Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems. Before posting: Read these tips for dealing with incivility If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page Try dispute resolution Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly. Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight. When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough. You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. You are not autoconfirmed, meaning you cannot currently edit this page. Instead, use /Non-autoconfirmed posts. Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)
Start a new discussion

Rotational

[Restored from archive. Nothing can be done on the back of two comments, so this remains unresolved. Hesperian 12:00, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

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

Are we ever going to do anything about Rotational? This user wars interminably over two layout issues, upon which he disagrees with both consensus and the Manual of Style: he hates "=="-level headings because they put a thin grey line across the page, and he hates right-floated right-facing images.

In the last week alone, he has edit-warred at List of Southern African indigenous trees and woody lianes, Jean-Louis van Aelbroeck, René Louiche Desfontaines, Antoine Risso, and Heinrich Schütz; and that is not to mention the many pages where there is no edit war solely because no-one has stepped up to revert his tendentious changes. Other recent edit wars include Magellanic Catalogue of Stars, Franz Sieber, NGC 5679 Group, Walter Hood Fitch and Eucalyptus flocktoniae. Before that it was Joseph Maiden, Barnard 68, Nils Johan Andersson, Katey Walter... that takes us back to the first days of March, when he was warring on about twenty pages simultaneously. It seems he always has at least a few edit wars on the go, and always over the same issues. I don't know what pages he'll be edit-warring on in a fortnight, but I can guarantee you he'll be edit-warring somewhere, if something isn't done about him.

He was blocked indefinitely for socking under his old username "Paul Venter", but talked his way out of the block by denying he was the same user—a denial that is now obviously, even openly, a lie. He was reported for edit warring here, and here, and here, and here. He has been warned on his talk page innumerable times. A great deal of time has been wasted arguing with him. He has even been blocked once. But the warring just goes on and on and on. Hesperian 01:10, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

• The Paul venter sock case was at Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Paul_venter.
• This is the discussion from November 2007 where Rotational gets unblocked, after indignantly protesting the assertion that he is Paul venter, but without actually denying it: Rkitko's accusation of my being a sockpuppet is based on purely circumstantial evidence with possibly a touch of vindictiveness.

I suggest that we impose an editing restriction. Admins could tell Rotational he must stop revert-warring against other editors who are formatting articles in accordance with the Manual of Style. In particular, he must not revert war on heading levels or on the issue of right-facing images. (He strongly opposes the standard formatting of the header line of reference sections: see this edit from May 11. He is relentless on that topic). EdJohnston (talk) 04:45, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Support restriction. Rotational has been warned far too many times now, and as far as I can tell, they are not a benefit to the encyclopaedia. -- Darth Mike ^(talk) 04:55, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Support restriction as one of the editors who frequently has to clean up after him. It is also worth noting he has several pages in his userspace, which at one point he created cross namespace redirects to, and had categorised, though quickly the redirects were speedy deleted and the categories removed a couple of days ago. I suspect this action was to circumvent the MoS. Jenuk1985 | Talk 09:41, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Support restriction, what do you mean "two isn't enough"? Of course it is - one is enough. The key is, did any admin disagree? and no, no one did. KillerChihuahua^?!? 13:49, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Support. The user has fundamental disagreements with the MOS, but unfortunately seems to prefer warring in articles rather than discussing his issues at WT:MOS or elsewhere. The amount of disruption that resulted at Walter Hood Fitch was totally excessive and shouldn't be repeated in other articles. Papa November (talk) 16:16, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Oppose The Gang of Six decries Rotational's layout-related edits -- characterizing them as 'edit warring' and claiming they violate WP:MOS. Rotational then supplies a word-for-word quote from the WP:MOS which supports and validates his editing style (see Rotational's response, below). The Gang of Six then does a 180 and starts characterizing that same MOS as unimportant and now only a secondary or tertiary issue. Now it becomes to them a six-of-us-versus-one-of-you kangaroo court. For the Gang of Six: When you have been shown to be wrong, the proper response is, "Oh, sorry about that. Never Mind." But instead, that group obliviously forged ahead and made up new 'reasons' why Rotational should be blocked. A paraphrase of their 'new and improved' reason goes something like this: We don't care what the MOS says. That document is flawed and ambiguous. There are six of us that want it our way. There is only one of him.

No matter how much you dislike the 'look', the WP:MOS does clearly support Rotational's editing style. The Gang of Six needs to back down on this one. Joe Hepperle (talk) 20:00, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I support this, so assuming EdJohnston supports his own proposal, that makes six supports and no opposes. Would an uninvolved party please frame precise conditions and consequences and inform Rotational? Hint: The above "must stop revert-warring against editors who are formatting articles in accordance with the Manual of Style" will only result in hair-splitting arguments over what the Manual of Style says and whether an edit can be seen as in accordance with it. "must not revert war on heading levels or on the issue of right-facing images" is much better. Hesperian 23:22, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

• Done. See WP:RESTRICT. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 13:33, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

This is absurd, but not altogether unexpected considering the quality of some of the the learned figures taking part in this kangaroo court. There is a clear directive in the MoS and I quote:

• It is often preferable to place images of faces so that the face or eyes look toward the text. Multiple images in the same article can be staggered right-and-left (for example: Timpani). However, images should not be reversed simply to resolve a conflict between these guidelines; doing so misinforms the reader for the sake of our layout preferences. If an image is reversed or otherwise substantially altered, there should be a clear advantage to the reader in doing so (for example, cropping a work of art to focus on a detail that is the subject of commentary), and the alteration must be noted in the caption. Am I to understand that you have without consensus decided to throw out this particular guideline OR have you decided that I of all WP editors will not be permitted to enforce it?. Do try to think clearly before replying. Rotational (talk) 14:20, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
  • • A "clear directive".... riiight. If the MOS contains anything at all that can be fairly called a "clear directive", it is the first dot point of that section, "Start an article with a right-aligned lead image or InfoBox". Hesperian 23:27, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Well......something had to be placed first because historically that's the way it happened, but its position in the list doesn't make it the most important, in fact its presence in the MoS is suspect because there is no compelling reason aesthetic or otherwise for its use - in short it is indefensible. Rotational (talk) 06:59, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I see; so "clear" means "clear if I ignore the direct contradiction that I disagree with". Hesperian 07:05, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

No, Hesperian, clear as in, "...place images of faces so that the face or eyes look toward the text..." What part of that is confusing to you? Rotational has provided support for his style of editing via a direct quote from the WP:MOS. Rotational doesn't disagree with the MOS. He provides a chapter and verse quote from the MOS to substantiate and validate his style of editing. Where is your quote from the MOS? Got none? Joe Hepperle (talk) 20:18, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Your edits like this violated other MOS guidelines by causing unsightly text-squeezing and stripping the alt-text from an image, so please don't pretend to be valiantly defending the MOS! You should start a polite discussion about the matter at WT:MOS and present your concerns and proposals clearly. It'll work out far better for you than edit-warring at individual articles. Also, once again I'd encourage you to discuss policy rather than questioning the intellect of other editors - it's not doing you any favours. Papa November (talk) 15:14, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Since you're comparing edits look at this and tell me that the layout is an improvement AND conforms to MoS. I'm certainly NOT defending the MoS but rather pointing out your inconsistent interpretation of it. I'm not asking for "any favours", but rather that you acquire an evenhanded approach. Rotational (talk) 16:38, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Apparently the above means "Cygnis insignis is as bad as me and should be treated the same way." An inspection of Cygnis' contributions will clearly demonstrate that this is not the case. Hesperian 23:21, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Well then, inspect closer. Rotational (talk) 06:59, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

The MoS contains conflicting guidelines - indeed the quoted text acknowledges that contradiction - yet you have taken one of those positions (that it is "often preferable" to do something) as a justification for edit-warring across multiple pages. I would ask if you have a similar justification for your position regarding level-two headings, but it's irrelevant. The consensus is very clear that your actions are disruptive and need to stop. Do try to avoid making any further personal attacks when replying. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 14:54, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

OK, I've marked this as resolved as no further admin action is required here. There is still disagreement over the MOS issues, so please sort it out at WT:MOS rather than clogging up the admin board. Papa November (talk) 17:56, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I've reopened this thread following a request from SheffieldSteel. However, please restrict your discussion here to whether or not the editing restrictions against Rotational are justified. I have started a discussion at WT:MOS#Centre-facing images and L2 headers for you to resolve the style issues... please don't let the debate spill over onto this thread. Papa November (talk) 18:14, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

If Rotational had a sincere disagreement with the WP:MOS, you would expect him to work to get it changed by consensus. Ad-hoc revert-warring on the layout of individual articles doesn't seem to be good faith. We shouldn't allow the uncertainties in the manual of style to translate into indefinite tolerance for revert-warring on individual articles. He has been wasting the time of other editors. Please don't assume this is a new issue, where a slightly-misguided editor has to be pointed to the proper channels. It's a matter of his entire history on Wikipedia. His above comments don't address the problem he has created. Compare his unblock request from 2007 with the current debate; he has learned nothing, and does not wish to compromise in the slightest. He has not accepted Firsfron's request to him from 2007: I will ask that you attempt to follow the guidelines set out at WP:MOS (already linked on your userpage) concerning headings (WP:HEAD). If you need assistance, I would be happy to help out or give advice. EdJohnston (talk) 18:30, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

• Has somebody pointed out to Rotational that the thin lines go away if he changes his skin?
  • Yes. Repeatedly. I don't recall ever getting a clear answer why he doesn't like that solution, other than because I proposed it. --Rkitko ^(talk) 12:07, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
    • It doesn't even take a style sheet; just changing your preferences for skin: I use Classic myself. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:22, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
• That failing, a consensus on each article is a sounder argument than MOS, most of which was never consensus, and is now imposed out of a preference for any consistency over diversity. (If nobody at the articles cares, why should ANI?) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:16, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
  • People at the article do care. There are a group of people who edit in the same fields as him (e.g. botanical illustrators). He pops up on their watchlists giving an article an ugly layout that he alone likes, on the basis of some trivial vexillogical quibble; they revert back to something attractive and (incidentally, if you like) in accordance with the MOS; there is an argument, possibly an edit war. A few days later he pops up on their watchlists again, giving a different article the same ugly layout; they revert; they have the same tired argument, possibly another edit war. Watch, rinse, repeat. Ad infinitum.

    I think everyone, even Rotational, will agree that only Rotational likes Rotational's layout, and everyone else hates it. That fact alone ought to be sufficient to restrain Rotational from repeatedly applying it to articles. But it is not. Rotational continues to edit and edit war in an attempt to force articles to use his preferred layout, even though he knows everyone but him thinks it hideous. And people are sick of it. That is the problem here. The MOS only comes into this as as a surrogate for "the layout preferred by everyone except Rotational".

    Hesperian 23:46, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

    • • People at the article don't care - those images at Walter Hood Fitch sat there unchanged from February 2008 when I placed them there until March 2009 when our friend Cygnis arrived and decided to stir up a bit of trouble. Also please don't presume to speak for me "I think everyone, even Rotational, will agree that only Rotational likes Rotational's layout" or for anyone beside yourself. Rotational (talk) 07:25, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
        • So I shouldn't speak for anyone beside myself, but you're still entitled to speak for everyone in claiming that none of them cares. Your rationale can be summarised as Anyone who appears to care is actually just stirring up trouble; therefore, no-one cares. I can't fault your logic, but the premise you're starting from needs a bit of work. Hesperian 23:16, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
    • And that, unfortunately, is the case to block. We should use the layout preferred by many even if MOS were against it; if MOS abided by policy, we would then change MOS. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:22, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

• All due respect to Septentrionalis, the MoS here is a red herring; what we have is a user who is being tendentious & disruptive -- Wikipedia jargon for being annoying. He has been told he is under a restriction to, in effect, stop being annoying. Arguing over what this means is, I think anyone will agree, being annoying in a new, but still annoying, manner. At this point I am probably too tired -- which makes me cranky -- to handle this matter in an equitable & wise manner (after posting this, I will be going straight to bed, without even pausing to see what the latest thread about Giano is about), but I believe we have a situation which can only be resolved by disinviting the user. And as cranky as I may be, I still hope that i am wrong here. -- llywrch (talk) 06:55, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

To be summarised as "tendentious & disruptive" is laughable. My aim throughout has been to contribute and improve articles. Some of my critics are self-appointed watchdogs who contribute extremely little in mainspace and spend their time carrying out trivial edits whilst congratulating themselves on the sterling job they are doing. Most of them spend an inordinate amount of time working on their political alliances and suffering from the puckered-lips syndrome. I regret being seen as a loose cannon, but if that is a catalyst to changing outdated ideas which are lovingly clung to, then so be it. Rotational (talk) 09:25, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

If your aim truly is "to contribute and improve articles", then I suggest you leave this thread and do exactly that. I know of several editors who consider the MoS, WP:AN, etc. good for nothing more than rulewanking, but instead of coming here & sharing that opinion with one & all, they are quietly contributing solid content. Not wasting anyone's time quarreling over the appearance of articles. -- llywrch (talk) 19:15, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

From my experience with Rotational, the sooner he gets blocked indefinitely, the better for all of the project. Debresser (talk) 19:00, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

EdJohnston, your response (above, 18:30, 18 May 2009) is disingenuous. Rotational does not have a disagreement with the WP:MOS. On the contrary, he agrees with it and is following its guidelines. He has provided here (above) a direct quote from the MOS which substantiates and validates his style of editing. Characterizing his WP:MOS-compliant editing as "...ad-hoc revert-warring..." is either ignorance or outright dishonesty on your part. It is becoming harder for me to assume your 'good faith'.

You used the phrase, "...the uncertainties in the manual of style...". According to you and your cohorts, Rotational was 'violating' the WP:MOS... until he provided a direct quote from the MOS which supports and validates his editing style. So am I to conclude that anytime the WP:MOS conflicts with your personal tastes, it is the MOS that is "...uncertain..." rather than a simple but clear-cut case of you being wrong?

When Rotational edits the articles in compliance with the WP:MOS and you revert his edits because you don't like them, whom exactly is doing the edit warring? You are. An edit's quality of being "...disagreeable to EdJohnston's tastes..." does not make it a violation of WP:MOS. It is times like this that you need to take a step back, take a deep breath and relax. No matter how much it infuriates you, you must accept it. Rotational has provided a direct quote from the WP:MOS that substantiates, supports, and validates his editing style. Where is your quote? Papa November just wrote to you and your cohorts that he has opened a discussion at WT:MOS#Centre-facing images so that you can try to get the WP:MOS changed to your 'flavor'. You will need to make a case for deletion of the section that Rotational has quoted (word-for-word) in his post above. As long as that section is part of the WP:MOS, Rotational is right and you are simply offended because of that. Your invitation to us to look at his past edits is disingenuous and brings into question your good faith. Are you implying that you should 'win' even though you are wrong about this current issue (placement of pictures in articles) because Rotational has been on your dartboardbefore?

