including criticism sourced solely to forum posts and their self-written blogs. The ensuing AfD was Guy's own decision to undertake it seems; it wasn't a "per OTRS" action per se. krimpet✽ 15:45, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was just looking at the Chronicle forum, and I think Krimpet is right--many of these SPAs are probably people who were reading the forum and decided to join in on the fun at Wikipedia. I suppose this falls under WP:MEAT, but it doesn't look like it's being coordinated by any particular person, nor are there any posts on the forum telling people to go to Wikipedia and take a specific action. So, I'd agree that their votes shouldn't be given much weight at the AfD, but if these editors are interested in becoming productive contributors to Wikipedia, we should unblock them. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:02, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just bring it to checkuser already. I declined Amelia's RFU and given the exact same circumstances, I would deny a similar request. On the surface, there is nothing that Guy did wrong with the possible exception of maybe being a little quick on the block. Amelia has very little of an edit history and dropped in to participate in a hot button issue after a long time between edits. That smells extremely strongly of a sleeper sock to me. At the very least it is incredibly suggestive. The amount of work that's gone into this whole thing is downright amusing. Checkuser...problem solved...it all comes out in the wash. Trusilver 03:16, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The main reason I unblocked Amelia was that she didn't make any edits to the AfD and her edits to the article were very minor. (Her edits to other articles, strangely, were actually more problematic.) Had I seen AfD edits I think it would have taken a clear consensus to unblock. A checkuser isn't going to help much, come to think of it, if they are dispersed users coming in from a forum. I agree with Trusilver re JzG's actions. Orderinchaos 04:53, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Trusilver, two of the accounts I highlighted (Amelia99m and Jrichardstevens) don't warrant checkuser - in their cases any checkuser request would just be fishing and an abuse of the checkuser process. You have to have stronger evidence of any sockpupettry in their case. Carcharoth (talk) 07:02, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Checkuser request filed. But this probably won't be "problem solved"; I'd place a bet that some of these users are going to come up as "unrelated". --Akhilleus (talk) 03:33, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe because (gasp!) they are unrelated? It is possible you know. Carcharoth (talk) 07:02, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Orderinchaos, thank you for at least addressing question 1. I agree that the Drstones account should remain blocked, but would question why the Nomoskedasticity account (which is as much of an SPA as the others) gets unblocked. Either block them all and tell them to register new accounts but stay away from that article, or review all of them to determine the level of disruption, and unblock accordingly. Carcharoth (talk) 07:02, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Carcharoth, I think you've done an admirable thing in trying to ensure that these blocks are investigated fully. Your instincts are spot-on here. The only problem is that when I look at the above, I see Guy rather distinctly saying something along the lines of "AfD a mess, legal action involved, even if some of them are not SPAs, that can be discussed and they unblocked after the AfD is over." Now, by the standards of murkiness and arbitariness that have been set recently, that is both a lot of information and a great willingness to step back and compromise. Perhaps you could have chosen a better example.

About whether I would give him the same advice, that's a good question: I certainly think that an account that has had three or four edits over months and suddenly explodes into life on one issue contentious on RW is, if not necessarily a sleeper sock, hardly anything other than an SPA. DrStones made five edits to three articles before spending a lot of time on this one. If you look at the AfD at the time that Guy brought it here; it consisted essentially of the above list of accounts warring incomprehensibly; a look at the talkpage of the article isn't very different. I find it difficult to believe that they were contributing any useful information for other commenters; or at least that there was any more forthcoming from them. As such, from the point of view of the project, they were not helping - disrupting our work - non-socks or no.

Finally, Guy is liable to make courageous blocks. Some of them are mistaken - though these not so much. I had a tiring time last night with one user who should really have been banned as a menace to the project at any of the last four arbcoms he went through. I wasn't when, sitting and reading up on the background, I discovered that in the last one the only editor who bothered to go out of his way enough to propose banning him as a disruptive POV-pusher was Guy. (It didn't pass, because the dear little ArbCom gets confused when they have more than two issues to think about at a given time.) You may not like it, or the way he goes about it, but Guy's actions in most cases end up helping the project. Relata refero (talk) 07:28, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hang on. I only questioned three of the blocks. And some of the accounts that were blocked had never participated in the AfD. (That shoots down Guy's argument straightaway, and shows that he just blocked indiscriminately). I said I agreed in principle with the other blocks (if not the length), and I now agree with the Drstones block (it was only late on that I realised that he created the article - Guy could have helped by making that clearer). As for "five edits to three articles before spending a lot of time on this one", this is along the lines of the "90%" comment made by Orderinchaos. Stats like that can give a misleading impression. It is actually 40 edits over a period of 5 months, 30 of which were to the article and its talk page. I make that 75%, not 90%, but let's not quibble there. My point here is that Drstones clearly did bring an offwiki dispute on-wiki, but he should be allowed to learn a lesson from this. Guy's abrasive attitude is not best suited to handling that sort of thing. My editing history shows that up until the end of July 2005 I had made most of my edits to 7 July 2005 London bombings and related articles and debates (about 100 out of 110 edits). For all intents and purposes, I was a single-purpose account focused on that article. In today's climate, if I had made a mis-step, said something unsourced about one of the bombers or bomb victims, or encountered a bad block for a multitude of other reasons, I might have been so affronted at my treatment that I might never have returned. As for the thoroughness of my review, I wish more people did reviews as thorough as this. The impression I got, in the day that I waited for various replies, was that no-one was bothering to review all the accounts, when two (going by the account creation dates) were sticking out like sore thumbs as bad blocks. I'll finish by quoting what Jrichardstevens and Amelia9mm said on their talk pages when requesting unblocks:

"Right now, I am rather disgusted with Wikipedia. I know that there are checks and balances underway, but it seems I lost access as one person who expressed a particular view, and so was judged by the "company" I keep in opinions. Guilt by association is alive and well, it would seem." - Jrichardstevens

and

"I don't know why this is blocked, nor do I know what I could possibly have done that is disruptive. Why would I want to bother to come to improve info on wikipedia if some total stranger can block my account? How is it that someone I have never heard of can block my account INDEFINITELY? His linked page says "I am here for some very limited purposes.." Hello? Some explanation could be useful here! [...] Could someone help explain this statement about a legal action? What is that about? I don't know anything about any legal action. What am I purported to have done?" - Amelia9mm

How on Earth does that help the project? I still say, very strongly, that Guy owes those two accounts an apology. Carcharoth (talk) 07:57, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree that Guy's attitude is sometimes too abrasive for efficiency.

Disagree that the project isn't better for the incident.

Agree that completely that more thorough review is always a good thing, and again, thanks for putting the time in on this. Relata refero (talk) 09:04, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another question