To prevail honestly, EdJohnston, you should provide chapter and verse Quotes from the WP:MOS that would clearly show Rotational to be in error-- if there exist any such section(s). I suspect there is not, which would explain the continuously slippery and elusive reasoning you (plural) present as the supposed justification for a censure of Rotational. Here is a recap of those slippery claims:

1. CLAIM: Rotational needs to be censured because his edits (picture placement in articles) violates WP:MOS.

2. CLAIM: Rotational needs to be censured because he 'disagrees' with the WP:MOS, so he reverts picture placement edits back to his original layout.

3. RESPONSE: Rotational supplies a word-for-word quote from WP:MOS that clearly shows that he IS following the WP:MOS in his edits concerning picture placement in articles.

4. NEW-CLAIM: The WP:MOS is ambiguous so Rotational should be censured and forced to ignore the word-for-word quote, directly from the WP:MOS, which he provided. EdJohnston and cohorts should 'win' by the sole virtue that there are six of them, ganged together, and only one Rotational.

5. NEW-CLAIM: Although no one other than Rotational has provided any word-for-word quote from WP:MOS to support their position, the part that Rotational has quoted is characterized as an "...uncertainty..."

6. NEW-CLAIM: EdJohnston writes that Rotational has a "....disagreement with the WP:MOS..." based on the fact that Rotational is following the style allowed-- and substantiated-- by the WP:MOS (Joe Hepperle Note: Even I don't understand EdJohnston's thought-flow here. I don't know how a person whom is in full compliance with the WP:MOS can honestly be characterized as having a disagreement with WP:MOS. It would seem that EdJohnston is the one with the "disagreement". The WP:MOS allows the style of picture-placement editing that Rotational is using-- EdJohnston disagrees with that WP:MOS-authorized style.)

Rotational agrees with the WP:MOS. Rotational has provided a direct quote from the WP:MOS that substantiates, supports, and validates his editing style. Joe Hepperle (talk) 22:36, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Banned user editing

Matt Sanchez, aka Bluemarine (talk · contribs), just posted to my talk page, accusing me of vandalism somewhere. He is, as far as I can tell, still under an indef. community ban. It appears his Arbcom site ban ended in January but I see nothing at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Bluemarine dealing with ending the community ban. The last action I see is this past December where he was placed on a limited unblock with conditions (see the very bottom of his arbcom page). So, can we find out and get a clarification on this? - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 04:55, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Also note his editing at the Matt Sanchez talk page. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 05:10, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up about this thread, Allstar. Bluemarine's arbitration ban expired on 1 April 2009. This is the first time since then (that I'm aware) when he's returned to editing. He might not understand that the community ban remains in place. Have emailed him to ask whether he understands this; awaiting reply. (I've been mentoring Bluemarine/Matt Sanchez since his siteban, mostly at Commons). Durova^Charge! 05:20, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Have received a reply; he wasn't aware that the community ban remained in force after the arbitration ban expired. Have asked him to edit only to his main account user talk until this gets sorted out. Durova^Charge! 05:29, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I asked him via edit summary when undoing his edits to the article about him's talk page, not to edit until clarification was obtained as to the status on the community ban. He ignored me, undid me, and continued on. I assume he will now stop since you've had contact with him? Additionally, since he's under an indef community ban, why is he even able to edit? Shouldn't his account have been blocked from editing? - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 05:35, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Bluemarine#Limited unblock with conditions explains this.  Sandstein  06:03, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that's right. It kind of caught me by surprise this evening while I was working on other things. Matt would like to request a repeal of his community ban; it's been a year. In this unusual situation, how do we go about clarifying the matter. According to many people a community ban is a block that no administrator is willing to unblock. He is unblocked, so how do we clear the air? Durova^Charge! 06:13, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi, following up. Matt tells me he's been receiving offsite harassment that pertains to Wikipedia. Haven't seen it myself, although the arbitration case did establish that he had been harassed extensively. My advice to him was to forward evidence of harassment to ArbCom, if it's demonstrable that it originates from an editor. He did not discuss who (if anyone) he thought was the source of that problem. Seems to be a little confused, so I've asked him to monitor this discussion and post nowhere other than his user talk until things are sorted out. Will be heading to bed now, so please be patient. Durova^Charge! 06:42, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the info Durova. Whoever is harassing him offsite, if they are a Wiki user and it can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, should be dealt with for sure. However, regardless of that, he is still under a community ban. I see that Arbcom per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Bluemarine#Limited unblock with conditions unblocked him with stipulations as to what actions he could perform on Wikipedia but I'll also note 2 things in regard to that: A) Arbcom shouldn't have overruled the community and unblocked him for any reason whatsoever. Additionally so with the reason for the limited purpose of his making contributions related to increasing the accessibility of Wikipedia to users with handicapping conditions. Seriously, go against the will of the community and unblock someone on behalf of handicap people? and B) That unblock pertained to his Arbcom ban only. Now that it has expired, and since he's still under community ban, he should be blocked from editing except for his own talk page and the talk page be temporary and it too blocked should his community ban continue to stand. I've got no opinion at this time as to whether or not the community ban should be lifted but as it stands now, it's still in effect and should be enforced. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 07:14, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Actually it is precisely ArbCom's function to overrule the community on occasion. The community's actions are subject to review by ArbCom and sometimes they overturn the community's action. Durova^Charge! 14:52, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

As Durova has said above, a community ban is usually expressed as a block that no admin is willing to lift. Since any single admin can overturn a community ban, ArbCom, consisting of mostly admins, certainly can do so as well. If that approach still scales with the number of admins we now have is a subject for another time. Anyways, given that Matt has sat out the year, and is a productive contributor to our sister projects, I think he is one of the rare breed that deserves a second chance. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:29, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, if any single admin can overturn the will of the community, that policy needs to be addressed as well. Not here of course but somewhere. Why does 1 person get to overrule many? As I said, I have no opinion at this time on doing away with the community ban but I am skeptical.. For 4 months after the beginning of his Arbcom ban, he evaded his block via sockpuppet as evidenced by the block log at his Arbcom page. Just today, I witnessed sockpuppeting by him over on Wikiquote (I know it was him because he made changes to the page about him there under an IP - when he normally uses the name Bluemarine there too - and then came over here and left a note on my talk page while logged in as Bluemarine accusing me of vandalizing his Wikiquote page even though the only edit I ever made up to that point to that page was adding a Conflict of Interest tag to it). When and if a discussion on the community ban materializes, I'll deal with these issues there. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 07:41, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Yes, been working toward change in that part of the banning policy for over two years. Got overruled by the consensus. If you'd like to change consensus, by all means join me in doing so after this dispute is settled. Durova^Charge! 14:52, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I thought a ban was agreed upon by consensus and that to un-ban also required consensus. If not, then there's no practical difference between a block and a ban. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 09:40, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

No, there are significant differences. See WP:BLOCKBANDIFF. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:07, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm aware that there is supposed to be a difference, and that's the point I'm raising. I'm not seeing anything obvious on who has the authority to lift a ban. But I thought that was supposed to be by consensus, not by an individual admin deciding to do so. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 11:15, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Where ArbCom makes a decision, I imagine it simply supercedes lower decisions, and Jimbo can overrule ArbCom. Elsewise, the hierarchy which certainly appears to exist, would not. In short -- action de novo would be needed to effectively overturn ArbCom. Collect (talk) 11:21, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, OK, so did an admin make a mistake in this case? I never heard of this Sanchez guy, I'm just asking what the rules are. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 11:27, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

No, no admin made a mistake. He essentially was under 2 bans.. one indefinitely by the community and one for a year via the Arbcom case. The Arbcom ban has ended. The community ban hasn't. So, the mistake is on the part of Arbcom for unblocking him with stipulations that he could only upload files "so that handicap users could access them" and he could only edit his user page and talk page, while he was still under a community ban. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 11:40, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

• Comment on bans and blocks: My reading of the above leads me to think that community bans and de facto bans are being confused. A community ban (discussed fully) requires a community consensus to lift (though ArbCom may lift if they decide community input/process was insufficient to legitimately establish a ban). Any admin may lift a defacto ban, as it really just overturns an indef block made by another single admin. I do agree with the above that MS was under two separate bans, and that while the AC sanction is over, the community ban is still in place, esp. as the AC motion does not address the community ban.
• Agree with Schulz above that we should probably re-visit the community sanction, especially if Durova is keeping an eye on things (but unfounded accusations against current editors would have to stop -tired or not) . . . R. Baley (talk) 14:08, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Sanchez posting in this thread

I just noticed from Sanchez's contribs that sometime during this thread, he made a post here in this very thread, despite being told he was still under community ban. It was undone by Durova so I didn't see it. I'll address the allegations in that post: lies. I don't know the man's phone number, never have known the man's phone number, don't even know his Twitter account name, never have known the man's Twitter account name, don't know the man's email addresses and have never in my life sent the man an email to any email address. Posting that only proves to me that he hasn't changed one bit. I demand proof of these accusations by him, against me, or else he needs to knock that off right now. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 11:49, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Allstar, he was confused. It was the wee hours of the night in his time zone and nearly midnight in mine. Now in spite of my declaration that I was heading to bed, and request for patience, I awaken to discover this new subthread has been open for hours. This is very disappointing. Durova^Charge! 14:44, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

It's also very disappointing to see myself accused of such things Durova. If it were you being slandered and accused of such gross violations, I highly doubt you'd have even went to bed on it. How is one "confused" when they make posts like that? If someone were stalking me, calling my personal phone, sending me harassing emails and harassing me on Twitter, and I knew who it was, I'd certainly remember and not make such an enormous mistake as to be "confused" and post someone else's name as the "stalker". - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 18:03, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I sympathize. I have seen no evidence that you were responsible for any of that, nor was your name discussed specifically before he posted. That was one reason why I made last night's final post (didn't want to draw attention and/or doubts attached to your username, which was the reason for not naming you). Very difficult situation to rise up at the very end of one's evening.

Matt has been subject to a very serious offsite harassment campaign, as noted in the arbitration finding. So far as I know, the individual responsible for it was sitebanned long ago. Last night Matt mentioned that offsite harassment had either continued or resumed, and I advised him that if he had evidence linking ongoing harassment to any current editor then that should go to the Committee (per the general instruction from Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Jim62sch#Grave_real-world_harassment). I had also advised him to post only to his user talk until this matter is cleared up, and given him a link to this discussion so that he could monitor its progress. The unintended result of that was that he got very confused. You have my apologies for the I played in that chain of events; its outcome was unintentional (this was why I really hoped to get a night's sleep in my body before resuming). And if there's need be explicit about an issue that seems to loom close whenever this biography comes up, my own views about LGBT issues are very different from Matt's. Durova^Charge! 22:10, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Revisiting the community sanction

Per suggestions above, let's revisit the community sanction. What seems sensible is to implement a topic ban under mentorship and restrict him to one account. Bluemarine (who is Matt Sanchez) is fluent in four languages and has a history of useful contributions at Commons.[1]

So suggesting the following (based upon Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Bluemarine#Limited_unblock_with_conditions):

Bluemarine's community ban is modified to a topic ban from the Matt Sanchez biography, and from LGBT topics and related talk pages, broadly construed. He is limited to the use of one account. If Bluemarine violates the terms of this restriction, or makes any comment reasonably regarded as harassing or a personal attack, he may be reblocked for an appropriate period of time by any uninvolved administrator.

Would appreciate the assistance of a second mentor, if one is willing to step forward (seeking volunteers). Durova^Charge! 17:31, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I think this has gotten pushed so far up the page that you may need to start a new section on it, referencing this section of course. As for the suggestion itself, what is the time constraint on this topic ban? Also, let's change "he may be blocked" to "he will be blocked", difference in may and will. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 02:39, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, the main idea here is to bring in the good he can do for the site without reigniting old fires. Do you think this proposal would manage the major concerns? Durova^Charge! 04:16, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I have concerns. First, the nature of Bluemarine's actions were so egregious as to support not one but TWO bans. Second, while I grant that he may have been confused about when the bans ended, he didn't choose to ask Durova, who has faithfully mentored him, but began editing again. Third, one of his quickest edits was to accuse an editor here of harassing him. Whatever time it is, that's unacceptable. I do not - at this time - support a modification of his community ban, while at the same time congratulating him on his success on other projects. - Philippe 04:25, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm quite inclined to agree with Philippe. The vitriol (calling other users "faggot" among other choice things), the blatant disregard for policy and for the bans (still editing via sockpuppet 4 months into the bans), socking on other projects now (see Wikiquote), asking for meatpuppets via his Twitter account (see the Matt Sanchez article's talk page for that), Uploading of copyvio files (he's had many files deleted for claiming ownership but later found out to be copyvios owned by other sources).. I just don't see why he can't continue to contribute to sister sites while still community banned here. His mode of operation is completely established and are we sure it won't happen on other articles in which he's been the cause of disruption to (Ann Coulter specifically) but which aren't covered under such topic ban? Despite all of this, and my better judgement telling me not no but hell no.. I'm willing to go along with the following:

Bluemarine's community ban is modified to a topic ban from the Matt Sanchez biography and its talk page, and from LGBT topics and related talk pages, broadly construed. He is limited to the use of one account:Bluemarine. He is not to upload any files of which he does not own. If Bluemarine violates the terms of this restriction, or makes any comment reasonably regarded as harassing or a personal attack, he will be blocked indefinitely by any uninvolved administrator.

That's the best I can muster right now. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 04:46, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

To respond to Philippe, there was a specific and unusual provocation behind Matt's recent edits. I have no reason to believe Allstarecho was responsible, but Matt has been targeted for very serious harassment. During last year's arbitration someone hacked into Matt's computer, posted a (possibly altered) personal chat log of Matt's to the arbitration case pages, and according to Matt the hacker also cleared out his bank account. Someone runs a hate site dedicated to Matt and also impersonates Matt on the Internet. Recently a query came up at Matt's bio talk that seemed like a plausible claim (supposedly Matt had tried to canvass for Wikipedia editors on Twitter), and when I queried Matt about it he got upset because Matt had never canvassed on Twittter; that was the impersonator. Matt's been getting other offsite harassment recently also, which I hadn't been aware of.