I'm sure I'll get accused of trolling again, but seriously.. An AfD by JzG/Guy of the Oxford Round Table article and then he starts blocking people left and right that are participating in that very AfD? Sets off bells for me. - ✰ALLSTAR✰ ^echo 02:19, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's an important detail that was left out. Umm ... yeah, that's bad. --B (talk) 02:21, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note that he blocked many people who agreed with him that it should be deleted. So it's hardly the egregious violation of COI that is being suggested here. Orderinchaos 02:40, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He used tools in a dispute that he was involved in. There really should be no further discussion beyond how sharp a reminder/reprimand is appropriate. Jd2718 (talk) 02:51, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's not how it works. Starting an AfD on an article does not mean you cannot enforce policy with regards to users who edit that article. This is particularly true of users who are working with the OTRS system to resolve sensitive problems. FCYTravis (talk) 07:22, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He should have quoted the OTRS number in the block logs. Carcharoth (talk) 08:10, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Oxford Round Table shows most of those users having been editing or discussing for a consensus since at least December 2007. How could they be considered SPAs? - ✰ALLSTAR✰ ^echo 03:15, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Excepting the three I mentioned above, the other accounts are SPAs because they were only editing that article and associated articles. To be cleared of the SPA accusation, they would need to have edited unrelated articles (thus showing they were interested in diversifying their interests), or (even better) to have edited other articles well before arriving at this article. The hallmarks of the SPAs is that they were created in December 2007 or later (after the article was created), and have only contributed to this and related articles. Blocking them indefinitely does little harm because they can re-register with another account and edit the rest of Wikipedia, while staying clear of Oxford Round Table and associated articles. In the Drstones case, his creation of the article and the resulting fuss would indicate that the account should remain blocked until the legal case is ended, or he should, like the meatpuppets, create another account (free of the taint of this incident) to edit other areas of Wikipedia. What they shouldn't do is create other accounts and go back to editing that article - let others handle that article (I think it should be a footnote in some Oxford University-related article). Carcharoth (talk) 07:18, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed and thanks for explaining it. - ✰ALLSTAR✰ ^echo 07:21, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Carcharoth explains it well. Related articles include some Oxford colleges and at least one deleted article, which I'll dredge out in a bit. These are people who have brought an off-wiki fight to Wikipedia. Do we need that? I don't think so. Especially since the off-wiki fight apparently includes legal action. I am not "involved" in this dispute at all, all I have done is respond to an OTRS complaint and an article which was created and is being abused to pursue an external agenda. Next time I'll just nuke the article and leave it at that. Guy (Help!) 11:07, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hadn't thought of that. Nuking the article might have been better all round. It was clearly started to bring an off-wiki dispute on-wiki, and it never really recovered from that. If there needs to be any article at all, it would benefit from a clean start, though not, obviously, by the same editors. I guess I should toddle off and say that at the AfD. Carcharoth (talk) 11:36, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to remind everyone involved that "disruption" was simply agreeing with Guy that the article should be deleted. I cared less about whether the article was good for wikipedia than how useful it was for academics interested in the event. And that was why I left two comments supporting Guy's suggestion that the site be deleted: the page is terrible and the controversy had ZERO influence on my decision concerning whether or not to attend the conference. For my support, I was blocked. I truly think Guy compiled a list (either by himself of with the help of others) of "known unknowns" and blocked the lot without investigating the facts of each individual case. This mirrors the very reputation-based mentality that constricts the offline publishing world. It seems your behavior might not evolve THAT differently from traditional publishing after all? As someone who reads much, edits little and talks even less, I would suggest that none of you can judge the intentions of an editor based on sporadic participation. Silence or only occasional editing might mean that someone is inclined to read more than write, something I think you would favor in at least some of your membership.Jrichardstevens (talk) 14:58, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Guy, the only deleted articles I can find are: SMUDailyData (by Drstones) and Larry M. Buchanan (edit made by OnionClemens linking a mention of the Oxford Round Table). I can't see any smoking gun there? Carcharoth (talk) 12:01, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blocking is a last resort

Ok everyone, repeat after me: Blocking is a last resort.

Even with evidence that some of these users might be meatpuppets or SPAs, that in no way is justification for these blocks. We point out these users in the AfD, and leave them messages (not warnings, but messages), and we assume good faith. Being an SPA is never a blockable offense, and being a meatpuppet is very speculative and needs to be discussed before being acted upon (and even then should not be blocked unless there continues to be a problem). If you don't like this, or think it's a pain in the butt, then don't get involved with being an admin. This is why it's a mop and not a shotgun on many admin icons. -- Ned Scott 07:34, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. In practice though, the SPA label is abused like you would not believe. "Disruptive SPA" is a common block log reason. I would be much happier if people said "disruptive account", and didn't try to bolster their blocking reasons with appeals to the "SPA" label. It is not listed at User:Hut 8.5/indef blocks 2 (a very interesting analysis), but I would be interested to find out how many indefinite or shorter blocks are made with "SPA" or "single purpose account" in the block log. Carcharoth (talk) 08:08, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Checkuser case

... now completed. See Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Drstones - it was pretty convoluted, but someone had to take it on - Alison ^❤ 09:03, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. My posts below edit conflicted with you, but I'm glad to see that your check picked up MedWoman (which I'd already discovered while looking around) and some other accounts as well, and I'm glad you used the qualifier to indicate that the unrelated ones are not all SPAs, as Guy was insisting. Carcharoth (talk) 10:40, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you now owe Guy an apology, Carcharoth. --Tony Sidaway 17:15, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you may wish to read some of Carcharoth's later comments to Guy in the subsections below, particularly the message timed at 12:51 in the last one. LessHeard vanU (talk) 17:26, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some more points (before the blocks)

A few more points, some already stated, but getting lost above. This one is about the thoroughness of the initial blocks by JzG and the initial review/advice by Relata refaro:

• Special:Contributions/Athoughtforyou - pointed out after Guy made his list - Guy blocked but failed to put a notice on the talk page of this account.
• Some single-purpose accounts were missed, eg. Special:Contributions/MedWoman
• Special:Contributions/Coligny was never blocked - any reason for this?
• Special:Contributions/Franknfair had already been blocked - why did Guy list that account here?

Is it possible that Guy threw together a poorly compiled list of accounts without thoroughly checking them, came here to ANI to get it rubber-stamped (why do that when there was an OTRS ticket open?), that Relata refaro agreed without doing a proper review, and that Guy then went and blocked the accounts too hastily (after only three hours at ANI)? That is my reading of what happened here, and that is the reason why two accounts were caught up as collateral damage. This would have been totally unnecessary if Guy or Relata refaro had done a proper review, if Guy had quoted the OTRS ticket number in the block logs (though hopefully the two bad blocks would still have eventually been overturned), or if Guy had had the patience to wait for a whole day, instead of three hours. I think if we can all agree on that, and if Guy apologises (or provides a good reason for the two blocks in question - Jrichardstevens and Amelia9mm), then we are done here as far as the initial actions are concerned. Carcharoth (talk) 10:40, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps Guy could have waited longer, but if it was related to an off-wiki legal problem, it is possible that he thought the quicker the better.

Also note, that Guy doesn't really bring things here to be "rubber-stamped". He tends to go off on his own. This is a positive development, and should be noted as such.

Finally, I agree that my brief review of the accounts provided had at least two major and unacceptable lacunae - out of the longish list - and I will certainly do better in future. (This is not to say that I would note have suggested some other action against those particular accounts.) I do think its fair to note that at least I conducted a review beforehand, which nobody else seems to have done until it blew up. Relata refero (talk) 10:52, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gee, thanks for totally dismissing other editors who did review the situation and asked for admins to intervene. Pairadox (talk) 11:04, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Err, twelve hours later? Perhaps I should have made it clear that I meant before the blocks. Relata refero (talk) 11:14, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some more points (after the blocks)

A few more points, some already stated, but getting lost above. This one is about whether the later review process (this ANI thread after the blocks had been placed) and the response to the unblock templates:

• Initial ANI reaction after the blocks - Concerns about the mass block started trickling in four hours after the blocks were placed. Pairadox said he had filed a suspected sockpuppetry case, while B seems to have responded to an unblock request from Jrichardstevens. Around 24 hours later, two accounts (Jrichardstevens and Nomoskedasticity, who both filed unblock templates) had been unblocked, so the system seems to have worked there.
• Successful use of the unblock template - Two editors have posted to their talk page objecting to their block, but not using the unblock request template. This may be a common mistake made by new editors who get blocked, and it didn't help that Guy left terse notes, rather than a template that would have pointed people to the "unblock" template. Have a look at Mediawiki:Blockedtext and see how long it is! I sometimes wonder how many people even bother reading all that? Anyway, the two editors are: Academic38 and Slintfan. I have left notes on their talk pages - can someone please make sure they don't get forgotten about.
• Unblock request declined - Amelia9mm filed an unblock template, but the request was initially declined by Trusilver. I still believe that Trusilver failed to perform an independent review here, and that he should state here how he will improve his handling of unblock requests.
• Later responses - I raised my concerns above, and this led to Amelia9mm being unblocked. Both Amelia9mm and Jrichardstevens are now being welcomed with templates and encouraged to continue to participate in Wikipedia. Hopefully this will overcome any lingering ill-feeling from Guy's blocks.
• Later ANI opinions - Some editors support this entire review and the unblockings so far. Some still continue to object (with some also supporting the unblocking) and say that what Guy did was OK. It is clear to me that the unblocks themselves show that Guy was too hasty to block in those cases. I think this is a problem, and I think it would be appreciated if Guy said something here at some point, and if he could apologise to those two accounts as well.
• Guy's responses - I'm concerned at Guy's defensiveness over questioning of his blocks, and some people not being critical enough and going "oh, I trust his judgment". When someone asks for a review, we need to actually review it, and not just rubber-stamp it. Guy's defensiveness and insistence that these were all single-purpose accounts, can be seen in the following:
  • Concerning Jrichardstevens: "These are all single purpose accounts with an agenda of either promoting or knocking a marginally notable company. We can do without them. All of them." (he said this despite being told that Jrichardstevens was not an SPA)
  • Concerning Nomoskedasticity: "Fine, unblock that user then. The rest can stay blocked, at least until the deletion debate is finished, and forever if the article is kept. They are bringing an off-wiki dispute to Wikipedia, and that is all they are doing. We simply don't need that." (this is stange actually, as if Guy was being consistent, he should have insisted that Nomoskedasticity remain blocked - but more worrying is that Guy is still failing to recognise that he is being clearly told that he has wrongly labelled accounts as SPAs)
  • Concerning Amelia9mm: "A group of people have brought an off-wiki dispute to Wikipedia, this dispute includes real-world legal action and has prompted complaints to the Foundation. This user is one of a group of single purpose accounts with no history outside this subject. I blocked the lot." (this shows Guy parotting his stock response to the whole blocks, even when told that an individual review had been requested - no inclination shown by Guy to take another look, or to even consider that he might have been wrong, and still saying "no history outside this subject" - when that is patently false in this case)
  • Respect for Guy from Stifle: "I have high respect for you and I just wanted to run it by you before unblocking in case there is something else I should know" (I agree that Guy does good and necessary work, but I would plead with other editors and admins not to show too much respect to anyone - we can all make mistakes, and even if someone is convinced they are right, they may still be wrong - a combination of too much respect and trust in another admin's judgment, rather than one's own judgment, is what I think led Trusilver to decline the Amelia9mm unblock request)
• Independence of unblock request reviewers - I am still deeply concerned that the unblock request system failed Amelia9mm. Trusilver was correct to check with JzG to see if there was anything else going on, but a combination of JzG's refusal to admit that he had included some non-SPAs in his batch of blocks, and Trusilver saying to Amelia that her edit history looked OK but not saying this to Guy, led to the most hideously unfair block decline that I have ever seen.
• General thoughts - And I should probably say something about my response to all this. Firstly, I was trying to take a wikibreak when this all sucked me back in, and that explains why I spent most of yesterday sending people e-mails and not posting on-wiki. After I gave that up as a lost cause, I posted all this and the preceding stuff. To forestall criticisms of how I've responded to all this (or maybe it will encourage such criticisms, I don't know, but I should be the last to object to any criticisms people make of me), I will state openly that I am hypersensitive to incidents like this. See Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Matthew Hoffman for an example (and I'm saddened to see how that is ending). I am also aware of Guy's present circumstances (having left two posts to him about that, which I hope were of some comfort to him), and I have asked one of the blocked people concerned to be nice to Guy. My concern here is addressing the ingrained culture that sees blocks like this as acceptable collateral damage. I made a similar long set of posts about the conduct of Betacommand and East718 over the recent Main Page deletion/merge incident. See here for how I handled that. I feel that a thorough and systematic handling of incidents like this helps to resolve them properly, make clear what lessons need to be learned, and help the admin corps as a whole improve their conduct. But this can only work if admins accept that they will, ocassionally, be criticised like this, and accept it with good grace, instead of taking it personally.

And hopefully that will be enough, and lessons will be learned. Carcharoth (talk) 10:40, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi just to say that editors/admins looking at an AfD can spot a Single Purpose Account or one with few edits, in fact people thinking an account is one can label it as such on an AfD. I personally signed up to wiki to participate in an AfD, and here I am well over 2000 edits and two years on! So these accounts definitely shouldn't be indef blocked- not any of them that haven't been shown to be doing anything dodgy by the checkuser. Any indef blocks involved in this, and the user not shown as a wrong'un in the checkuser, should be lessened. Not just the individual ones that people 'like' and protest over here at ANI. As to Guy, I am sorry for his loss, but let's be honest, there's nothing new or particularly unusual in any of his recent behaviour on wiki, we've seen incidences similar to all of it before from him. Merkinsmum 12:33, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks, Carcharoth, for doing good work here, the emails did get through but I was at choir rehearsal all day and at a company dinner in the evening yesterday. Note that Nomoskedasticity came up as likely in the sockpuppet check, but let's not worry too much about that. I defend my block of the numerous accounts that turned out to be socks, and the balance that are SPAs, but will be more wary in future to keep the definition of single purpose rather more focused. What was, in my view, important here was to rebuff the attempt to bring a litigious off-wiki dispute into Wikipedia. The blocks of confirmed socks below shows that there was indeed a problem, and we really do not need people bringing their battles here. Guy (Help!) 12:26, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the calm response Guy. I was worried what your reaction might be on finding this massive thread here! :-) I saw the Nomoskedasticity result as well, but as you say, not too much to worry about as long as they keep on the straight and narrow from now on. Would you agree with Merkinsmum above that any non-sock SPAs can be unblocked? Say, after the AfD is finished? I agree entirely that off-wiki disputes need to be kept off Wikipedia with extreme prejudice, but do you think you could give your opinion on the other points I raised above? Would you consider using a standard block template so that those who are blocked get more information on how to appeal? Would you consider waiting longer next time to allow for more opinion at ANI? Would you consider taking the time to look further into any objections the next time someone comes to you saying that someone has requested an unblock and they have concerns? Final thought: do you have any opinon on Trusilver declining that unblock request? Carcharoth (talk) 13:05, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sadly, I think Guy and I were in complete agreement on this point (not about the puppets, but about the useless utility and divisiveness of the "controversy" element). It sounds like Guy had a lot of distraction. Perhaps he wasn't in a position to read closely enough to determine which of us were disruptive and which were trying to follow the rules of his invitation? It happens to the best of us. I just hope incidents like these raise awareness that more checks and balance and monitoring of each others' decisions may be warranted. Carcharoth has gone above and beyond the call of duty here. If he were not trying to raise these issues, I would certainly be gone from this community and be torching the lot of you in my media classroom (which would be erroneous on my part). Jrichardstevens (talk) 15:04, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Summary of account activity

From Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Drstones (thanks Alison):

 Confirmed -

1. Billingsworth (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
2. Apprec8coetzee (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
3. Aristotle13 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
4. Iluvjimmyc1010 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
5. MedWoman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

 Confirmed -

1. Franknfair (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
2. Obscuredata (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
3. Tepid1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
4. LAstride (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
5. InformationKey (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

 Likely -

1. Academic2007 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
2. Nomoskedasticity (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

 Unrelated to any of the other groups, or to each other -

1. Drstones (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - virtually all edits are to Oxford Round Table
2. Academic38 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - all mainspace edits are to Oxford Round Table
3. Amelia9mm (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - probably a misjudgement, very few edits and those to Oxford Round Table are not good, but one or two contributions to other articles. I have apologised.
4. OrionClemens (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - all mainspace edits are to Oxford Round Table
5. Coligny (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - all mainspace edits are to Oxford Round Table
6. Slintfan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - no mainspace edits, all edits are to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oxford Round Table
7. Jrichardstevens (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - a mistake, for which I apologise.
8. Athoughtforyou (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - - no mainspace edits, all edits are to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oxford Round Table

OTRS tickets:

• VRTS ticket # 2007122010015911
• VRTS ticket # 2008012410015146
• VRTS ticket # 2008020810013417

I know that Jrichardstevens is unblocked, I believe some of the socks are also unblocked but I will not reblock them, I'll leave that to someone else. Are we done now? Guy (Help!) 12:17, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There would have been less drama if this had been set to checkuser or suspected sock puppets before anybody was blocked. SPAs at AfD can be tagged with {{SPA}} so that the closing administrator can give them proper weight. We can block more sock puppets with fewer "false positives" by presenting the evidence, waiting for independent review, and then taking the necessary action. Jehochman ^Talk 12:36, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Guy, thanks for providing the OTRS ticket numbers, and thanks for apologising to both Jrichardstevens and Amelia99m for their blocks. Given that you have apologised, it doesn't matter much, but I would still object to your "probably a misjudgement" statement about Amelia9mm - do you have any evidence that you aren't sharing with us? Because to my eyes that account looks totally uninvolved. I don't see the problems with the two edits Amelia9mm made: this edit and this edit. How are they "not good" in the context of the dispute that erupted later? Do you mean "not good" as in not doing much at all, or "not good" as in they were a vicious attack on someone or something? That's a rhetorical question, of course. But in the context of this discussion, a bland statement like "not good" can be misinterpreted. I would say "totally a misjudgment" and "the account remains in good standing and should do well with guidance". But then your apology shows that you probably agree with that. I am going to write something else below on sleeper socks, SPAs and new editors - but please, don't assume that accounts with very few edits spread over several years are automatically suspicious. I would say block the socks, but engage with the people behind the accounts (many of whom are academics) and encourage them to create new accounts and continue to contribute, provided they stay away from the article in question and don't add stuff about it to other articles. At the moment, only two of the accounts that are still blocked are appealing their blocks: Academic38 and Slintfan. They are questioning their blocks on their talk pages - maybe you (Guy) could go and talk to them, seeing as you forgot to leave a note telling them they could use the unblock template? One other loose end: Coligny never got blocked. Any reason why not? Carcharoth (talk) 12:51, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of comments from someone who was caught up in the collective blocks (and now, obviously, unblocked). First, I am not involved in sockpuppets - see my comments on the Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Drstones page for my response to the "likely" finding. Second, though I realize many people find this ORT business troublesome in the large, it seems that no effort was made to look at actual edit behaviour, at least in my case. I recognize that this would be time-consuming. In my case, what it would have shown is a continuing effort to learn and play by the rules. I got a COI tag on my talk page - and from that point on I didn't make a single edit to the article, only worked on the talk page to suggest changes and to try to secure consensus. A review by Sandstein confirmed that my edit behaviour was not disruptive.