So in short, Matt wasn't flying off the handle for no reason at all. He has been provoked for a long time by someone who is very patient and diligent about it. Matt wasn't aware that the second ban still existed, and I wasn't aware that the harassment had continued. Durova^Charge! 05:09, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Durova, I guess my concern is that this whole thing is ALREADY setting off my "drama"-sensor, and I can't see that the drama is going to decrease. As far as I'm concerned, I'm not willing at this point to support a modification of the terms of the community ban. You asked if your proposed language would manage the main concerns: in my opinion, no. I do not believe that sufficient "drama-free" time has elapsed to over-ride the community ban. If someone truly cleared out his bank account, that's a felony and should be addressed with the police. If he's being harassed, that may or may not be a felony and should be discussed with the police. In either case, I don't think it's justification for anything. I empathize with him, I hope it gets better, and I hope that he takes it to the police: but I'm not willing to use that to excuse his behavior here. There's just way too much drama that follows him on here. Maybe later; not now. - Philippe 20:26, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Something fishy goin' on

Check out the edit history of StephenLaurie (talk · contribs) whom I wouldn't have noticed were it not for the edit today to Matt Sanchez. It appears through the user's own edits, more recent socks of Matt have been exposed, as recently as this month. This will of course take some actual clicking to look at the edits made by the IPs that user StephenLaurie has tagged as being socks of Matt/Bluemarine. I of course have no proof these are socks of Matt's but they definitely match his editing pattern in related articles, especially Scott Thomas Beauchamp controversy. See WP:DUCK. As such, I withdraw my willingness to agree to relaxing Matt's community ban. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 04:45, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

How about filing a sockpuppet investigation request? This comes as a surprise and I'm as curious as you are. Durova^Charge! 04:47, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

FYI: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bluemarine - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 06:43, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

 Clerk note: I have endorsed for CU attention. I have amended the reason from community ban evasion to Arbcom sanction evasion, as it seems clear to me that the Arbcom decision to give BM a limited unblock vacates (at least temporarily) the total community ban. Mayalld (talk) 08:31, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

StephenLaurie's history is also suspicious. His very first edit was to accuse another editor of socpuppetry. That is not the action of a new user. That smells like a stinky sock as well. LadyofShalott 17:51, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Anyone else feel free to open a SI case on that user as well. I plan on doing so once the first one is dealt with but certainly won't mind if someone else does it. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 18:30, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Cryptonio

Cryptonio (talk · contribs) has been leaving some odd messages on talk pages recently.[2] Some of them tell editors to go away or that they are expendable and/or unintelligible. I'm not sure what's going on with this editor and, to be frank, I'm concerned for them.

• Samples:
  • "BTW, check my contribs really quick, the last 10 or so could make your day better. lol",[3]
  • "i must tell you, that the space you and others want to use to tell the world how great Israel is, has been confiscated in order to let the world know, something the world already knows. Beatles kick ass. Well, I guess that just makes you expendable here in Wiki, don't let the door hit you on your way out! Some people are tools, some are weapons. Care to guess which one are you?",[4]
  • "dude, seriously, you need a vacation, i am worried about your health. Lately, you have not been making any sense in talk pages, you are reading things wrong, and you seem to have a major problem with NPOV. Seriously dude, take a vacation. A long vacation.",[5]
  • "well you are a tool my friend. A tool fan that is. I am glad that you enter and exit certain articles, like the baseline does in Tool songs. You must be a drummer. Well, let me tell you my friend, that Wiki does not need you at all in project like I/P conflict. But, we have great opportunities for growth, in areas like Star Trek Oral Sex Child Support and all types of offshoots that you can imagine. Please, feel free to investigate around and leave I/P for ever. Thank you, have a terrible time at the poker tables.",[6]
  • "Well, welcome to Wiki .. Hope you don't stay for too long!",[7]
  • "push these crazy ideas that make you and others like you, look like Satan compare to Arab fundamentalists(really, take it from an experience observer). I can really honestly say, you should drop Wikipedia, and take the others with you.",[8]
  • "In due time, your suspicion that all will go to hell when it comes to I/P articles in Wiki, will come to be, and we will have to score it as a Mossad victory."[9]

I'm thinking this should be reviewed by a couple people. -- Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 19:00, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Additional note: I was a bit concerned for Cryptonio but, considering their response below, I'm now more concerned for the project. Creating a collaborative atmosphere in these sensitive topics is hard enough without people asking those whom they disagree with to leave the project adding that they "look like Satan".[10] I personally do not find the entire list above "humorous" or "lol" worthy. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 21:17, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Comments

These are quite troubling. A block is certainly in order, with subsequent mentorship when the block expires. IronDuke 19:13, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

They are quite funny. And the way this dude has posted them, is taken totally out of context(and provides evidence of of certain editor's style of work here in Wiki). The subjects here are renowned pro-Israeli editors(except a few of them) of the kind that pushes Israel's POV blindly at the cost of Wiki. This, editor, that has brought this concern of me to this board, has a history of his own of "you have not been making any sense in talk pages, you are reading things wrong, and you seem to have a major problem with NPOV." Exactly what I let him know, but of course, in a humorous way that allows him to clearly understand the point. He's concern for me? they are only words and no threat was giving. I actually, recommend for everyone in here to go to the edits themselves and get a quick laugh. Some of these editors don't care about Wiki, all they care about is to represent the rights of others except Wiki. They see Wiki as a tool for their 'war mentality, instead of seeing it as a tool for knowledge.

The reason at large, why articles concerning I/Ps are the way that they are, is because a 'standard' was semi-established, when certain editors, in good faith or not, started to 'produce'(instead of creating) articles that were a carbon copy of already written articles from CIA's Factbook and the US's State Department. Through wikilawyering(and other practices) then, undermining the same rules that was brought to standard, in order to revert that activity, that presented a major danger to Wiki's independence, many of these articles remain intact.

The process, that has been on going, to make these articles 100% Wikipedian, has been an arduous to many editors. Recently, three very pro-Palestinian editors, but at the same time, ACADEMICIANS with pride of their Wiki-work, were recently dismissed in favor of giving certain editors a voice that goes against the load thinking of Wiki. These editors, that would under normal circumstances address a conflict with their best tools from the beginning, had to rather rely on their wits and anger in order to bring down the stonewalling that these 'cliques' present all over these articles.

Wiki has faltered in this matter. Wiki has taken the side of Anti-Wikipedia in order to forcefully give statue to a practice that is very much Anti-Wikipedia. The practice is Anti-knowledge, Anti-Reasoning, rewarding instead "group mentality" and "point-fixing"(the practice of sourcing one's beliefs and POV). We should not be afraid of quarrels in articles like Star Trek Oral sex and Child support, they are of a different kind, and even though the subject matter at hand is one of many, it provides precedent and will be looked at when considering other matters throughout Wiki.

Wiki is not a democracy, and the first victim of democracy is common sense, and so, Wiki is not under no obligation to give voice to the voiceless, or promote empirical ideals. Wiki has a self-inflicted responsibility to always improve itself, that just because there is an article that covers a subject, under no circumstances means that the subject is already covered, and thus we should move on to the next. Relevant information is a by-product of necessary information and it should be given the least amount of space when space itself, through rationale, dictates so. The judge in all of this, cannot be time, and it cannot be a judge itself. The judge of thought questions and preposition, should be the ability to comprehend an argument through the eyes of Wiki, and not through the eyes set on NPOV. There is a POV that matters and shouldn't be ignored, and that is Wiki's POV.

It wouldn't be difficult to bring examples, where even the least capable of administrators would have little difficult siding with Wiki's side. Administrators cannot continue to act as if they are solving dispute when in all reality they are admonishing editors at the expense of ignoring the question and argument that is brought to them. Was not, the same dispute that editors were told to solve on their own, what brought these editors to these boards in the first place? Why think, that editors started arguing and insulting one another, and never tried to actually solve the dispute? Wiki will not flourish under the current atmosphere. Wiki is not rewarding education and dedication, Wiki seems to be rewarding fanaticism and a sense of undermining Wiki itself.

If, argument and heated debate, insults and the rest, provides better results, the result expected by administrators, Wiki must stand aside or set the rules of engagement, so that Wiki would have the last word. This means, that as long as Wiki continues to give voice to those seeking their own, without regards of the platform, Wiki will continue to view dispute as children behaving badly, instead of reasoning that one must be right and the other must be opposing, not the fact or the truth, but process.

Allow Wiki to be Wiki. If solution is found to certain problems, do not get involve, simply because someone has ask you to.

Thank you, and read those links please. They are quite troubling! Aghast! I would mentor Jok! Cryptonio (talk) 20:34, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Hey jeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeewd. I'm with Crypt on this one. Those pro-Israel editors are nothing but trouble and destroy the very fabric that makes wikipedia so neutral, objective, and tolerant. In fact, let's just rename wikipedia. We'll call it...Cryptopedia. Wikifan12345 (talk) 21:37, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

"so neutral, objective, and tolerant". You need to understand these concepts in order to use them. You see Wiki is not neutral in the sense that there is no dispute, is neutral because it allows discussion. The act of tilting an article to one way over the other(over that discussion), is not being neutral, but engaging in POV-pushing. So thus, discussion shouldn't be used or needed in order to fix POV.

Objective is not getting every single detail about a subject matter down on paper. Objective is to be able to "judge thought, questions and preposition, by comprehending an argument through the eyes of Wiki, and not through the eyes set on NPOV." In other words, that you bring a source, that in your opinion is adequate for the article, does not merits opposition, but rather consensus that indeed is necessary material. Now here is the magic of Wiki, when you are asked to present your view on inclusion, you must be aware, that you cannot use your 'opinion' in order to reach consensus, you must rather state your case from Wiki's POV. This does not mean, that you feel, think, or reckon, that the reader needs that information, but rather that the reader's experience would be enhance by the addition of said information. When Wiki is held to these standards, there is nothing like it. Trouble is, that one marginal bit of information, for the most part, will invite terrible information in order to balance it. The editor, must be aware, that the objection of other editors, to add or remove information, is not solely based on their view, but also based on their view of Wiki.

Why doesn't Dispute Resolution work? Simple. It doesn't work because we don't accept judgment on a matter we feel so positive about, and thus, through arguing, if feel we could delay a ruling for eternity. The solution is never to stifled discussion, but to stifled ignorance(and ignorance is not the absence of knowledge) but rather "the rejection of acceptance to a contradictory logistical value". In other words, every argument must be brought to the table etc, and it is expected that consensus rises out of that, and if it doesn't, then consensus would be neither remove, modify or add said information.

Finally, tolerant. This is actually a very grave mistake on your part, to think that Wiki is tolerant. It isn't. It does not give you the right, any right, because it doesn't have constitution. Because reality is tilted towards "Westernrism" we equate a free man to democracy and other ideals that does not enter the realm of Wiki. To be tolerant, only extends to being neutral(allows discussion) but it doesn't mean that it needs to give you time to state your claim, or your bias. It doesn't need to respect your bias. If you don't think of Wiki as being a source of knowledge, you will view Wiki as a source of expression. You are going to feel as if you are entitled to a platform for your views. The rules of Wiki, are binding only in Wiki, thus, your ideas and beliefs of what a fair system should be, only extends to your immediate territory. Yes, you may very well think Wiki is tolerant, but when it comes to the job of Wiki, Wiki is, should be unstoppable. Wiki, on this subject matter, has not been tolerant, it has been fooled into thinking it needs to respect all editors(again, a westernerism). not all editors are created equal. Equal weight covers the information, not the editors. Wiki allows equal footing at the start of discussion, but does not require for all to finish at the same time, doesn't even help for all racers to finish the race. Cryptonio (talk) 22:05, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Are you for real? Wikifan12345 (talk) 22:17, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

You enjoy my jokes more. I'll give this example in good faith. Say that there are two opposing views on a matter. Listen, this is the world wide world, this is not uncommon at all, people deal with this kind of stuff everyday without major fuzz, but only if both people are reasonable. Wiki would love to have those opposing views presented, but first, it must make a note that there are two opposing view. That we make that small mention, is worth a lot of trouble. Then, we must put those two views in perspective, paying close attention to the interaction between them. If the conflict arises out sheer POV, as a last resort, consensus should be the inclusion of both opposing views, in relation to the represented capacity of both views. If one view, is being presented as a replacement, it must be looked at very closely, because change is a human trait that doesn't allow us to actually practice it. If the view is being presented, as a substitute, on grounds that it should be looked at as standard here on Wiki, consensus must arise from accepting, that the view is relevant without the mention of the opposite view. Thus a reader will always benefit from consensus that was reached, by a process. If the view that has been presented as the standard in Wiki, is now viewed as having a challenge, that is, that it no longer can stand on it's own, the immediate remedial is not to add the opposite view, but to make mention in the article that such view could be notable(immediately). Then consensus should concentrate, in the addition of the opposing view, but only as a mention, that is notable. All of this is reached through the understanding of current Wiki-policies. Cryptonio (talk) 22:25, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

You take a long time to explain nothing. Your comments are very uncivil. I don't think a block is in order, yet, but continuing to make those remarks would most likely result in one. -- Darth Mike ^(talk) 22:55, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't need to attack you to defend myself. I can simply ignore you. Cryptonio (talk) 22:58, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

And besides, I was brought here. I didn't know you even existed till a few minutes ago. As far as I'm concerned, I can extend myself worthy, to the silliness, if I so choose to entertain. I'm already looking forward to sending you my good night wishes. word. Cryptonio (talk) 23:14, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

{out)WP:DFTT Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 04:49, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

After reading through some recent edits of Cryptonio (talk · contribs), I'm not clear on what he's trying to say, or what he's trying to do. But it doesn't seem to be helping Wikipedia. Can anyone else summarize, concisely, what the issue is? --John Nagle (talk) 05:10, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

John, I think the issue in a nutshell is simply that

• working in the I/P conflict area for an extended period produces a form of battle fatique
• Cryptonio has decided that he would prefer to stay away from this area of Wikipedia from now on
• these are his parting messages which for the most part express the kind of frustration many people seem to experience at some point

I think raising the issue here was probably counterproductive. I would advocate just letting it go as more pragmatic. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:36, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Many users, including myself, have received blocks for far less during I/P "battles." Crypt has been hostile and abrasive in previous discussions, so this really isn't that surprising. I'm all for jokes and laughs, but telling people to basically g.t.f.o through thinly-veiled "humor" is hardly an excusable product of "battle fatigue". I do not endorse a block however. I'm just saying the bar seems to apply to some but not all. Wikifan12345 (talk) 06:16, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

There is a bar, but its not a cool kids type thing, sometimes, when all the stars align and god slowly whispers your name in a seductive tone, and you happen to lose your cool right when the community feels a subconscious yearning for drama, larger powers come into play and to diffuse the whole thing the adults tell everybody the equivalent of mom yelling at the misbehaving children to get out of the house and go away so every can just relax instead of spanking them. It's a decent outcome. Think of it like a defensive penalty in football. It's like the play never happened. --M^ask? 10:02, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Without going into details, my reply to John Nagle's question, from a perspective of an Israeli-POV editor. Working on Gaza War article is extremely hard, the issue is very loaded, both in emotions and information. From my side, knowing that many others will disagree, I try as much as I can (though I am far from perfect myself), to discuss things first. Now if you look at current talk page and article edits from last, say, 10 days - you might see (turns out I am not the only one who got that feeling) that comrade Cryptonio has become totally uncooperative. This is the issue - lack of cooperation, of good will, of some respect to others. Most of us are cynical, its OK. But I see others who are cynical, but still able to cooperate. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 12:28, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

"uncooperative" = unwilling to accept your POV-pushing. Cryptonio (talk) 15:16, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

You're a nuisance. But you have a point, because the there are serious racists running around causing mayhem. Have a look at Islam: What the West Needs to Know and who is editing it. anyone contributing to an article attacking Judaism in that fashion would be instantly barred. 81.156.223.72 (talk) 16:38, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't know what point you think I have made, since I didn't say anything about racism, Islam or Judaism. You must be a recent Muslim convert. Cryptonio (talk) 18:12, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

<- (Unindent)

Okay. That comment right above by Crypto is over the line. What now? — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:07, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh boy, 'recent Muslim converts' was an observation that was not critical of his beliefs, but rather exemplify a common trait by recent converts of the Islam faith. In their view, they have found a reason to live their lives by, and they see that Islam is being attacked, and thus they feel as if they are being attacked as well, so they overreact against anything that might be at odds with their faiths(in this case, a stupid movie). Of course, this is not prevalent of female converts and not all male converts feel threatened by a normal 'critical' comment of their faith. Of course, being as religious as I am, knowing Islam the way I do, it was not meant as an insult to his faith, but just a simple observation, that I may have gotten wrong, but I think not. You guys jump the gun on every single comment that may comb your hair in a different way than the usual. How can some of you make judgment decisions when you seem like you can't read or understand what's in front of you. Anyways, when can I get my topic-ban so that I can move on. Cryptonio (talk) 21:58, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

So, your personal opinions excuse the personal attack of assuming the user is biased by his/her religious beliefs? And your final sentence kinda seals that you're trolling us. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:43, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

It was a tactless observation. I've been blocked for implying certain users harbored antisemitic feelings that reflected their editing habits. I cannot help but believe comments such as "anyone contributing to an article attacking Judaism in that fashion would be instantly barred" are inherently antisemitic. Suggesting a wikipedia-double standard by virtue of being Judaism-related opposed to Islamic could be considered slander and perhaps even racist. Rationalizations cannot change what has been said. Wikifan12345 (talk) 07:48, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Deletion nominations of images valid within articles

Damiens.rf (talk · contribs) is on what seems to be an apparent crusade against most images I have uploaded, especially regarding fictional characters. If not that, then soap opera articles in general. As seen here, some of his deletion nominations are valid, but there other deletion nominations by him that are plain silly (in my view). Examples would be nominating images such as Famous Luke and Noah kiss.jpg, which there is significant critical commentary about and is a famous kiss, in addition to Lnlwedding.jpg (which is also quite significant, as I stated there in discussion).

Damiens.rf's sweep deletion nominations of a lot of images I have uploaded is also quite stressing to reply to one by one, and the tag alerts (before I reverted them) took up most of my talk page. Am I really expected to comment on so many image for deletion discussions within the same span of time? And is there nothing that can be done when images are wrongly nominated for deletion like this? Do I have to simply comment on it, and let the file for deletions "decider" resolve this even when the image is perfectly valid within the article? Some of these deletion nominations by Damiens.rf appear to be bad-faith editing, not good-faith. There are other editors who feel this way about some of Damiens.rf's image deletion nominations, and I hope that they comment here on this matter as well. Flyer22 (talk) 00:16, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I haven't looked over all of the nominations, but I do have to say that this appears to be a bit POINTy and nominating this many images for deletion is disruptive as well. Rather than go Twinkle crazy, actually communicating with the uploaders would be the right way to go about this. AniMate^draw 00:31, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

This certainly isn't the first run-in a user has had with Damiens and his image deletion rampage. A quick view just now of his contribs is revealing. Most of the images he sends to Ffd are because they are "Decorative non-free screenshot. Helps nothing in understanding the article.". He also seems to have an agenda regarding any LGBT images which involve any sort of affection between the subjects of the images. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 00:46, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I noticed that a few of these images are clearly not "decorative," but illustrating key points in articles, like the Noah/Luke kiss screenshot. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 01:36, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Most if not all of Damiens deletion nominations are valid. It would be wise for Flyer, AniMate and Allstarecho to all learn a little something called WP:AGF. Also, Allstarecho please do not make false allegations. That's extremely disruptive. CADEN ^{is cool} 01:42, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Accusing others of making false allegations, when they aren't false, is also extremely disruptive. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 02:33, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Exactly! I always assume good faith, except for when edits are clearly not being made in good-faith. I stated above that some of Damiens.rf's edits are valid and that some are not. You want me to assume good faith in an editor who is experienced with Wikipedia's image policy and yet somehow manages to nominate all these valid images? He clearly is not reading some parts of the articles these images are next to before nominating them for deletion, or he is flat-out acting in bad-faith. Either that, or I am to believe that he does not understand when an image is serving critical commentary or is supported by the text noting that significant moment. Flyer22 (talk) 18:23, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree that all of these deletion nominations appear to be questionable and possibly part of some kind of vendetta against soap opera images. If you look at the order of his nominations you'll see he went pretty much in the order that the articles appear in the soap opera section of the List of fictional supercouples with a few deviations. Also, he canceled one nomination after I explained how it was valid. My explanation would have been unnecessary had he read the article since what I said was already stated on the page. He doesn't seem to be reading the articles or even the captions to see whether or not each image adds to the article since each nom has almost identical wording and description whether they match or not.

I'm willing to agree that some of the images deserve to be nominated. I'm just not sure Damiens.rf's reasons for the mass noms aren't questionable. Rocksey (talk) 01:47, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Damien has indicated on his talk that he has no intention of stopping his actions or responding here. Regardless of the merits or non-merits of his actions, refusing to engage with other editors in a collegial manner when asked to do so is not the way to do things. Exxolon (talk) 01:52, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Telling someone they are "welcome to try to give me any contentful adivice", shows they have great contempt for their fellow editor and shows the user is quite arrogant (in this user's opinion). I would recommend all nominations be reversed until Damien comes to this discussion. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 01:56, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Aside from the predictable support from Caden (cue: AniMate is being a bully), does anyone think these nominations are a good idea? And since when did Twinkle templates and copy pasting the same rationale 50 or so times replace communication? Despite one assertion above, these aren't all decorative and if he's unwilling to communicate in response to our concerns, I suggest his nominations be closed. AniMate^draw 01:59, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I can't blame Damiens for refusing to respond here. More than likely too many editors have burned him in the past. That sort of thing occurs too often on wiki. CADEN ^{is cool} 02:15, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

He has likely burned too many editors in the past himself. Flyer22 (talk) 18:28, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with AniMate, all noms should be closed. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 02:18, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with the both of you. Keep all noms. CADEN ^{is cool} 02:23, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) 2 to 1 for removal of noms. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 02:26, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the removal as well. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 02:33, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I do as well. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 03:35, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Which one of us is going to give it a go and remove the nominations or should we let an admin do that? - NeutralHomer • Talk • 03:42, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

An admin would likely be the one that needs to do this but they seem to be scarce judging from their minimal participation in several threads on this noticeboard that need attention. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 05:33, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Admins iz taking advantage of temporally localized failure of external fusion lighting function to sleep, eat, game, work (sigh, wanna go home). I recommend placing a note at the top of the section DamienRT started editing in the files for deletion page, pointing here at the discussion, but not removing or blanking or striking the nominations yet. More awakey people can review it and decide to do that or not in the morning. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 05:43, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I have done my own suggestion re. the notification over the nominations under discussion, and am now ending my workday and going home to sleep, eat, probably not game, and not work. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 06:06, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

And I am only here now because of chronic insomnia, but I am in no state to deal with complex issues until I finish my sleep- assuming I get the chance. We are not automata, however good a service we try to provide. Rodhullandemu 06:10, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

• I have temporarily removed his nominations from Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 May 18 and Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 May 19 and placed them on those pages respective talk pages, pending the outcome of this issue. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 09:00, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

  Hi, Allstarecho. Please understand that this was not a wise move. The nominations themselve can make no harm by just sitting at Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 May 18, so there's no urge to remove them. Your move, actually, hinders discussion by hiding the nominations from a broader audience. --Damiens.rf 13:59, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Quite amazing. It's not sufficient to highlight the problem. In fact, Damiens is being referred to as being "on a crusade", engaging in "bad-faith editing", claims of him violating WP:POINT (by a poster who hasn't reviewed the entire case no less), being on a "deletion rampage", inferring he has an LGBT agenda, having a vendetta against soap opera images, has contempt for fellow editors, and is arrogant. Has not a one of you read Wikipedia:Assume good faith???????? From Wikipedia:Five pillars: "Wikipedia has a code of conduct: Respect your fellow Wikipedians even when you may not agree with them. Be civil...and assume good faith" The miserable conduct displayed by several editors in this section is appalling. You are blatantly violating core principles of Wikipedia. If you can't comment on a disagreement without casting aspersions on the editor you are in disagreement with, then don't comment. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:34, 19 May 2009 (UTC) Allstarecho

As I stated above, "I always assume good faith, except for when edits are clearly not being made in good-faith. I stated above that some of Damiens.rf's edits are valid and that some are not. You want me to assume good faith in an editor who is experienced with Wikipedia's image policy and yet somehow manages to nominate all these valid images? He clearly is not reading some parts of the articles these images are next to before nominating them for deletion, or he is flat-out acting in bad-faith. Either that, or I am to believe that he does not understand when an image is serving critical commentary or is supported by the text noting that significant moment."

Allstarecho is quite familiar with Damiens.rf's editing style, and has seen these types of silly deletion nominations with Damiens.rf before. After an editor does what Damiens.rf has done this many times, it is quite difficult to assume good faith in that. This editor hardly replies about his deletion nominations when challenged, such as not commenting on them in files for deletion when they are challenged. Why? Because he almost always feels that he is right regarding deletion nominations, no matter what. Is that not arrogance in cases where he is clearly wrong? What is appalling is that an editor on Wikipedia is allowed to get away with what Damiens.rf has been getting away with, or at least getting away with sometimes. Flyer22 (talk) 18:23, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

• While an interesting response, it fails to address why it is necessary to assume bad faith in reacting to this situation. Assuming bad faith doesn't bring any greater ability to the table than assuming good faith here. Further, the insults cast at Damiens are wholly unnecessary. Lastly, this is content dispute, and not much of an incident if at all. You disagree with him on content. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:52, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

• It is an incident for the reasons I stated above. You disagree? That is fine. But I cannot assume good faith in what I strongly feel is bad-faith editing. It is not that different than addressing a vandal, in my view. I am not truly calling Damiens.rf a vandal, but these types of irrational deletion nominations are very disruptive to Wikipedia in a way similar to the unconstructive edits of a vandal. He is experienced in nominating images for deletion and knows the rules, and yet he often goes after perfectly valid images. I am suppose to see that as a mistake, when he has done it so many times? If so, it is a costly mistake that he should have learned from by now. Flyer22 (talk) 20:05, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

• And now you're referring to his edits as irrational? Flyer, cut it out. Now. He obviously does not feel they are perfectly valid or he would not have nominated them for deletion. You disagree with the validity, that's all. Your disagreement with his assessment of validity doesn't make him irrational or a bad faith editor. Assuming bad-faith is disruptive to wikipedia, not nominating something for deletion. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:18, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

• Some of his deletion nominations are irrational, yes. As I stated on my talk page, reporting to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents is also about reporting incidents you feel are unjust and the reason for it. If one wants to call that assuming bad faith, then so be it. But I felt that what I stated was useful, as did other editors here. We are not some lynch mob going after an innocent editor here; this is an editor we feel are consistently acting in bad-faith. Removing his nominations were noted as highly inappropriate, but what I stated here was noted as valid by more than one editor. Flyer22 (talk) 20:35, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

• It's not a question of us calling your actions assuming bad faith. You called your actions that yourself. Yet, you've failed to come up with any reason why assuming bad faith helps resolve this issue. Instead, we're just supposed to take it on good faith that your assumption of bad faith makes your case stronger. Do you see the hypocrisy here? --Hammersoft (talk) 13:17, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

• Of course it is not a question of people here calling my actions assuming bad faith. You, however, did say that my actions were assuming bad faith. It is not about my coming up with a reason that assuming bad faith solves anything. It is about my feeling that what I reported on this matter, including my feelings about it (some of which you call assuming bad faith) does help to solve this problem. And has helped. I see no hypocrisy on my part regarding this matter, and have already stated my feelings on this matter. I see no point in continuing to "debate" about it. Flyer22 (talk) 03:09, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

• I have looked at some of the noms and !voted on them. It appears that Damiens mass-nominated all fair use images in certain articles except fot the first fair use image at the top of the article. Now, the articles had too many fair use images, so most images were nominated correctly, but some noms were incorrect because there was a critical commentary so they weren't only for decorative purposes. That being said, the captions in the photos didn't make explicit that the justification existed, at least one of the photos was placed very far away from its corresponding critical commentary, and the placement of the photos gave the impression that they were only decorative. Also, some of the photos are borderline, and even some of the ones with commentary could wind up deleted.

To me, it seems a typical case of several editors having diverging opinions on how many non-free images you can fit into an article with breaching wikipedia's fair use policy. (IMHO, as a personal assesment of what path of action would serve wikipedia better, editors who want to keep the photos should improve the captions and placement of the ones that have commentary about them, instead of complaining about them being nominated. Photos with no commentary should have a proper commentary added or be removed.) --Enric Naval (talk) 16:00, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Enric, thank you for taking the time to vote on some of these images. I get your point about not complaining. But, as stated above, I felt that this incident was in need of complaining about. It was not simply a matter of disagreeing with an editor, or else I would not have taken it here. Flyer22 (talk) 19:56, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Technical comment of the deletion template

Please don't put a "|" character between the caption of the photo and the deletion template because then the caption does not appear on the page, I had to look at the source code to read the captions. Maybe this a Twinkle problem? --Enric Naval (talk) 15:39, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Warning

Wholesale removals of properly formatted and not obviously disruptive file deletion nominations may be sanctioned as vandalism unless there is clear and sustained consensus for such removal. The nominations currently visible on Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 May 19 are not obviously disruptive because they provide deletion rationales that are not prima facie unreasonable. Whether these rationales have any merit is to be decided in the individual deletion nominations themselves, but very similar nominations could probably be merged into one discussion thread.  Sandstein  16:01, 19 May 2009 (UTC):03

You apparently are missing the discussion regarding how the noms came to be in the first place. The image rampage, and that's what it is, is currently being disputed and therefore they should be removed until the matter is settled. I'll also note that since my actions, the user has now taken to having issues with an article I wrote, no doubt on purpose. I'm just appalled to see hours later that nothing has been done regarding this wholesale image deletion spree. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 20:19, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

This is ridiculous whining from editors and administrators who should know better. Damiens.rf has a long history of NFCC enforcement, which (speaking from experience) is one of the most difficult jobs on the project due to the emotional ties some editors have with their articles, and their insistence on seeing any sort of action against them as a "crusade" or POINTy behavior. Guess what: The rules apply to everyone equally. Yesterday it was TV shows and album discographies and Australian politicians. Today it's soap operas. Tomorrow it will be some other topic that has too many non-free images. To those accusing Damiens.rf of whatever it is he's being accused of: It's not about you. Stop trying to turn it into a personal battle. Show how your images meet the rules, or make them meet the rules, or shut the f up.</rant> howcheng {chat} 20:52, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Your "rant" was doing just fine until you said "shut the f up" and all the points you made were completely wiped out by that one sentence. Sad, you actually made a good point or two in there. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 21:00, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

@Howcheng and Sandstein; hear hear. Not offended by "shut the f up", though it could have been better put. --John (talk) 21:24, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah. It's nice to see someone making an effort to enforce non-free content policy, and we ought to be grateful for that; at the same time, it's a shame that they are apparently not taking enough care when deciding what should be nominated for deletion. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 21:29, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

In that going even a little too far almost always causes a backlash like this one here, it's an area which requires great delicacy and care to avoid unnecessary confrontations, which are ultimately highly counterproductive.