As for SPA, as the information page on SPA notes, new users typically start out working on what interests them, and then some diversify. I'm glad to see recognition of that here, and of the advice to welcome newcomers. Look, I've been unblocked (thank you Sandstein, and thank you Guy for agreeing to it), so as far as I'm concerned it has all been resolved fairly quickly. It was not pleasant to be blocked after trying to play by the rules (and particularly without the blocking admin first warning me on my talk page about allegedly inappropriate editing) - so I do hope a different approach can prevail. But it is reassuring to see all of get reviewed like this. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:07, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, in short what I am going to write here will look like one of the sections above 3RR violator continuing after block. But it is much more than that. Wiki Raja (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) was recently blocked for 2 weeks for 3RR violation on Talk:Bharatanatyam; disruptive edit warring over project templates again. This block was imposed on him, after a previous block on 72 hours for disruptive edit warring. After this block, the user was clearly advised by the block admin like this:

This advise apparently did not have any effect on the user, and hence again, the user's repeated revert wars, without discussions or without gaining consensus, led to him to the above mentioned 2 weeks block. The block is now expired, and the user immediately started posting the disputed template literally hundreds of article talk page (Eg: [37], [38], [39]). At the least, after multiple blocks related to that template, the user was expected to start a discussion with wider audience, and should have arrived at a consensus before using those templates. But unfortunately, that has not happened.

Even he doesn't even hesitate to involve in revert wars, after being blocked multiple times for revert warring; some of the latest revert wars being: [40], [41], [42].

The main concerns here are: Lack of willingness to discuss; revert-warring; repeated offense even after a clear and strong advise from an Admin, and yet after multiple blocks;

Well,now, thats the "3RR violator continuing after block" part of the story, and next comes more. Severe personal attack on me, calling me racist. Please look into the section: Talk:Veerappan#Removing_WikiProject_templates and that gives complete picture instead of me writing about it. And now, you admins decide if there is any racist attitude displayed from me. On the other hand, you decide how the discussion is totally dragged out of context when I asked the question how the person (of that article) is related to the so-called civilization. I am strongly offended with this personal attack.

Next: I am totally confused and wondered, with what this user's intent on Wikipedia are. Please see this edit which is made after his latest block expiry. He has gone ahead and termed Cinema of Karnataka as Cooliewood. I have never heard that term before, and I am a member of Karnataka wikiproject and a contributor to Cinema of Karnataka. This is most concerning issue because, one of the meanings of Coolie is A contemporary racial slur for people of Asian descent, including people from India, Central Asia, etc. Whats more, even Google search couldn't determine what this user is saying. For starters, Karnataka is an Indian state, and apparently this is a severe insult on Wikipedians from that state, and ofcourse on the state's film industry. This kind of gross incivility is highly unacceptable in a community project such as building an encyclopedia.

I have reported all these to an involved Admin User:Nishkid64 and he suggested I start an ANI discussion on this, and here it goes. Thank you, - KNM ^Talk 17:45, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of things:

• The "Cooliewood" diff is absolutely unacceptable. The Tamil film industry is sometimes called Kollywood, but I cannot believe that this was a genuine mistake.
• Templating talkpages is always problematic. I remember the to-do about India-Pakistan templates on Indus Valley Civilisation sites some years ago. That being said, there is nothing per se wrong with templating [[Talk:Veerappan] with a Tamil or Dravidian wikiproject template. The exchange that KNM posts reflects badly on both users.
• He's been blocked for edit-warring for two weeks. I suggest that he be given a little while longer for the "Cooliewood" diff unless he posts a good explanation for it.
• I don't see any reason for an indef. Relata refero (talk) 18:11, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that template has been the centre of much controversy in the first place. The Cooliewood slur has a lot to do with Wikiraj's failed attempts in the past to sell the whole of South India and everything existing in South India as Dravidian (music, literature, architecture, people, cuisine, clothing, etc etc) as "Dravidian civilization". A page he had creeated to that effect was removed because there was no concensus that such a civilization existed or exists. Unles the heart of the issue is resolved, this problem will continue. The racial slur is only a small issue in the big problem of "race". Extending his block will not help. And may I ask, what does a dravidian template have to do with a person?.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 18:31, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Relata refero: In the original post, I have not written about why there is a dispute over these templating, because it is plain content dispute, and WP:ANI is not meant for that. That is why, I was just writing only user related items. But if the discussion on template dispute is required, well and good. The simplest summary is, Wiki Raja is posting {{WPTAMCIV}} template on hundreds of talk pages, while there is no such thing called Tamil Civilization! The current link of Tamil civilization just redirects to Dravidian civilization, while Tamil Civilization is a red link as of now. And the user was (and has continued now also) posting {{WPDRAVCIV}} template too referring to an earlier version of Dravidian civilization article which is now deleted.

Please note: The current article was created by an admin (User:Utcursch) after the earlier version was deleted per an AFD discussion, because there was no such particular civilization "Dravidian civilization" existed. The validity of these templates apart, the user was asked and advised (as shown above) for initiating discussion and gain consensus before simply adding the templates. I believe, now its a good time to sort out both these issues, one is content dispute on those templates, and the user misconduct and incivility. Thank you - KNM ^Talk 18:48, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I quite understand that the template issue is beyond this board. The template, however, is linked not to any article but to a wikiproject; if you feel that is problematic, I suggest taking it to WP:Miscellany for Deletion. Relata refero (talk) 19:12, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relata, I'm sorry but I didn't quite understand what you are referring to as "unacceptable" in Cooliewood diff, whether it's providing the diff itself or Wikiraja's edits. There is no doubt that Wikiraja made that edit meant as an insult to Kannada film industry due to his long lasting disputes with members of WP:KARNATAKA. It sure is an racial insult term and it hurts to see someone using the term so freely in an encyclopedia. I'm sure he used the term deliberately because there is not even one instance so far that the Kannada cinema industry is referred to as Cooliewood. He has clearly shown his intentions of editing Wikipedia after being given so many chances. No discussions, no consensus, severe personal attacks including accusations of racism on KNM, gross incivility, repeated violations of 3RR and frequent revert wars. Let us also not forget, the account User:Wiki Raja is a sockpuppet account of User:Indrancroos. User:Wiki Raja account was indef blocked because of sockpuppetry, but the user requested admin Aksi_great that, he intends to continue with Wiki Raja account instead of Indrancroos account. Blocklog here. Gnanapiti (talk) 18:49, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I meant that using the term was unacceptable, which is why I suggested extending his block. Relata refero (talk) 19:09, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*sigh* How many more violations from wikiraja do we have to endure before he is packed off for good? I've been on wp for around two years now and I've not seen anything quite like this. Here's a guy who's been blocked multiple times already for repeat offences which cover the entire gamut between simple edit warring to sockpuppetry to uploading obscenity and yet his victims have to continue to grin and bear it. I'd really like to know why?

Personally, I am usually against permabanning editors for anything.. but there has to be something that can redeem an editor -- some useful contributions, some evidence of being a collaborative editor.. something... anything! In wikiraja's case, I see nothing - absolutely no contributions worth mentioning or to even use as a fig leaf for his indiscretions.

As for his templates and taking it to MfD, well.. we've been down that torturous path before. No sooner does a template or article get deleted (or rewritten from scratch) than he comes up with a mutant strain of the same thing! It was 'Dravidian civilisations' yesterday and 'Tamil civilisations' today. Wonder what it will be tommorrow. Expecting other editors to keep hauling him and his templates to TfDs and MfDs and AfDs each time is insensitive and an insult to those editors who have better things to do on wikipedia. And the cooliewood thing ... *sigh* how much more juvenile can it get!

In short, this editor has not a semblance of constructive edits to boast of and has done disproportionately more harm to the community and the project than good and the community is better off without him. He's been banned for 3 month stretches at least once before (perhaps twice) and if for some esoteric bureaucratic reason we cant permaban him, I recommend that he be locked away for atleast 6 months or a year this time. Sarvagnya 22:13, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: As per Relata refero's suggestion for me to explain, I shall. Since the beginning of WikiProject Dravidian civilizations we have tried to present a diverse array of Dravidian cultures such as the Tamils, Malayalees, Telugus, Kannadigas, Brahuis and so forth. Even before the formation of this WikiProject I have noticed on the Classical dance of India page that classical dances from three Dravidian states were presented accept for Karnataka. Finding this rather odd, I have went out of my way to create a page for Yakshagana which was praised by Gnanapiti here and here just to find out that there already existed such a page. As a matter of fact I have tried my best to promote all Dravidian groups here on Wikipedia by even creating special user templates such as these, and include the different Dravidian scripts on the WikiProject page here (ie. Kannada, Malayalam, Telugu, Tamil). Why on earth would anyone think that I have something against Kannadigas? For everyone's information, I have been able to find Mollywood for Malayalee films, Tollywood for Telugu films, and Kollywood for Tamil films. However, with the same situation as with the Classical dance, I was unable to find a similar name for Kannada films. So, the name Cooliewood was found from this web site and thus, I have used that term to categorize Kannada film along with the other "Dravidian woods" for film. If I have offended anyone on this matter, I humbly apologize for the misinterpretation and misunderstaning this may have caused for some folks. As a habit I like things in order and complete and thus felt that Kannadiga topics such as film and dance should not be left out of Indian, Dravidian, or whatever topic. As a token of sincerity from my part I will remove the link from that page and will rename it to Kannada film. If anyone still has a grudge against me, then that is on you. I've already said my piece. Wiki Raja (talk) 06:13, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree with Sarvagnya here. When Wiki Raja states that he has been promoting "Dravidian culture" that is the onus of the problem. What is "Dravidian" and "Indo-Aryan" is obviously disputed. Dravidianism is generally a racist philosophy, terming North Indians and Brahmins as "invaders" and "Dravidians" as "victims of light skinned oppression" (in quotes for educational value). A very important string of edits got Wiki Raja's sockpuppet Indrancroos (talk · contribs) blocked a while ago [43]. This edit is indicative (Images of Feces, Fat people, and God knows what else being plastered on a martial arts page) of Wiki Raja's attitude towards the pages he edits.Bakaman 20:03, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FYI: I was new to Wikipedia almost 2 years ago. However, after being blocked I created a new name to start new on a clean slate to edit and created legitimate articles as a contribution to Wikipedia. Proof can be seen in two WikiProjects, several articles, and expansions of numerous articles. Our project focuses on promoting articles comprised of all Dravidians (Tamils, Malayalees, Kannadigas, Telugus and other groups not properly represented). Other groups include but are not limited to Tuluvas, and Brahuis, for example. As a matter of fact, I have also voted to keep the article on Brahmin Tamils here since Brahmins are a part of the Tamil civilization, while Tamil civilization is part of the greater Dravidian civilzations. If you disagree with some of the articles, you are clearly entitled to your opinions. Also, it is not nice to compare fat people with feces. What do you have against fat people? Wiki Raja (talk) 02:40, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No one compared fat people with feces. Bakasupraman just commented that you added picture of feces and fat people on an article about Indian martial arts. Don't try to provoke people by making unfounded statements. Nishkid64 (talk) 04:18, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I'm not trying to provoke people. It clearly shows that Bakaman stated "This edit is indicative (Images of Feces, Fat people, and God knows what else being plastered on a martial arts page)". It's posted right in this section. Wiki Raja (talk) 05:13, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Attempting to stir up others with this post was completely uncool. I have reverted it.--Versageek 05:46, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I thought it was uncool to compare fat people with feces. That's why I posted it. If you took it wrongly, I apologize. Regards. Wiki Raja (talk) 06:05, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Although such a comparison was NOT made, for argument's sake, if it was, what you wrote on the talk page of that article had a clear aim of trying to instigate something very unnecessary. As you've been a member of Wikipedia for the past 2 years, you should have known that this is not the way you should have gone about dealing with it.

As the main member of the WikiProject India Assessment Team, and as an editor/reviewer, I also request that Wiki Raja be blocked for an extended period of time of at least 6 - 12 months, if not greater. Editors who persistently make disruptive edits and comments in Wikipedia and in effect, disregard Wikipedia's policies and procedures, clearly should not be allowed to edit in Wikipedia. In this case, his limited constructive contributions (if any at all), combined with the extremely inappropriate way in which this editor has behaved (during this process in which an incident about him was being reported), has heightened the need for this extended/permanent block/ban. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:46, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD has turned horribly uncivil. I will admit I am a party to this and do not have clean hands. I believe an admin needs to step in and mediate. Thank you. Bstone (talk) 19:35, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear! What would the good rabbi think of such violence?

Seriously, though, nobody's said anything particularly blockworthy yet, you all need to calm down, that's all. You bit a newbie, and three people accused you of lying. Bad, but not terrible. Take a break, the AfD has some time to run, everybody will calm down. Relata refero (talk) 20:02, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2 years, 9 months and 19 days on wikipedia and I am a newbie? The three who accused me of "lying" are all of the same opinion so it's not uncommon to see these sorts of tactics. I believe an uninvolved admins mediation is important in order to reinstate civility. Bstone (talk) 20:15, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe he said you bit a newbie, not that you are one. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:32, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I tagged it after discussion in IRC. 5 days and just a few edits seemed like not enough. However the reaction has been a bit visceral. Bstone (talk) 20:40, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've read through your comments there, I actually do agree with your application of the spa tag as appropriate. You have to agree that it is easily perceived as bitey though. Ok, you don't have to agree to anything, poorly stated. I 'hope you agree that it could possibly, even easily, be perceived as bitey though. I agree that the debate there is on the warmer side, but not nearly as warm as I've seen it before. I would recommend dispassion. In my experience (which is far less than yours Bstone so please don't take this as condescending, but rather with a grain of salt) is that not replying to every comment that is in opposition to your own opinion is a better way to go. You've made your point there. Others have made there points there. Let the closing admin weigh the discussion against the policies and guidelines. It'll be closed in 2-5 days, (if it stays the way it is now, probably as no consensus), and we can all just move along nicely. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:58, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, it is bitey. But it is also an official wiki tag and uses official wiki wording. If there was a different tag with nicer wording I would have certainly used it. I don't mean to come across rude but adding SPA does have a certain tone with it. Now they are saying I am lying and I assume that's in reference to discussing it with folks (including some admins) in IRC before adding it. I can ask those folks (including the admins) to chime in here in order to verify that I did indeed discuss which tag is appropriate. I believe that I have been neutral in terms of my tone while those who have stated I am a liar have been just the opposite. As far as responding to the opinions of keep, I am desperate to know how people can opine keep when I cite several wiki policies which indicate the basis for their opinion is indeed mute. As of yet none has responded which leads me to believe there is little to respond to. Still, my tone has been neutral and the bite came from the wording which I had absolutely no control over. However, stating I am a liar is tactless and against etiquette. Bstone (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 21:14, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure you noticed I added a couple of wiki tags myself to the AfD discussion. I hate the spa tag, but it was placed appropriately. I think a better tag could should exist, but doesn't. What I'll usually do personally is just right a message on the editor's talkpage first (without any templates at all, which are impersonal to say the least). I'll keep watching the AfD, if anyone gets further out of line after the "be nice" and "not a vote" tags, I'll act appropriately (warns, strong warns, or immediate blocks for harassment (though unlikely)). I don't think it will be a problem though, it seems to have calmed a bit in the last couple of hours....Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:24, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am taking a wikibreak for the next day or so. Perhaps a quick note on the talk pages of those screaming I am a liar about tone and tact? Bstone (talk) 21:48, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My two cents. This is a good idea to take a break. When Bstone questions every single voter who disagrees with him/her, that does not create a constructive environment. An example of this tone was set by Bstone's comments when s/he stated, "I am simply setting the record straight where people err." By not responding to each vote in favor of the article, or at least by not responding like this, then the tone of the discussion can become more constructive. Let's all take a break from this and let other people have their say and their response. Culturalrevival (talk) 21:58, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(to BStone (edit conflict)  ::::::::::Absolutely As soon as one of the previous commentators posts anything else there related to you, your position, your experience or in regards to this particular AfD, after seeing my template tags. (To be fair, none of them were made aware of this AN/I post so I won't be magically showing up on their talkpages either in an effort to keep drahma to a minimum). So, to resolve this, the next time something is posted....40 lashes from Keeper.. Cheers, mate, enjoy the WBreak...Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:03, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keeper | 76 Thank you looking out for each and every editor, I appreciate your hard work at objectivity and such lack of bias. Culturalrevival (talk) 06:07, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps someone might be kind enough to have a tactful word with user:Allstarecho about canvassing, and also point out that yes we do delete biographies where the subject expresses a clear preference for not having an article, if the subject is of marginal notability (e.g. a not terribly significant musician with a part in one indie film). Guy (Help!) 21:26, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you mean edits such as this? UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 21:52, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, that and a bundle of others; they all came along to !vote Keep. Which is fine as it goes, but as I say, canvassing is not really encouraged. Guy (Help!) 21:58, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like the word has been had, check his talkpage (also, I think the note was posted before this thread). Avruchtalk 22:16, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let me state, for the 3rd time (2 in other places) that I was not canvassing. I was notifying people who have particpated on the articles talk page in the past. What should be reported here is that you removed content while the article is under protection and then nommed the article for deletion. And thanks for letting me know I was being discussed here. - ✰ALLSTAR✰ ^echo 22:24, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lets not attack the user unless need be. The edits were perfectly proper under WP:CANVAS. Lambton ^T/_C 22:05, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see no canvassing, only canvassing paranoia. I'd also like to add that there's never been consensus regarding bio subjects requesting deletion, and how much that should effect a deletion decision. It barely clings to WP:BLP because some people believe they are more qualified than others in judging issues of morals. -- Ned Scott 09:13, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I also see no canvassing. I came and voted keep, but nobody left a notice for me. The fact that the AfD is heading for an overwhelming keep is not due to canvassing. DGG (talk) 16:32, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: this diff, would someone other than me tell JzG/Guy to lay off the personal attacks? Had it been me, I'd be blocked for sure. Additionally, the attack should be removed. I will give someone else plenty of time to do that before I do it myself. Thanks. - ✰ALLSTAR✰ ^echo 22:59, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Allstar, you were incredibly rude. You were blocked by Jimbo only recently for "unrepentant incivility", and you have personalised that deletion debate to a remarkable and wholly unjustified extent; I note you've also been blocked for WP:BLP violations and edit warring. These are a bad combination. We are dealing here with an upset article subject who feels that he has been deliberately snubbed and insulted by Wikipedia. Do try to show a modicum of tact. Guy (Help!) 23:10, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for making sure to point out that I've been blocked by Jimbo. There is no BLP issues regarding the Bannan article. He even hosts the very same sources on his own web site. But that's not the issue here.. the issue here is your attack against me. Can you stick to the issue please? - ✰ALLSTAR✰ ^echo 23:31, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I think you went over the line, Guy. Please tone it down a bit.