In that light, I am not happy at all with the situation. The bad feelings this has caused are not helping rational NFCC work.

Recall that Betacommand eventually got shown the door. Even if the policy agrees that this type of work is required, even if someone has to do it, there are times where the person doing it is the wrong person. I don't think Damien is necessarily a permanent problem - but the initial approach was far too pushy, and there's a perfectly legitimate need that he be urged to dial it back to avoid having this sort of blowup happen again... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:42, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

@NeutralHomer: that's why it was a rant. :) howcheng {chat} 22:01, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Howcheng, I do not feel that anything I have stated on this matter has been ridiculous, nor was I trying to make it mainly personal. But if you come back to Wikipedia one day and see your talk page filled with image deletion nomination tags, some of which are valid images, you try not to be highly annoyed and feel that it may very well be about you. This was done after Damiens.rf had already nominated two images of mine, one of a non-fictional nature, a few days ago (which, yeah, he had a point in nominating those for deletion). It's difficult not to think that he has gone through your contributions snooping for images you have uploaded. In this case, I see now, however, that he was likely targeting images through List of fictional supercouples, like Rocksey noted above. The problem, despite any annoyance I have had with Damiens.rf about this matter, is that some of his image deletion nominations are plain wrong. And his doing this with a lot of images in one swoop is a problem, especially in regards to editors who have valid images up but are too "whatever" about things to speak up about the matter or do not come on Wikipedia as often to defend or tweak their image placement/commentary in time so that those images may be spared. I am glad that several editors here have not "shut the f up" about this matter. I agree with SheffieldSteel and Georgewilliamherbert. Flyer22 (talk) 23:06, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Thus we have our policy WP:AGF. Regardless of whatever slight you might feel, you are instructed to always believe that the other editor is working in the best interests of the encyclopedia. But instead, you jumped to conclusions that he "must" be out to get you in some way. howcheng {chat} 16:07, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

You say that we must always assume good faith. But that is not true. When an editor is acting in clear vandalism, do we assume good faith then as well? No. It is the same when an editor sees very sketchy editing, which is why they report things on this page. I just happened to state what I felt (like some other editors who report other editors here), instead of keeping it to myself when it is obvious that I am not assuming good faith. Furthermore, I already made it clear that my reporting Damiens.rf was not simply or even mainly about believing that he was "out to get me." And judging by the replies here, my report was more than valid (whether a few people are displeased with a bit of my wording in it or not). Flyer22 (talk) 03:09, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Howcheng, I wouldn't bother pointing Flyer22 towards WP:AGF. I've tried and failed. He wants to assume bad faith. For whatever reason, he feels this makes his position stronger. Apparently telling the world that Damiens is on a crusade, is violating WP:POINT, is irrational, and acting in bad faith adds a great deal of weight to Flyer22's position. I don't see how personally, but I'm sure there's logic in there somewhere. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:14, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

First of all, I am not a "he." If you had read the beginning part of my user page addressing a little bit about me, you would know that. Second of all, I am not some child who needs a lesson in assuming good faith. I have tried to explain to you this matter and failed. I do not want to assume bad faith. When I see bad-faith editing, I call it out as that, as do many editors on Wikipedia. You want to assume good faith in even obvious bad-faith editing, then go right ahead. But I will never do so. Your type of approach is what would allow obvious pedophile-pushers to continue to push their pro-pedophile agenda on the Pedophilia article here and articles similar to it. Editors such as me who have seen these pedophile-pushers time and time again, or types like them, and know the signs, never assume good faith in their editing. We often report them here and get them blocked. And you know what? It is a damn good thing. We report them straight up as having an agenda, not as "Oh, maybe this editor is just extremely naive to what pedophilia is about and only seems as though he is in support of pedophilia tendencies and child molestation." Yes, my comments are often logical. You don't think so. Oh well. Flyer22 (talk) 20:58, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Support the removal of the noms -- Damien nominated an picture that I did not upload, but that I was able to come up with a pretty easy Fair Use rationale given how it was used in the article (Trevor Hoffman) -- it's the type of image (picture of a living person on a magazine cover) that is often misused, so it has had to be justified before, but that his nomination is cursory gave me pause. It looks like he hasn't looked over the discussion of the image before. Further study (such as the Time magazine Toscanini cover) suggests that he's not drawing a distinction between those images that are abusing Fair Use and those that are probably on the fair side of it, or at least need a rationale beyond, "we already know what he looks like" to justify deleting (in that article, the magazine cover was tied to a section on media reception and growing popularity, for which a magazine cover seems strongly justified, in my view). Some of these things can be debated, but it shouldn't be up to the concerned editors to determine which of a large list of deletions needs careful reviewing and which are part of a campaign to remove magazine covers. -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 00:50, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Most nominated covers really seem to fit the bill of "decorative cover", including some overuses like almost a dozen non-free images in an infobox, or 6 or 8 non-free covers fitted in one gallery. I have been checking the articles that contain the photos, and I see that Damiens has skipped many non-free images that appeared to be justified, and, for example, if an article had two covers, he only nominated the second one.

In that particular image, I agree that it should be kept, but I would have made the same nomination as Damiens, since a) a strict interpretation of WP:NFCC#8 would have that image removed anyways b) he was nominating tens of covers that are being used in "media reception" sections for no reason at all, so it's easy that this one slipped by. --Enric Naval (talk) 01:49, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

User:FlyingToaster RfA

Resolved

 – There is no possible admin action that could deal with this, if any dealing-with is necessary. The Bureaucrats' Noticeboard would be the appropriate venue. ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 20:05, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Taking the liberty of striking the resolved notice: RFA can't be resolved here, but potential copyvio and vandalism is appropriate for this noticeboard. Durova^Charge! 23:21, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

See subsection below - Copyright violation issues / evidence do belong here. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:58, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I have a serious concern about a recent RfA of User:FlyingToaster. It only scraped through, and would have failed (by my reckoning) with only a couple of support votes. It was contentious because of concerns about content creation (or lack of it), and appears to have succeeded only because FT claimed to have written "156 articles". See some of the comments, for proof that the claim seems to have persuaded a number of supporters.

I have carefully researched these articles, and I find that as well as a significant number of disambiguation pages, a large number of the 'articles' are plagiarised directly from internet sources. Most or all of the 40-odd articles on Roumanian generals are plagiarised from a single source. Many of the more substantial-seeming articles are directly plagiarised, without any modification of phrasing or order or other softening. One article was already plagiarised and was only wikified (extensively) by the FT. But why did she not spot this, given it was obviously so? This shows a serious lack of judgment in a person who is supposedly chosen for just that quality.

I want to know if all of those who supported this RfA would still do so, if shown full evidence of the plagiarism, which was clearly performed in an attempt to gain credentials. If the election were rerun, would we get the same result? Is it in my power to ask for this?

I have a full set of links for those who ask. Peter Damian (talk) 19:57, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, let me go ahead and ask, then. Can you please post the links that support this serious accusation? Also, why didn't you post them already? — Gavia immer (talk) 20:02, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I think this belong at WT:RFA or WP:BN. –xeno ^talk 20:03, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Xeno is right. If you think consensus was misjudged because the !votes in support were not as heavy as they seem, WP:BN is the place to raise the issue. This does not need any admin intervention and it thus not correct here. Regards SoWhy 20:05, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

In fact, I agree with Xeno as well. — Gavia immer (talk) 20:07, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

If we're dealing with serial plagiarism and copyright violations, this might be the appropriate venue. AniMate^draw 20:09, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Xeno in terms of closing issues, but another thread here may be warranted for the plagiarism concerns alone, if Damian can substantiate the claims. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 20:10, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I think we would all be interested in seeing substantiation of these claims. If they are accurate, that would be the proper time to reconsider the RfA. [[Sam Korn]] ^(smoddy) 20:17, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

@Animate: granted, but that issue is merely presented as a platform for the OP apparently trying to re-open a closed RFA. –xeno ^talk 20:14, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Tag the articles and request deletion through AfD. We can reconsider this issue after a consensus has formed on if the material is indeed plagiarized or a copyright violation. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:19, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Even if those claims were correct, this is not the correct venue because it does not require immediate administrative intervention. WP:AN would be the correct place to discuss those claims. As for the RFA, it's up to the crats whether to reconsider the closing (after some evidence was shown), so for that I think it should go to WP:BN. Regards SoWhy 20:23, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Apologies for not posting in the right place. I shall collect the links - though many have already been posted at Wikipedia Review, and put them on WP:BN. It is late here, will be back tomorrow. Peter Damian (talk) 20:36, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Copyright violation evidence and discussion

I disagree with some above who feel that this is the wrong place. There are two issues at play - one, whether the RFA results were questionable, which is a BN issue, and two, whether the editor is involved in plagarism or copyright violations. Major copyright violation cases are perfectly at home here.

I do not prejudge the latter issue - without the diffs and links there's no evidence on hand yet - however, if they are found to have been doing that, I believe that there's no precedent that being an admin (of any duration of experience) is any sort of insulation from being indef blocked for blatant copyright violations.

I sincerely hope that this is a mistake, and that that's not the case - I always hope for an AGF success, and untangling these types of incidents is always ugly - but if Peter has evidence and believes that's what's happening then it should be brought forwards here for review. Please present it as neutrally as possible when you have a chance tomorrow and let us review the information.

Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:58, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely agree. It's unfortunate that Peter brought these allegations, then signed off for the evening. I'm doing some minor investigating, but have ten other things going on right now offline. AniMate^draw 22:06, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Hello. Just wanted to say that I don’t mind any investigation people would like to make. I do not believe I’ve committed any plagiarism, and I endeavour to always cite sources correctly and summarize contents of external sources in my own words. I do think that I’ve become a better article writer over time, and as such my early work has various problems that my current work does not. However, I feel confident that I have not committed plagiarism. I hope that if I’m judged on my content, that it’s over the span of content and learning over time rather than on any beginner’s mistakes. Thank you, FlyingToaster 23:11, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Arbcom?

This seems like the kind of thing to kick straight up to Arbcom. They're the ones that do the deadminning, after all. Jtrainor (talk) 23:15, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

We're not there yet. If Peter Damian's claims show plagiarism, blocking would be more appropriate. FlyingToaster believes that they won't, though her first act as an administrator was sending out RfA thankspam that contained a copyright violatioin, so... AniMate^draw 23:47, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

That would be a punitive block rather than preventative and inappropriate. If she has been plagiarising (no confirmation yet), perhaps she didn't realise (she claims innocence) in which case she can be shown how to avoid it in future. Nev1 (talk) 00:27, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Voluntary resolution

FlyingToaster will probably log on soon and confirm this; we got introduced today and have a proposal to resolve this proactively. FlyingToaster wasn't aware of a problem until very recently and is willing to fix it. Here's the suggestion: she'll start a page in user space devoted to this. People who find problems will be welcome to list them there; please be as specific as possible. Meanwhile she'll go through her mainspace contributions starting with new article creations[11] to add quotation marks, improve paraphrasing, etc. as appropriate. She's being polite and cooperative and there doesn't appear to have been an intent to deceive, so let's give her the chance to get it right. Durova^Charge! 00:15, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

That's a curious definition of the word "proactive", which I'd always thought meant taking steps to avoid problems, not reacting to them when they materialise, as in this case. Let's hope that these allegations of plagiarism are unfounded, but let's also hope that if they prove to be true then FlyingToaster does the honourable thing. Frankly I have more faith in the former than the latter. Once again an administrator is smiled on for behaviour that would get an ordinary editor blocked. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:23, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

In fairness, the allegations are of actions that happened before she became an admin and have only just come to light, so this has nothing to do with admin corruption etc. Nev1 (talk) 00:36, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

She appeared to have been genuinely unaware of a problem before this came up, and wants to get it right. Durova^Charge! 00:53, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Then she is evidently unaware of wikipedia's policies on plagiarism and copyright violations, and so unfit to be an administrator should these allegations be substantiated. Agreed? --Malleus Fatuorum 00:58, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, but this talk of blocks makes me uneasy as at this stage it would in no way be preventative. Nev1 (talk) 01:00, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not proposing a block; what I'm proposing is a desysopping if these allegations are substantiated, as I'm quite certain they will be. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:09, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

She is not unaware of Wikipedia's policies on plagiarism and copyright violations. It was an issue in her first RfA. (See my oppose, #27. During that RfA, she was also requested to remove a fair use image from her userspace.) I'm sorry that I did not catch that there were other issues. If any additional copyright infringements were placed after February of this year, I would find that pretty concerning, since we talked about it at length then. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 01:20, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

The allegations came to light because someone took the trouble to check whether the claims made during her RfA were actually true or not. Many didn't take the same trouble, or indeed any trouble at all. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:03, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

At DYK, we had many editors do this same thing and none of them were blocked, especially when they put a citation to the source material but didn't quote (as it showed intent to cite but was still done improperly). Ottava Rima (talk) 01:06, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I haven't asked for anyone to be blocked, either here or ever. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:20, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Agreed with Nev1: WP:COPYVIO says "Contributors who repeatedly post copyrighted material despite appropriate warnings may be blocked from editing by any administrator to prevent further problems. In extreme cases administrators may impose special conditions before unblocking, such as requiring assistance with cleanup by disclosing which sources were used." She has already acknowledged the problems and agreed to help with cleanup, so a block would do nothing other than delay resolution. If someone wants to start a conduct RfC in addition, that might be feasible. Although I'm a hardliner on plagiarism (see the proposal talk page; I tried to get it upgraded to guideline recently) it seems right to give her a chance before taking things to the next step: she's being receptive to feedback etc. Durova^Charge! 01:11, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Good, but that would only be an appropriate resolution for an ordinary editor, not for a newly promoted administrator who is charged with enforcing rules with which she is so obviously unfamiliar. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:16, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't use the word "obviously" myself, since no evidence has been presented. If some articles are copyright violations tag as prods speedy deletion under WP:CSD#G12, if plagiarised from a single source, send to AfD. Tim Vickers (talk) 01:30, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