That said - Allstar, this is a BLP issue, and you are not showing it due WP:BLP sensitivity at the moment. It's also an OTRS issue, and on current review it appears like there's a serious problem with your behavior on both accounts. I'm going to also log this to your talk page, but this is a final warning regarding abusive behavior and this article topic. No more. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:19, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have not done one thing disruptive or in violation of policy regarding this AfD. Mind pointing out specifics? Thanks. And you threaten to block me but just tell him to "tone it down a bit" ?? - ✰ALLSTAR✰ ^echo 23:28, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also please note that I have removed the personal attack. - ✰ALLSTAR✰ ^echo 23:41, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You accused him of trying to sneak it by people. Counterattacking is not a wise or ethical response to claims of canvassing. Whether what you did met the technical definition of canvassing or not, your comment was rude and uncivil and failed to assume good faith about Guy's motivation and tactics. Knock it off. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:52, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't *accuse* him of anything. I *asked* him if that was his intentions. There is a difference. - ✰ALLSTAR✰ ^echo 23:55, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but that's sophistry, and coming right after you at least borderline canvassed I can't AGF anymore about your intentions on this particular AFD.

...especially since Guy also "just asked a question". --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:12, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You aren't normally abusive or problematic, but this is a particularly sensitive question, and you have been particularly insensitive for a bit here, and the combination is not OK. Please take a short break and re-engage on the topic in a manner which won't increase drama and incivility. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:01, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) I think Gwh's comment is probably best for all. While ASE is not always sunshine and light, I don't think his comment is excusable, but the reaction has been a bit overboard as well. So let's all step back? The AFD itself is approaching WP:SNOW, the picture issue needs to be checked out, and I personally would like to hear from the subject of the article why they're all-fire against the words "openly gay" being in the article when they have blared their sexuality in half a dozen interviews. In other words, can we work on the encyclopedia rather than each others' nerves? =D -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 01:00, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Guy's language,regardless of what preceded it, was totally inexcusable -- it could be seen as a physical threat. Any other editor would have already been blocked for it. I am quite prepared to block for the length of time appropriate to physical threats if there is any support for it.DGG (talk) 16:08, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Griot (talk · contribs · logs · block log)
• Sedlam (talk · contribs · logs · block log)

Hi. I've only tangentially become involved with one or two sock puppetry cases in the past and would appreciate assistance from someone more experienced in dealing with them. Revisiting Incivility...Griot above, an editor to whom I'd given feedback on a BLP concern asked my advice on my talk page how to proceed in the case of suspected sock puppetry. He (pardon if I'm using the wrong pronoun) followed up at checkuser and confirmed that User:Sedlam evidently is a sock puppet being used to thwart policy by User:Griot. I know that per policy User:Sedlam is blocked as a matter of course as an inappropriately used alternative account. (Please correct me if I've left the wrong templates.) I'm not sure what's to be done about User:Griot. A warning? A label? He is a long-standing editor who has as far as I know has never had a problem of this sort in the past, although it seems he was blocked on the 31st of January, 2008 for edit warring, I presume on Matt Gonzalez based on this note. My only experiences with Griot prior to this were in relation to the article Cabretta, and though we haven't always agreed he seemed like a constructive contributor. Perhaps some political topics are too emotionally engaging? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 23:22, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If he was using a bad-hand sockpuppet to edit abusively, then both the primary and bad hand account should probably be blocked (based on a review of the edits in question). This is something the checkusers or checkuser clerks typically take care of, have they weighed in? Avruchtalk 00:04, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Other than confirming the check-user and the policy thwarting use of the account, no. I'm not sure they're going to. I notice that the matter was completed at 20:50 on February 8, and at the top of Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser, it says "In most cases, any block or other action based on the outcome will not be taken by the checkuser-people or the clerks. Instead, you will have to do this yourself." I'm not sure which cases constitute most. This is as close to check user as I've personally ever come. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 00:14, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And so they did. :) Thanks for weighing in, Avruch. If I ever wind up in this situation again, I'll just wait a day to see if this falls into one of those "action to be taken" or "action not to be taken" situations. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 00:36, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Griot indef blocked?

Though we punish people who abusively sockpuppet, Griot is a longtime user in generally good standing prior to this incident.

However, the current block levied is indef against his main account.

This appears to be excessive and uncalled for. I agree that his sockpuppetry was abusive, but not indef-blocked abusive. A week, maybe?