We don't prod copyright violations. We handle them as per WP:CP. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 01:33, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, was confusing prods with speedys. Tim Vickers (talk) 01:49, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

She shouldn't be blocked, as this doesn't appear to be malicious, and I'm fairly certain I'm one of the first people mentioning this as a possibility. As for a desysop, there aren't really many options. This coupled with her copyright violating thankspam, would make a voluntary resignation common sense, but we can't force her to resign. An RfC seems like a fine idea, but nothing said there would be binding. Really, this is just embarrassing all around and there really should be a binding process. AniMate^draw 01:24, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Can we just drop this blocking thing? I've never suggested she should be blocked, just desysopped. After all, it's no big deal, right? --Malleus Fatuorum 01:28, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

To confirm this, Durova and I spoke and she was very helpful on this issue. There are several actions I will take to improve my created articles which have raised concerns and to better the sourcing and quality of the summaries of sourced content. As Durova said, I plan to go through each article with a fine tooth comb and further improve them, soliciting feedback along the way and charting the progress as I do so on a posted subpage. Comments from people who find problems will be gladly incorporated via this subpage. I'm confident that through this effort any concerns will be laid to rest. FlyingToaster 01:34, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Though this is obviously jumping the gun somewhat, what if concerns are not laid to rest? I'm not much of a WR reader, but the thread on this over there points me to the article you started on Homeokinetics, and I can't say I like what I see there in terms of how you used your first source. If there are other problems along these lines, I have a feeling that LessHeard vanU 2 may seem all too apropos. Like I said I'm somewhat jumping the gun since we'll need to look more closely at your article work and I recognize that and am very much open to the possibility that we are talking about a couple of isolated incidents, but there's cause for real concern at that article in terms of some pretty basic copyright stuff. Regardless of how this plays out, rather than simply being "confident" that any concerns will be addressed, I hope you are open to the possibility that that will not happen and that you will have to proceed accordingly. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 03:25, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

It's fairly obvious that a conduct RfC and possible arbitration would happen quickly if she misused the tools in this area. So how about a voluntary pledge from FlyingToaster to avoid using admin ops on copyright issues until she's on a firmer footing with regard to that? Durova^Charge! 04:22, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

As I'm already only planning to use admin tools in areas where I feel I have a thorough understanding and great deal of experience, I was already not planning to be involved in copyright issues (except for speedy deletion of blatant copyright violations) for a very long while, if ever. I'm happy to make this pledge official and state it here. FlyingToaster 05:38, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

(ec with FlyingToaster, replying to Durova here) Certainly that's a very reasonable suggestion, but I take a longer view of this, and my concern here is not necessarily that FlyingToaster will somehow misuse the tools in the area of copyright (in fact that strikes me as unlikely). We are writing an encyclopedia, and admins are, or should be, those editors whom we deem especially familiar with the general way in which we go about doing that. While we can all acknowledge that admins are in a sense just "janitors," they are also supposedly expert Wikipedians who have special privileges as a result, and of course are often described as such in the press. Ultimately we want to be just as, if not more, respected as Britannica and the like (though we have some problems in that regard, obviously). In that context it strikes me as exceedingly, exceedingly problematic for us to say "this is one of our most expert editors and hence an admin" and then also have to admit that said editor seems to have some issues with copyright (and by extension plagiarism) that would cause me to take one of my undergraduate history students to the woodshed. As I said above I still need more information on this situation and would like to see more detailed explanations from FlyingToaster, but my initial impression here is not a good one (incidentally I've cut Homeokinetics, a topic about which I know absolutely nothing, down to one sentence until we can figure out how to rewrite it, see here for the previous version where there is perhaps some stuff that is salvageable).

I should mention that I understand and fully believe that there was nothing nefarious or intentionally bad in what FlyingToaster did here, but that when it comes to plagiarism, here on Wikipedia or anywhere else, that absolutely does not matter in the slightest (and ultimately plagiarism is what we are talking about, compare for example "Homeokinetics attempts to treat all complex systems equally, animate and inanimate, providing them with a common viewpoint" in our article with "Homeokinetics treats all complex systems on an equal footing, animate and inanimate, providing them with a common viewpoint" in the source). This is serious stuff, and "sorry, I didn't know about that, I'll work on it" does not remotely cut it as an excuse for a Wikpiedia administrator. Given what it is we are doing here, I don't see how anyone could seriously suggest otherwise. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 05:45, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

The entire result of the RFA was influence by her supporters hectoring (and continuing to do so) the opposition about her prolific and amazing content creation - it seems "amazing" is the word. She should do the honourable thing and resign, and use the time to sort out these pages. This is exactly what happens, when people who know nothing of Wikipedia, pop across from IRC wanting to be Admins - picking up the 100 automatic IRC votes along the way. Giano (talk) 06:25, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I think we should leave the "hectoring" and IRC stuff to the side since rehashing the particulars of the RfA probably isn't going to help anything at this point. I quite dislike IRC and never have (and never would) use it, but I think the real issue here is with the articles created. I dug into a few additional article contributions from FlyingToaster and immediately found more copyvio problems which I laid out on her talk page here, and where I also asked for a more detailed response from FT. We obviously can't re-run the RfA, but in my view it's hard to escape the conclusion that the result would have been different had these issues been brought to the fore earlier, and if other editors agree with me in that respect I hope FlyingToaster will think seriously on what that means for her status as an admin. Again as the current LessHeard RFA makes clear, we don't really have a good way to deal with situations like this one except to hope that the admin in question takes the opinions of others on board. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 08:16, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

WP:BN

I have raised it here. I am less concerned with copyvio than with the fact that the candidate in an RfA made a claim about '156 articles' created, when over 40 were plagiarised, and most of the rest were stubs or DABs. Peter Damian (talk) 06:24, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm concerned that many people here seem to be taking the insinuation by Flying_Toaster that it was accidental at face value. You don't plagiarize 40 different things by accident. Jtrainor (talk) 08:08, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I think the only possible counterargument to your point Jtrainor (assuming we are talking about 40 different articles, and that's plausible since 4 of 5 articles I randomly looked at had evidence of plagiarism and/or ridiculously awful sourcing), is basically the I-didn't-know-that-was--considered-plagiarism defense. And my response to that is that such a defense just doesn't cut it—Wikipedia administrators must know basic rules about plagiarism, and they don't (or ought not) get to bone up on them after becoming an admin. Indeed that should probably be a standard RfA question, seeing as understanding how to avoid plagiarizing sources ultimately has a lot more to do with writing a quality encyclopedia than does a question about an A7 speedy candidate (believe it or not). --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 08:29, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

If a user accidentally plagiarizes, thats fine. If he or she does it again... we should warn them. If someone gets the bit and a slew of copyright-vios comes to light... we should probably rethink giving them administrator status. If their first act as an administrator is to send thankspam that contains a copyright violation... Is this really the kind of user we are promoting? AniMate^draw 08:49, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I'll just be the meanie here and say "shame on all of those that didn't actually look into the user's edit history but instead cast blind supports!". With that said, it only further proves my opinion that RfA is a joke and when you add it to Arbcom and Bureaucrats, it makes for one hell of a script for The Original Kings of Comedy Part 2. Unproductive, I know. Or is it? ;] - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 10:28, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm deeply offended by that statement; I like to think that we bureaucrats could do our own tour without ArbCom or RfA in general tagging along. EVula // talk // ☯ // 14:11, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

RFA has become a social networking process that bestows admin-for-life status on folks who, charitably, don't have the tools or interests to evaluate encyclopedic content. Good luck changing it now, though.Bali ultimate (talk) 16:08, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

In case anyone is wondering, this is at least the second time a plagiarist has passed RFA. Dragons flight (talk) 00:39, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

WP:PLAGIARISM

In case anyone's missed it, WP:PLAGIARISM was still a proposal while all this unfolded. What we now have is a drive to desysop someone over a proposal: to parse FlyingToaster's mistakes as copyvio would be a close call; the errors were more clearly plagiarism. Within the last month an RfC was run on the proposal, with 26 editors favoring promotion to guideline and 6 opposing. The current situation makes it clear that a guideline really is necessary. So per consensus, plagiarism is upgraded to guideline. Durova^Charge! 15:51, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I think the status of the PLAGIARISM page at any given point is largely irrelevant; logic dictates that plagiarism is a Bad Thing, and calls for FT's bit over the affair is because it shows exceedingly poor judgement on FT's part, rather than an actual violation of any one guideline or proposed guideline. EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:59, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, we can agree this episode demonstrates that WP:PLAGIARISM has the force of a guideline. So it ought to be formally designated as one. Durova^Charge! 16:02, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

That we agree on. EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:05, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks to Durova for pointing this out and upgrading that to a guideline, though at a quick glance I already see that the section "Definitions of plagiarism" is quite problematic. We need to be a lot more direct and specific than that if we want to avoid problems here, and our definitions need to significantly conform to real-world definitions (excepting the bit about using free content, which is totally fine) in order to maintain our credibility as a reliable encyclopedia. That section as written would not have necessarily prevented FlyingToaster's problems because it does not explain that changing a couple of words in a sentence and citing your source does not magically get you off the hook for plagiarism (I think there's case law we can cite to make that point). At some point I'll be over there to complain about that though it may take me awhile. And I also very much agree with EVula that the fact that this was only a proposed guideline previously is not really relevant to the FT situation. Someone who plagiarized, even if it's just because they did not understand they were doing so, should not be an administrator on an encyclopedia project. I think that's pretty cut and dried. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 18:49, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Please do improve it. Am doing minimal alterations to the text in order to avoid possible accusations of ownership, but there are definitely places where it could be clearer and better. Durova^Charge! 19:05, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Question

Given FT clearly seemed to either know little or not care about plagiarism at the time, then it raises questions as to FT's knowledge of other areas, does it not? It also shows the RfA procedure has become a social networking joke... nobody spotted this ahead of time! I fail to see that this would not have generated more oppose "votes" at the time, strengthening the argument against. FT should be deadminned and stand again for RfA now the full facts are available. Minkythecat (talk) 18:07, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that nobody cared. From what i can see of toaster, having looked into the situation, i wouldn't have supported the RFA had i known/been paying attention. But so what? There are probably lots of admins that i or you wouldn't have supported -- and in many cases, enough editors would have supported so that it would have passed whatever you or i thought. The culture has evolved to reward social networking and the making of friends (inevitable in an open system in which, neccessarily, everyone has a right to express their opinion -- any closed system i could think of would be worse). As the culture and policies stand, i see no grounds on which someone could be desysoped for having shown bad judgement prior to becoming an admin (and we have both lots of admins who created tons of mischief back in the day who eventually reformed and became able admins, and other admins who were model editors prior to passing RfA who became problem editors since). My proposal? We clean up whatever needs cleaning up that has come to light, and assume toaster is a good admin until problems do (or do not) crop up with her as an admin, and then deal with those accordingly.Bali ultimate (talk) 18:18, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Which would be fine if FT came out and stated, "yes, I plagiarised. I was wrong to do so". Yes, you're perfectly correct in that RfA has become a social networking event. I just find it incredibly... interesting... if you compare this RfA, where a plagiarising contributor gains the bit, and the Everyking V RfA, where one particular opposer badgered about off wiki events with opposition based around that and one "bad" answer - an honest answer rather than bs to get the bit - where the view was "no". There's a clear problem especially since plagiarism damages wiki more! I'd at least respect FT if they resigned the bit and restood for RfA immediately, given the whole evidence will be available for supporters and opposers to make a more informed decision. Minkythecat (talk) 18:32, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I'd say that potentially misunderstanding copyright on a basic level is a problem that needs dealing with. Nev1 (talk) 18:30, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't disagree, but it would have to be ongoing misunderstanding. Now, i understand she recently made an image copyvio mistake, which was caught, she was admonished, and should be well aware of why that was problematic. If it happens again (and again, and again) there might be a case to answer. But at the moment, we have a problem with past actions (some made long, long ago). If admins' pre-admin screwups become fair game, get ready for another Night of the Long Knives.Bali ultimate (talk) 18:37, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, then, with all due respect, you're highlighting a reason for the RfA to be revisited. Plagiarism occured not just recently, add in the recent image copyvio. There is thus evidence that from day one until recently, FT has (charitably) completely misunderstood the plagiarism / copyright issues with regards to this wiki. Which obviously leads to credibility questions with regard to suitability for the bit. Plagiarism / copyright obviously has cropped up. What other areas does this new admin not grasp? BLP et al? Without a new RfA, people cannot effectively judge... any admin actions FT takes will obviously be questioned. Let's remove any doubt, any finger pointing, "re-run" the RfA. Minkythecat (talk) 18:46, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't disagree that these are legitimate areas of concern and were i king of wikipedia, i would probably have a vareity of litmus tests built around them. But i'm not king, nor are you. What you're proposing is a rather major change in the way this open, inclusive, consensus-based project works. Nothing wrong with that. But you're not going to effect change here. Your first step would be to construct a proposal for a system that would work better (as frustrated as i am with the current system, i personally don't have any ideas for a better system at this point, and certainly not ideas for one that would garner sufficient community wide support to pass). That's the sisyphean task you'll have to take on if you want to change the RfA process.Bali ultimate (talk) 18:54, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

As the editor who raised the "one question" which torpedoed Everyking's last RfA, I actually think it's a perfect example of a RfA for an unsuitable candidate (he openly disavows the very concept of WP:CON, for crying out loud) which would have breezed through almost unopposed if that issue hadn't been brought up. Sometimes RfAs fail for things which don't really matter. Sometimes they fail for a good reason. Very often they pass simply because your average RfA if far more about who you know than what you've done. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 14:26, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Everyking's RFA failed because he was honest. If Everyking would have lied about his thoughts on that particular question, his RFA would have passed. See Wizardman's support (support no. 86), and Rootology's comment below the support. AdjustShift (talk) 15:00, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

That he'd have passed by lying is probably true, but that's just further reinforcement of the sentiment behind this whole thread. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 15:39, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

See WP:BANG. They are encouraging people to build articles off teh corresponding thing in Banglapedia. I think paraphrasing is more widespread than people think. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 03:36, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Paraphrasing: also meaning but a 4ricken word in ur own words. So much clearer, now. --auburnpilot talk 23:35, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

• <cough> Has the alleged evidence been posted anywhere or is this allegation still a hypothetical? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:41, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

User:Rirunmot disruption/incivility/sockpuppeting

A few days ago an IP editor left a !vote at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oguzhan Özyakup that used very similar wording to User:Rirunmot (diffs: [12] & [13]). Suspecting this to be an attempt at !vote stacking, I left Rirunmot a message about it on his talk page ([14]). He responded tonight ([15]) claiming that I was mistaken. I then left him a message providing evidence for my suspicion ([16]). He then responded on my talk page using multiple question marks and an enlarged header asking me to perform an IP check ([17]). I asked him to stop using multiple question marks and enlarged headers, whilst telling him that only checkusers could perform an IP check ([18]). To which he responded with this rather uncivil message that continued to use the enlarged header ([19]). At this point, I decided that the issue was dealt with and I had no wish to continue the discussion. I asked him to refrain from posting anymore messages on my talk page ([20]). He did however post again on my talk page ([21]) and when I removed his comment, he quickly undid my removal ([22]) and proceeded to use a sockpuppet to leave yet another comment on my talk page ([23]). Whilst this is being investigated, could a sysop please protect my talk page? Thanks John Sloan @ 00:43, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

User:John Sloan disruption+harrassement+wrong accusation

I found this message in my discussion page:

"...To user Rirunmot" Please don't use your IP to !vote stack at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oguzhan Özyakup. It is considered very disruptive to the AfD process. Thank you John Sloan "..