Comments sought. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:06, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree 100% with this assessment. I have no data relevant to this specific situ, but I do have years of positive experience with User:Griot. If indeed Griot is guilty, then he has some serious explaining to do and perhaps penance of some kind. But indef block seems way extreme unless the sockpuppetry is repeated and sustained. BusterD (talk) 02:28, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have no input on the proper length of a block for this situation, obviously, or I wouldn't have brought this here to begin with. :) I did not block the primary account myself because of his history, but as I said above, I have no experience with sock puppetry to speak of. I would like to note that the editor who initially requested the checkuser believes that Griot may have abused other accounts as well, as he indicated in a more recent note at my talkpage (a belief mirrored by the now blocked IP editor above). I don't know on what evidence or if these allegations are correct, but other suspicions seem to have been confirmed by checkuser. Is this the sort of thing that should be investigated prior to making final calls or only if Griot returns and concerns persist? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 02:40, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm the editor who requested the checkuser on User:Griot. I have no opinion on any action to take. I would like to add the following, though. User:Griot didn't simply switch back and forth and revert and be done with it. He made a self conscious planned out effort to deceive, and presented not just reverts, but purposively deceptive talk page commentary. For instance, on the talk page, to portray some sort of "compromise" having been reached, he writes "Please click the links and observe how other editors rejected your edit:" and then lists himself and his confirmed sock puppet (and one other editor of unknown relationship to this). Then, he logs out as Griot, logs in as User:Sedlam, and writes ":You can add me to this list of compromisers." On the BLP noticeboard , Both Griot and another likely sock User:Feedler, both gave input. As Moonriddengirl mentioned, I have reason to believe the sock puppetry by Griot goes back a ways on Nader-related articles, but wasn;t caught (although the issue seems to have been raised, but the complainant seems to have gotten blocked). Griot seems to have been vigourously edit warring on Nader article for a year or so. Elsewhere, he has confessed to have a serious personal grudge against Nader. Boodlesthecat (talk) 03:55, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The indef block is abnormal in this situation and unwarranted, in my opinion. Has the blocking admin commented? --Akhilleus (talk) 05:31, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidently, here, where she has indicated a willingness to go along with consensus and suggested this discussion. Personally, I'm wondering if a topical ban would be appropriate in the event that the block is made definite. It seems the sock account was used primarily to thwart consensus building and disguise edit warring on Ralph Nader and Ralph Nader's presidential campaigns. Perhaps this is evidence that the user is too emotionally invested in these articles to contribute to them as he does elsewhere? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:47, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe. Looking at the history of those articles, it looks like there's a lot of editing by drive-by IPs, SPAs, possible socks, etc. We know that one of the editors on the "other side" from Griot is a persistent sockpuppeteer. So my question is, has Griot been editing abusively for a long period (in which case I'd support a topic ban), or did he only turn to sockpuppetry recently after getting frustrated by the editing environment? (Either way, the use of socks is not good, and if he does it again, the block should be much longer...) --Akhilleus (talk) 15:51, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know. I suppose it might be worth asking Boodlesthecat the proceed with investigating his other suspicions to find out. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:57, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Adjust the block to be slightly less than that used against the person who opposed the user via the same tactics. Lambton ^T/_C 21:57, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean slightly less than the IP editor recently blocked for 6 months here as a sock of User:Telogen, who was indef blocked here, or are there yet more Nader-fighting socks that I don't know about? :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 00:27, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reduced block

The handling of this matter was over the top IMO. As an uninvolved editor/admin, and after reading the above, I have reset the duration to one week (it says 6 days, but note a day had elapsed since the block was enacted). Consensus here should determine whether further reduction or an unblock is warranted. I am particularly surprised at the treatment of the user's user and talk pages, which I have reverted to their pre-9 Feb state, and the ignoring of the blatant incivility of Boodlesthecat by those handling the case. I will be placing a warning on his talk page shortly - ([44] done). Orderinchaos 06:03, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

 – IP blocked by AndonicO

Would someone have a look at the history of this. Serious BLP issues. IP adding content saying Philip Brady is gay and adding sources that do not mention Philip Brady anywhere in them. He's been warned numerous times and has been told directly that none of the sources he keeps adding mentions Philip Brady anywhere in them, much less anything about Brady being homosexual. - ✰ALLSTAR✰ ^echo 23:46, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. - ✰ALLSTAR✰ ^echo 23:53, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That looks like a serious violation of the 25 revert rule... Aecis^Brievenbus 23:55, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

HAH! Okay, at least we got a laugh out of it. Snowfire51 (talk) 23:57, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

3RR/25RR applies to BLP issues?? I didn't know.. I came across is initially where all the IP added was that the article subject was gay. Looked like vandalism to me. Revert. He kept adding, then started adding sources that don't mention the guy. - ✰ALLSTAR✰ ^echo 00:03, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it was WP:VAN, WP:3RR, WP:CIVIL, and WP:BLP. I guess admins can take their pick. Snowfire51 (talk) 00:06, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just to get this straight, what the IP did violated 25RR, reverting him/her didn't. Aecis^Brievenbus 23:14, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There remain some errors on the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR. The following decision was altered, reversing the original reporter (me) and the reportee (G2Bambino):

[45]

Could someone please reverse the reporter and reportee back to the original. It now appears as:

[46]

I'm not going to get into altering this myself for obvious reasons. It came about because of a good-faith typo editing error by G2bambino.

G2bambino's original posting against me was deleted by me (unintentionally) and no administrator ever saw it. I submitted my complaint minutes after his, and thought it was a duplicate post of mine. So I guess it's only fair to restore this one and have an administrator rule on it.

[47]

I know this is a mess that neeeds to be verified and no one wants to deal with it, but the record should be corrected. Is there some uninvolved party that can handle this maybe?

--soulscanner (talk) 23:52, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not against the restoration of this report, but I wonder about the worth; the report is actually against User:Quizimodo; every edit linked ([48], [49], [50], [51], [52]) is his, not mine. I've only made two edits to Dominion in the past two months.--G2bambino (talk) 16:20, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The warning was against you and User:Quizimodo for removing neutrality tags I'd placed on the Dominion page; your warning is listed as being against me; for obvious reasons, that's unfair. You (mistakenly and in good faith as I explained) switched our names on the decision. Doing this got you blocked, until we figured out that you thought you were correcting what was a typo. I'd appreciate it if you acknowledged this and at least switch this back. In return, I offer to restore your original complaint against me for restoring these neutrality tags, a report I had accidentally deleted (also in good faith) as a double posting of my own complaint. I think that's fair. --soulscanner (talk) 18:01, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am leaving Wikipedia over the Arbcom case, to this end I have deleted the Reqwuest for comment on me, as there was a lot of accusations and such in there, and I'm not going to havce that show up under a search for my name for the life of Wikipedia. I will be going through and deleting my name from various other places as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Adam C 00:53, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

• I don't think deleting RfC's is covered in RtV... That will probably be restored, and the AC case won't be deleted, so you should request courtesy blanking via e-mail or get a name change as part of your RtV. Avruchtalk 01:05, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• If the user is leaving Wikipedia—and in any event, will not be using administrator tools for awhile per the arbitration decision—I can't imagine what possible reason there would be to push for undeletion of the RfC, especially since this user edits under his real name. I am, as I invariably am in these discussions, more concerned and saddened by our losing a dedicated user than by the question of which project pages may be deleted or not. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:08, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, so should anyone be. I don't recall seeing or hearing about other RfC's deleted for the same reason, I assumed courtesy blanking was the standard here to preserve access to formal processes. (We don't even generally delete talk pages). I still think a protective name change would be a good idea, as he can't remove every edit he's made with his real name and all the places it still appears in his signature. Avruchtalk 01:10, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• This is not supposed to be an all out stab at ArbCom, but the RfC showed fairly strongly that Adam should keep his tools. I'm not sure why they haven't listened to this. There was no prior RfC to give him feedback about his actions, just straight into an arbitration case and proposed desysopping. It's not as if he was even the worst admin we ever had. I've discussed this on the arbitration talk page to no avail - it's a little upsetting that's all. Ryan Postlethwaite 01:13, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • More than a little. For now it's probably best to let Adam leave with as much dignity as possible. If I say anything more about the situation at this point, I'll probably regret it later. MastCell ^Talk 01:15, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree, for what its worth. What is the point of suspending in favor of an RfC, if only to unsuspend and ignore the result? The whole point was because lesser forms of dispute resolution had not occurred. If the result of a lesser form of dispute resolution was to be dismissed, then directing people towards it was a waste of time. Avruchtalk 01:16, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes. I have a number of fairly strong opinions about this particular case and its handling from start to finish, but this is probably not the best time or forum to express them. MastCell ^Talk 01:29, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think this was handled very badly. So much for the test case. Are you all satisfied? What purpose did it serve? Who else is next?--Filll (talk) 02:02, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• No. "For now it's probably best to let Adam leave with as much dignity as possible". Pig's arse. Since when was it better for decent editors to leave? You can stick WP:CIVIL up your a++e, because if that's what you think, you are fools. Sorry for my bluntness.

If decent editors like Adam are on the point of leaving, and a whole group of scientists are discussing a boycott, then there is something very seriously wrong. I'm a relative newbie to Wikipedia (1st edit last August) but I got quite keen quickly, and had 3 DYKs in January. Not much compared to many editors, but I was quite pleased. But now I'm pissed off with the whole thing because somebody who doesn't know much about some articles that I helped to expand has fly tipped POV tags all over them and there's nothing I can do to remove them. No contributions by the editor other than the drive by tagging. I've tried discussion, moderation of the articles, but a flat refusal to talk has been the result, leading to me becoming less civil in my remarks than WP demands, and if I don't back down then I'll get a ban, I suppose. Just because of drive by tagging of articles that I think are OK, well sourced. etc. That's Wikipedia.