As an unknown IP ( 88.254.131.185 ) used some words similar (or copied!) from the discussion page; it was enough to this user for addressing accusation of "disuptive behaviour".!

Please clear this problem with that IP; Really and sincerely, I have nothing to do with it..

If this user wants his page not to be edited this way or that, at least he can apologize for accusating innocent people (act which is a real and undiscussable INCIVILITY) Rirunmot (talk) 01:30, 20 May 2009 (UTC).

In my opinion, John Sloan should not have removed the IP's vote from the AfD as he did here. (An exception could be votes that are obviously from banned editors, which this is not). Tagging with {{subst:spa}} is often done. It is assumed that the closing admin will be able to adjust the AfD results as appropriate. EdJohnston (talk) 02:38, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

So what about the harassment on my talk page then!? He used two accounts to do it after I asked him not to! Rirunmotand Quedorme. John Sloan @ 11:39, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

What John Sloan should not have done is the Wrong Accusation ! He MUST apologize for that (instead of deviating the problem and trying to show it is a problem of writing style on his talk page or so..).... Rirunmot (talk) 02:53, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

The way you handled the situation was completely unacceptable. Not only did you edit war at the user's talk page, but you used both this and your second account. This is not a legitimate use of a second account, and that will remain blocked; any further abuse will lead to this account also being temporarily blocked. Nonetheless, while I can see why John presumed that the IP was also you given the similarity of your comments, it is possible that the IP presumed that this was the standard way of !voting keep. The IP should be tagged with an {{SPA}}. – Toon^(talk) 11:42, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

So is this resolved now? If Rirunmot comes back to my talk to continue trolling, should I bring it back here or just leave a note on Toons or another sysops talk page? John Sloan @ 13:54, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Sock-b-gone

Hi folks. Can someone cast an eye over Truthforlife (talk · contribs), who has spent some part of today harassing Novangelis (talk · contribs) and is now repeatedly templating me for "trolling" because I denied an AIV block request or something. I'm sure there was an earlier sockfarm with this MO, but can't quite dredge the information out of my brain; nevertheless, I think an application of sock-b-gone^TM or troll-b-gone^TM powder would be useful. Then I can go back to my wikibreak. ➲ redvers ^{throwing my arms around Paris} 12:22, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

User:Truthforlife made the question a little bit simpler by replacing her talk page with a legal threat, so I blocked indef under WP:LEGAL. It would still be useful to figure out the answer to this question... -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 12:31, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I knew I could've just waited and she'd've done something egregious and rendered the entire thing moot. Thanks, FQ! I'm still sure there was a sockfarm like this, though... I'll ask Novangelis if they remember it. ➲ redvers ^{throwing my arms around Paris} 12:37, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

The style matches a series from Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Kyleain (3rd), Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Unbiaseduser, and Suspected sock puppets/Lunasblade. Novangelis (talk) 15:48, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Can the abuse filter be modified to automatically block any editor whose username contains the words "truth", "bias", or "accuracy" right off the bat? The baseline probability of such accounts being agenda-driven sockpuppets is certainly high enough to justify such a heuristic on Bayesian grounds. MastCell ^Talk 15:57, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Is there enough fresh evidence for a further CU to check for further socks based on the above patterns? ➲ redvers ^{throwing my arms around Paris} 18:04, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

It could possibly placed in the NBC NameWatcher Bots, where it could be reported to UAA for having a disruptive username. However, I think that would be stretching it. MuZemike 18:52, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Until "GreatAuntRuth" or "RabbiAsher" come along and complain that their usernames are being rejected without a good reason. At a past job of mine, a filter on "gamble" took out a lot of spam - but in the process, also blocked email from a coach at another school in the conference, whose last name just happened to be Gamble. John Darrow (talk) 21:33, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I'd say the probability of such accounts being agenda-driven sockpuppets is a good reason not to block them on sight. That way the socks make themselves easy to identify, rather than forcing them to use names that make them harder to detect. Edward321 (talk) 23:47, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

A more recent sockpuppetry case (with the truth theme, no less) was [[::User:Godlovestruth|Godlovestruth]] (talk · contribs) & [[::User:Dji19165|Dji19165]] (talk · contribs). Novangelis (talk) 08:32, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Giano II blocked for civility issues