The most important, probably fundamental thing here is that it seems to me that Wiki is at the tipping point. Is it going to be an authoritative encyclopedia, or a playground? This is the question that is now arising daily on ANI and across Wiki generally. If you want the former, then analyse what it is that is pissing the serious editors off, and change it. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 02:20, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is very sad that Adam was driven to resign. He was an admirable Wikipedia editor, and his leaving is a serious loss to the project, especially science articles. -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:51, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• This is a definite loss for the encyclopedia, and I am quite dismayed at the result of this case, which seems to have put a strong contributor and user in the impossible situation of being selected by ArbCom to be made an example of. Awful, awful precedent. FCYTravis (talk) 03:56, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am so disgusted that the situation with Adam has been allowed to degenerate to the point where he feels no choice but to leave. The ArbCom members who have forced this situation should feel ashamed, and should recognise that they have severely damaged their reputations and credibility. I will have more to say about this once I am able to write something appropriate. Jay*Jay (talk) 07:27, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't been able to write anything appropriate about this for a while now. (Deleted rant). To Adam, I hope you change your mind. To Arbcom, message received loud and clear, though I don't imagine it is what you intended it to be. R. Baley (talk) 08:26, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

At the risk of sounding dumb, which ArbCom is this from, I looked at the most recent couple cases, and didn't see AdamC listed at all. ThuranX (talk) 16:00, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Matthew_Hoffman. I guess it hasn't closed yet. --Akhilleus (talk) 16:59, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let me get this straight. People who keep the pedia clear of fluff, like Adam, and people who write excellent articles, like Giano, are subject to various sanctions for incivility; but people who think they are working to minimize drama - Guy, to choose but one of several examples, and David as well - are not? What does this say about our priorities and effectiveness? What baloney. Relata refero (talk) 16:20, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to see you leave, Adam. I hope you will reconsider. I reiterate comments made by others who have asserted your value to the project and to science articles in particular. Orderinchaos 17:18, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I too am sorry to see Adam go, his contributions to the features article on evolution in particular were superb. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:46, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am also sad to see Adam go, although I don't see why he is doing so now in such a histrionic way. I don't see that the Arb Com case was acutally closed with any particular remedy against Adam. I was a participant in the RFC and I think it was pretty clear from the RFC that Adam did use his admin tools inappropriately in disputes he was engaged in. I think that it is very clear by the admin guidelines that Admins should NOT do this. I don't think it is clear from any of the discussions that Adam every really admitted that he did anything amiss. I don't think that the high quality of many of his contributions gets him out of having to follow the rules, or, when he was wrong, admit that he was wrong. At this point, I don't think that he should be taking matters into his own hands by willy nilly deleting any discussion that contains his name as he exits. He should have another admin or a bureaucrat help him figure out what he can do to remove his real name from the encyclopedia. You are not an island, Adam, you are part of a community. Stop being a lone wolf. Abridged ^talk 18:10, 9 February 2008 (UTC) NOTE the following mass deletion of my user page: [53]. Abridged ^talk 18:15, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My recollection is that Adam did apologize and promised to be more careful. He did agree to give up his tools for 6 months willingly and be under probation for another 6 months. My understanding is that Adam objected to the wording of [of Fact #9] and had asked repeatedly that it be modified. Others agreed at the RfC and at the Arbcomm talk pages, including some Arbcomm members. I hope Adam reconsiders, but I would not blame him for coming back under another name, or never coming back. I also think there is a limit to how much hounding a person can take, given that this is an unpaid hobby.--Filll (talk) 20:30, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

From the discussion of that point, it looks like the arb com bent over backwards to accomodate him, but were unable to go to the extent of changing a true statement to an untrue statement to save face for him. Honestly, Fill, at some point everyone has to be held accountable for their actions. Abridged ^talk 00:24, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well we can beg to differ on what the Arbcomm did and did not do, and I suggest that I am not alone in interpreting things different than you do. However, in terms of holding everyone accountable for their own actions, I wonder why you were not held accountable for yours?--Filll (talk) 00:29, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What the bloody hell are you talking about?????? Please supply a diff if you are going to make bizarre vague accussations. Abridged ^talk 00:37, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is he allowed to remove his name from archives, per WP:VANISH? Such as here (AN archive), here (ANI archive), here (the Signpost), and here (a user's talk page)? Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 19:59, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I'm concerned this is the (not unexpected) result of an ArbCom "experiment", I don't really care if it's technically allowed or not. Perhaps we should not try to keep finding new ways to poke him with a stick. That is all for now. Civility Rules! (if not for thee, then for me), </no sarcasm> R. Baley (talk) 20:14, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wait a second. Am I right in thinking he actually deleted Abridged's user talk??? Isn't that just more abuse of admin tools? And look at the all-caps edit summary, too. [54] and [55] If I'm right in what I'm seeing -and I can hardly believe that I am- you guys are actually defending this user? This is the last straw for me. I defended this user as being basically a good guy who needed to admit his mistakes and reform. I would have been happy if he'd done so. But this really sucks. He can't even leave WP without deleting someone else's talk page? And other huge disruptions? This is exactly the kind of abusive behavior he's being desysoped for, and he obviously hasn't learned a thing. No, one can only say the ArbCom took the measure of the man, and made the correct decision. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 01:02, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He shouldn't have done that, and it's been fixed. On the other hand, actions performed in anger, on the way out the door after what can justifiably be described as a debacle, cannot be used to retroactively justify previous findings. MastCell ^Talk 04:48, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is one debacle after another, from one point of view or another. It was the way Adam handled previous debacles (or potential therefore) which got him desysoped, and the way he's dealing with this one shows he still handles them the same way. Unfortunately. And, that is just more of the same defense as used at the RfC: things are bad so it is OK to act bad [56]. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 05:08, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let me put it another way: If Adam came back now and said "I acted badly. I won't do it again. What others did and the circumstances within Wikipedia are not an excuse for what I did. And in addition to abuse of my sysop tools and other problems brought up in the RfC, my editing style was non-consensual and sometimes abusive. I'm going to make every effort to adhere to the highest standards of civility, neutrality and admin ethics." I would even now write to ArbCom and say he should be given another chance. Yes, at this point I think he would abuse that chance, but the above is basically something which every Wikipedian is supposed to adhere to (minus the admin ethics). That Adam won't do that shows what is wrong. In addition, that his friends won't do that shows what is super-wrong. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 05:19, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think your comments are correct, and that the problem was not and is not limited to a single vanishing user. Homeopathy is still under probation, for instance. —Whig (talk) 05:32, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You'll notice I didn't ask for anything which constituted a humiliation, at least not in my opinion. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 05:32, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What Adam has been doing is removing himself and, as far as he can, all trace of himself from Wikipedia. Which in my opinion is sensible, this is a dangerous place to be identifiable. Thanks go to Whig and Abridged for helping to accommodate that right to vanish, I'd hope that others can assist in completing the removal of contentious mentions. The object that some people have had of removing his admin tools has been achieved. The "example" this has set can be discussed in principle, without dragging his name into it. .. dave souza, talk 10:25, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I wish ac well. At this point, I am leaving Wikipedia too. I think that communities work if people in general follow and respect the rules. This AC case, and all the static around it, has shown that the wikipedia community has serious problems around this. So many people were so willing to defend an admin who was clearly not following the admin guidelines, civility is not taken seriously at all, and the edit wars are really unpleasant. What is the problem with having various povs mentioned in an article? Isn't that what NPOV is about? Why rampage through the encyclopedia deleting everything you don't agree with using excuses that guidelines don't even support? Awhile back, a number of admins and others voted to ban me from wikipedia becuase I brought an RFC asking AC to retract a personal attack. What did I really do that was so wrong that so many editors and admins were willing to PERMANENTLY BAN ME FROM THE COMMUNITY FOR THE ACTION??? These same users were defending AC, when he DID BREAK ESTABLISHED RULES. These users included: ScienceApologist, Shot info, Filll, OrangeMarlin, Horologium, Skinwalker, Neıl, &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;, BLACKKITE</font, Raymond Arritt, User:Fyslee, User:FeloniousMonk, and Guettarda. Why is this stuff allowed to go on????? Abridged ^talk 18:58, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

[68].

Resolved

 – Image deleted as copyvio. Sandstein (talk) 19:32, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

Resolved

 – Article speedy deleted