Enough is enough. Giano has left, there's no consensus here to block Xeno. Further action against Xeno would take a RfC or RFAR against him. This discussion has devolved into a shitstorm of personal attacks, incivility and general drama. Move on to editing the encyclopedia, please. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 18:00, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Archiving. Giano has left, nothing to be done there. Move on, mission accomplished for some. Go write some FAs. Xeno's section, however, remains open, as it appears he may have baited Giano in some weird Flying Toaster retaliation. Admins will need to sort that out. rootology (C)(T) 00:44, 21 May 2009 (UTC) Remember that Giano has left and scrambled his password before, so I shouldn't archive this. →AzaToth 00:48, 21 May 2009 (UTC) The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. FYI, I have blocked Giano for 3 weeks due to this comment [24]. Since Giano blocks tend to bring up some varied opinion, I thought I would bring it up here. Although I must say Xeno was not behaving as well as he could have, Giano's comment was pretty clearly going to far. Although this seems pretty clear cut, any comments, suggestions, complaints? Feel free to respond here, my talk page, my email, etc. Cheers, Prodego talk 21:38, 20 May 2009 (UTC) Good block. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 21:42, 20 May 2009 (UTC) We currently have fractured conversation on Giano, Prodego, and Xeno's talk pages. Can we please choose a place and centralize? In addition, Prodego, can you please provide a timeline of the dispute?--Tznkai (talk) 21:42, 20 May 2009 (UTC) Good block. Disagreeing with a user is one thing - expressing your disagreement in that way crosses a line. Giano's previous record shows he should be well aware of this by now, but still he refuses to get the hint. Ironholds (talk) 21:44, 20 May 2009 (UTC) (ec)There were 2 guys slugging it out on one of their talk pages, neither of whom seems to care much about the insults of the other. A 3 week block seems way over the top to me, better to give each a trout slapping and move on. I might have agreed with you more if the dispute were taking place in a more public forum. Kevin (talk) 21:46, 20 May 2009 (UTC) Incivility, Personal Insults You dastard! A lengthy block. Plagiarism, Copyright Violations. Mere trifles! Congratulations, new administrator. - Jehochman Talk 21:47, 20 May 2009 (UTC) Good block. Giano was well aware that the comment was out of line. Icestorm815 • Talk 21:48, 20 May 2009 (UTC) Of course, but the hypocrisy of awarding adminship to the plagiarist, and then sanctioning Giano for complaining inappropriately is stark. Jehochman Talk 21:49, 20 May 2009 (UTC) Is it within Prodego's powers to take away FlyingToaster's tools? No. Such an action would have to be done by a steward in response to the request of the community. Don't go confusing the two issues. Ironholds (talk) 21:50, 20 May 2009 (UTC) Sorry, I see no hypocrisy here as the issues are entirely separable. Giano has a sorry record of this sort of thing, and does not seems to have taken on board the myriad prior comments here, ArbCom and elsewhere. If he were not providing such good content, he'd have been kicked into touch long ago- perhaps that's the hypocrisy here. Rodhullandemu 21:57, 20 May 2009 (UTC) Calling anyone a "pathetic runt" is completely inappropriate, and no matter how provoked Giano may have been (and I think that they're very skilled in provoking themselves, anyway!), any length of time on Wikipedia should have indicated that such comments were way out of line. Good block. ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 21:50, 20 May 2009 (UTC) What damage is being prevented by this block? Seems like a punishment to me. Jehochman has it about right. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:51, 20 May 2009 (UTC) I did not support FlyingToaster's RfA, and am as interested in resolving the copyvio situation as anyone else. That is an entirely separate issue than that of Giano. I would be happy to respond to any comments, questions, suggestions, etc on the issue of my block of Giano, however. Prodego talk 21:56, 20 May 2009 (UTC) (edit conflict) Giano chose to behave in a way clearly inconducive to producing a good encyclopedia in a pleasant community environment. The fact that the (disgusting) insults deployed against a (very nice) admin were in response to this seemingly legitimate edit doesn't help matters. If Giano wished to work constructively to solve problems, they wouldn't call people "obnoxious" or "pathetic" or "runts" or "to be despised". And anyone not here to work constructively needs a break, simple as that IMO. ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 21:56, 20 May 2009 (UTC) I could provide you with recent examples of administrators behaving far worse than that in recent days, with barely an eyebrow raised, much less a block issued. So I repeat my question. What damage is being prevented, or are you admitting that this is a punishment? --Malleus Fatuorum 21:59, 20 May 2009 (UTC) Good block. //roux   21:54, 20 May 2009 (UTC) Notification please: Prodego, please notify Xeno and Giano of this thread, and provide links to ongoing threads.--Tznkai (talk) 21:55, 20 May 2009 (UTC) Sure thing, I can do that. Prodego talk 21:57, 20 May 2009 (UTC)  Done ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 21:57, 20 May 2009 (UTC) Good lord. Based on what i've gathered on this page over the months, I'm probably in agreement with Giano on many of his content points and criticisms of the culture here. But when a long-standing user (giano) tees off on another user like that, and even points out that he knows he's violating the civility rules (i note blocks by at least 15 different admins on the first page of his block log alone [25]) and will probably be blocked for his behavior, what can anyone do but throw up their hands? If he wants to make some kind of kamikaze flame out point about how civility policies are less important than content-related policies, well, who are we to stop him?Bali ultimate (talk) 21:56, 20 May 2009 (UTC) Obviously good block and the duration is more than generous. --auburnpilot talk 21:58, 20 May 2009 (UTC) Another example of how admins get away with worse with a one hour block while non-admins get three weeks. Yea, generous. >_> لennavecia 22:00, 20 May 2009 (UTC) I think that everyone could do with three weeks free of Giano's whinging of a cabal, petty insults and general drama-mongering. The block is protecting Wikipedia from the disruption that surrounds Giano's every allegation; nobody is differentiating between admins and non-admins. If you can demonstrate that any admin made such abusive remarks as Giano, I'm sure that they'll be blocked too. ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 22:04, 20 May 2009 (UTC) I suggest that you follow up the link that Jennaveccia provided above to see how administrators are treated in similar circumstances. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:10, 20 May 2009 (UTC) In point of fact, I do not believe that accusing Giano of whinging about cabalism is remotely justified in this case. Can we please keep our eye on the ball?--Tznkai (talk) 22:12, 20 May 2009 (UTC) sigh. Good block, that kind of behaviour is just unacceptable. I think three weeks is excessive, but that's probably something to revisit when things have calmed down a little. the wub "?!" 22:01, 20 May 2009 (UTC) (Non admin response) - While I agree with most that a block was necessary, personal attacks just can't be allowed. I think 3 weeks is a bit over doing it. I would suggest knocking it down to 48 hours. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 22:03, 20 May 2009 (UTC) P> Policy "Incivility consists of personal attacks, rudeness, and aggressive behaviours that disrupt the project and lead to unproductive stress and conflict." Xeno doesn't seem stressed: "FWIW, I'm not particularly bothered by what Giano said above and I wouldn't object to unblocking. –xeno talk 20:24, 20 May 2009 (UTC)" Prodego does seem stressed: "I would object. Prodego talk 20:25, 20 May 2009 (UTC)" Anyone can stroll by a talk page and if they feel unproductive or stressed declare incivility, wave a wand, and poof everything is productive and unstressed again Uncle uncle uncle 22:07, 20 May 2009 (UTC) I don't know if stressed would be the correct word. I would object because I feel that Giano's comment was totally unacceptable, calling other editors "pathetic little runt[s]" is not something that is permissible, regardless of Xeno's personal response to it. That Xeno is able to brush it off is an attitude that I appreciate, and I wish he had shown it a bit earlier in his discussion with Giano, instead of making those edits that, as noted above, were simply inflammatory. Prodego talk 22:15, 20 May 2009 (UTC) I'm with Malleus on this one. I don't know what spawned this, but from the thread, it appears that Giano rewrote an article, Xeno maligned it, then began to make the article less well-written and inserted a bunch of fact tags. As an article writer, I think this would be quite frustrating to deal with. I also don't cite my leads. They're not required. This is punishment. --Moni3 (talk) 22:11, 20 May 2009 (UTC) I'm afraid I have to agree vis-a-vis Xeno. I asked him to explain, but he has not, but what the timeline shows is this comment by Xeno mentioning the article while arguing with Giano on an unrelated matter, followed immediately by this edit on the Raine Spencer article. I both assume out of hand and from my interactions with Xeno in the past that he had only the best of intentions, but the effect was to attack Giano's quality as a writer and taunt him in the process. A reasonable and/or detached observer could have seen this was a likely disruptive action instantly, and the following drama the inevitable result.--Tznkai (talk) 22:23, 20 May 2009 (UTC) Yes, three weeks is punishment in this situation. The block is excessive and punitive. Jehochman Talk 22:19, 20 May 2009 (UTC) Sorry, but attitude is entirely separable from content. In a supposedly collegial environment, there is no room for egos, and those with the larger ones tend not only to express that, but also abuse the principle. There should be no free lunch for those whose apparent superiority in one dimension is mitigated by a lack of such in another. Whilst I realise that this is a Procrustean approach, it surely is not that difficult to adapt to the prevailing culture, especially when you've been here long enough to know that others are "less fortunate" than yourself. Patience is one of the best attributes an editor can have here, but over a long time, I've seen Giano failing to show that. Neither am I innocent in that regard, I hasten to add. There are those who "just don't get it", however much you try to explain. As regards whether three weeks is appropriate, I have no view. Rodhullandemu 22:21, 20 May 2009 (UTC) Prodego, you did not handle that block well. Pedro :  Chat  22:24, 20 May 2009 (UTC) Attitude it separable from content, but content should be more important, which is something I don't think is appreciated enough at ANI. Has Xeno ever edited this article before today? For what reason would he edit this article? From a very brief clicking of links I get the idea that Xeno is trying to prove a point to Giano or perhaps retaliate for Giano's comments at FlyingToaster's RfA. What's even more concerning is an admin has shown that he doesn't know the issues in WP:LEAD. --Moni3 (talk) 22:31, 20 May 2009 (UTC) I think 24 hours would have been about right. That would have been sufficient to stop the escalation. Blocks can always be reinstated if problems resume. Jehochman Talk 22:24, 20 May 2009 (UTC) Three weeks is excessive to a very high degree. 2-48hrs (max) would have been much more appropriate. Verbal chat 22:30, 20 May 2009 (UTC) Giano has been blocked for civility issues many, many times. I think we are beyond 24 hour blocks at this stage. Prodego talk 22:30, 20 May 2009 (UTC) Maybe we can all come back and discuss it tomorrow, after everyone is more calm and thoughtful discourse is (slightly) more likely ensue. R. Baley (talk) 22:29, 20 May 2009 (UTC) If I had a disagreement with another editor and followed him to an article he had been working on, one which I had no previous interest in, asking for a cite in the lede as well as making other changes, then criticized him on my talk page over his content, would I get off scot free? Or would some people call that harassment. Just curious. Jack forbes (talk) 22:33, 20 May 2009 (UTC) No, that is just due diligence; as long as you WP:AGF. "Criticising" is perhaps not quite the right word; "advising" is more to the point. Rodhullandemu 22:38, 20 May 2009 (UTC) I think a discussion of Xeno's behavior, while it was no where near as egregious as was Giano's, would be an excellent idea. Prodego talk 22:35, 20 May 2009 (UTC) A one week block, if we're giving Giano three weeks for his behaviour, I suggest a week off for Xeno. His behaviour in this whole sorry episode is perhaps more objectionable than that of Giano. Nick (talk) 22:41, 20 May 2009 (UTC) FWIW, endorse block (and duration). Given that comment this block was clearly a good call. Also, given the user's history of blocks the duration of the block appears to be justifiable as well. — Aitias // discussion 22:36, 20 May 2009 (UTC) Agreed. This is an editor who knows better, and does not deserve the leeway at this point. Blocks should escalate in duration until he either gets it, or the duration becomes indefinite. Any indescretions by Xeno need to be addressed as well, but do not justify Giano's actions. Resolute 22:44, 20 May 2009 (UTC) I also find strange how Xeno came to edit the article, and compelling much of its reaction with very weak arguments on a topic that is clearly not its specialty. "Do you normally leave your leads entirely unreferenced?", while the MOS clearly states the lead do not require inline citations as much as the article body, is either a provocation, or a totally ignorant question asserted in a patronizing way, much the same for the 'glaring' prose. Overall, and with Xeno's few edits to the article, quite weak, some even counter-productive, and addition of the fact tags, which any experienced user would deem as inflammatory, it is clear that an article writer would be upset, and in the circumstances, Giano's reaction was predictable. As I assume good faith, I'd like explanations from Xeno on this. I would personally not have blocked, but it was certainly within admin's discretion, although I would support shortening it. Cenarium (talk) 22:39, 20 May 2009 (UTC) In my examination of Xeno's behavior, I think he made some extremely poor decision making. We have serious policies against using article space as a WP:BATTLEGROUND or otherwise following someone else's edits, and Xeno appears to have broken those. I again, assume good faith, and do not feel that sanctioning Xeno beyond what I and a few others have already said on the subject is necessary. I do however, feel that this is sufficient mitigating circumstances that the block should be reconsidered. I disagree with Prodego's contention that Xeno's behavior was less egregious. The misuse of article space to make a point or taunt another user is certainly one of the most egregious things that can be done, and if it was done unintentionally (as I believe it was) something so substantively similar to that action might as well be that action as far as measuring disruption. What we have here, is someone responding with an uncivil tongue but civil (non-existent) action, but someone having done apparently uncivil action while keeping a civil tongue. Prodego, I strongly urge you to reconsider your block in light of this.--Tznkai (talk) 22:41, 20 May 2009 (UTC) If reading an editor's name provokes a semi-instinctive eyeroll, it is a sign that they have long since outworn their welcome. This is now the case with User:IRC is evil, nobody loves me, everybody hates me. Tim Vickers (talk) 22:52, 20 May 2009 (UTC) Quite extraordinary. Just who the hell do you think you are to be deciding who gets selected for your metaphorical firing squad? --Malleus Fatuorum 22:57, 20 May 2009 (UTC) Maybe I overlooked it, but could someone kindly point out where Xeno requested another admin to help him stop his pissing match with Giano? —Travistalk 22:53, 20 May 2009 (UTC) I'm really starting to feel that Prodego is no longer the right person to be determining the length of block for Giano - any admin that starts to defend their actions to the extent Prodego is doing, and using the language Prodego is using, is clearly not impartial enough to be dealing with the issue, please, find some other administrator to determine consensus on the length of the block, whether it should be rescinded etc. Nick (talk) 22:54, 20 May 2009 (UTC) Of course I am going to defend my decision, if I didn't believe my own decisions were correct, I wouldn't be making them. Given the ongoing discussion, and given that we have plenty of time and plenty of things to discuss, I don't see any need to make any changes at this moment. Let the discussion continue, there are plenty of admins here, and we will work out the best options. Prodego talk 23:02, 20 May 2009 (UTC) Yes we have incivility by Giano, but what preceded it? Giano-baiting by an admin. In full context at minimum the block length is excessive.--Cube lurker (talk) 23:03, 20 May 2009 (UTC) Oppose block. I think the block was inappropriate. All the block would do is fuel drama over something that was minor. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:11, 20 May 2009 (UTC) Giano's an adult, he knows what he's doing and how it comes off. He's responsible for his actions, regardless the provocation. Clearly the shorter blocks are not having an effect and the comment that kicked this off is unacceptable. It's time to move to longer blocks as his aggressive personal attacks keep coming up here. 2 weeks, 3 weeks, whatever but it's time to move to longer blocks. If Xeno's (or whoever) action needs examination, by all means go ahead. But they are separate from Giano's and should be treated that way. RxS (talk) 23:16, 20 May 2009 (UTC) "If Xeno's (or whoever) action needs examination, by all means go ahead. But they are separate from Giano's and should be treated that way." By which, of course, you mean ignored. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:30, 20 May 2009 (UTC) Perhaps, or an RFC or bring him to Arbcom....whatever you think the community will support. If you think there's action that needs to be taken, well go ahead. But it's got nothing to do with Giano's persistent string of over the top personal attacks. RxS (talk) 23:49, 20 May 2009 (UTC) endorse obviously. It is long long past time that Giano was called on his flagrant breaches of WP:CIVIL William M. Connolley (talk) 23:18, 20 May 2009 (UTC) Oppose block Giano is clearly soliciting for a community ban here instead... He knows the rules and chooses to violate them anyways. I've about had it with him and his rants. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 23:22, 20 May 2009 (UTC) Uh. The blocking admin opened this thread. Giano has not commented on it. Unless someone is supposed to be a sockpuppet?--Tznkai (talk) 23:35, 20 May 2009 (UTC) Block reduction I propose a block reduction to either 12, 24, 36, or 48 hours. 3 weeks is excessive, as this was a case of clear taunting by another editor. Yes, lashing out is inappropriate, but there are very few here that don't know how Giano will respond, and this was a button that really shouldn't have been pushed, especially during stressful situations. As you can see above, I do not agree with the block, as I feel that it will only cause more stress and drama in a series of situations that does not need more fuel, but I feel that this proposal would be a happy medium. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:20, 20 May 2009 (UTC) It would seem that a lot of the users who have commented above think the length of the block is fine. - Rjd0060 (talk) 23:22, 20 May 2009 (UTC) I'd say knock it down to between 24 or 48 hours, but to be honest, I say "time served". - NeutralHomer • Talk • 23:23, 20 May 2009 (UTC) In my opinion it's about time he went on a 3 week wikibreak. Be it forced or voluntary. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 23:24, 20 May 2009 (UTC) Agreed. — Aitias // discussion 23:38, 20 May 2009 (UTC) I'm very troubled by this "about time" buisness. We're not in the buisness of giving people what they deserve. What benefit is gained here? What behavior is changed, what behavior is reinforced? I think I and others have made a compelling picture that Giano was in fact genuinely provoked. Mainspace was the medium for this provocation. I would go as far to call what Xeno did baiting, though I believe it unintentional. Giano was taunted about an article he was working on, took it up with the other user as he was supposed to until they both escalated and Giano got blocked for a nasty comment. Xeno has been midly reprimanded by a couple of us. How exactly is any of this this "about time?"--Tznkai (talk) 23:33, 20 May 2009 (UTC) "about time" is clearly supported by his block log. Nothing changes, that's the problem. Giano makes people want to leave the project, instead of edit the project. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 23:54, 20 May 2009 (UTC) I don't think, I hope not, that Xeno is on the edge of leaving. But on the other hand, Xeno's actions made Giano on the edge of leaving. Incivility should be enforced, but not in a "on diff" manner, rather situationally, with background consideration, and attempt to resolve amicably before blocking. Cenarium (talk) 00:24, 21 May 2009 (UTC) One week minimum. RxS (talk) 23:26, 20 May 2009 (UTC) Rjd - a lot of people above say that it is inappropriate, and many on his talk page asked for a reduction. This was put forth as a compromise. Take it or leave it, but I thought it would be best for the community. An RfC can be drawn up later if people still have outstanding concerns. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:30, 20 May 2009 (UTC) Do people here know that the recipient of Giano's words has, on his own talk page, stated that he would not object to his block being lifted? Jack forbes (talk) 23:27, 20 May 2009 (UTC) Oppose - one look at his block log should explain why. //roux   23:32, 20 May 2009 (UTC) Oppose per roux (talk · contribs) and my comment (and many others) above. — Aitias // discussion 23:36, 20 May 2009 (UTC) What is the purpose of the block here? We know it can't be to alter Giano's behavior, because previous blocks have not done so in the past. If the community feels that there is a problem that needs to be fixed, another solution needs to be found. Kevin (talk) 23:31, 20 May 2009 (UTC) (ec)The purpose of the block is to protect the mission of creating an encyclopedia. We warn and block vandals without question. We are slightly less intolerant of those who produce good content, albeit with a snarky agenda. But there comes a point where the balance must swing towards the overall purpose of this project. Alerting Giano's behaviour does not seem to be a rational option. Therefore, go he must, unless he himself is going to review his own role here, and he is not the only one who needs to do that. Rodhullandemu 23:42, 20 May 2009 (UTC) And how does it help to improve the encyclopedia ? The overall picture is quite clear, Giano has got a reputation for incivility, and there are a few admins willing to block on diff for incivility, without situational or background consideration, especially when it's Giano. Most of the positions of those who commented here were predictable for any user who followed this, and there are only a few genuinely neutral admins who will dare to comment. In this case, an admin baits Giano, maybe not entirely intentionally, and considering the circumstances, it predictably results in what we know. But a requirement for civility blocks is that it will stop further incivility and cannot be avoided, yet again, a resolution was still possible in this case: each users would stop talking to each other, and Xeno would stop (mis-)editing this article. We can try this after a block reduction if we do this. But I don't see how this block can improve the encyclopedia, however it can make us loose a good article writer, and those are very needed. Incivility should be treated in an amicable way when possible, before considering blocking. The situation gives credit to the thesis of asymmetrical treatment for admins (more generally, admin wannabes) and non-admins (article writers in particular), and this, and Giano, is not an isolated case. Cenarium (talk) 00:24, 21 May 2009 (UTC) I love the idea of shortening the block to reduce drama. Drama follows Giano around, so no, it wont be reduced. What we are witnessing, frankly, is an editor walking straight into a community ban. Next time he comes up on ANI, the support will be a little quieter, and the opposition a little louder. That imbalance will continue to grow until he finally has no supporters left. Its happened many times in the past, and it will happen many times in the future. Question is whether Giano himself will come to understand that in time. The only silver lining in this is that this particular drama will end at some point. Resolute 23:37, 20 May 2009 (UTC) We know short blocks have no effect. A long block might. A long block will also give everyone a chance to think about it and work out what they think we should do long term. When the block ends we can have an RFC and decide on a long term solution to what is a serious problem - Giano having no respect for the rules, but being a valuable contributor we would rather not lose altogether. I don't think a couple of days will be enough time for all this drama to die down, so the block needs to remain on the scale of weeks. Perhaps reduce it to 10 days if Giano shows some sign of be willing to change, but no shorter. --Tango (talk) 23:37, 20 May 2009 (UTC) Oppose reduction - um, block log..? Ale_Jrbtalk 23:45, 20 May 2009 (UTC) Endorse the block, reduction to 1 week is ok. Giano has been repeatedly uncivil to several people the past days. Just one example. The length of the block does not make it punitive; on the contrary, a very short block would be punitive posturing with no real effect. Comments that the block is wrong because it will cause drama make no sense, since those very comments are drama. --Apoc2400 (talk) 23:48, 20 May 2009 (UTC) Comment - Is all this drama really necessary? If the editor in question wants the block lifted, they can appeal it! John Sloan @ 23:51, 20 May 2009 (UTC) Oppose. Leave the 3-week block in place and consider reduction if the editor appeals. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:55, 20 May 2009 (UTC) Oppose - Block and length were appropriate. - Philippe 00:06, 21 May 2009 (UTC) Drama? At AN/I? Shocking; simply shocking. Perhaps it's time we start looking at why we have civility policies and seeing if any recent behavior violated the spirit of those policies / guidelines. Personally, I'm not seeing it. --MZMcBride (talk) 00:30, 21 May 2009 (UTC) Retired Please note [26]. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 00:37, 21 May 2009 (UTC) Has happened before, so I shouldn't put much into that basket. →AzaToth 00:46, 21 May 2009 (UTC) Confirmed via direct email, he's probably already shut down mail services on his account by the time I post this or minutes after. rootology (C)(T) 00:47, 21 May 2009 (UTC) The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Xeno So, what are we going to do about Xeno, is his behaviour in this matter going to be addressed or completely ignored ? Nick (talk) 00:06, 21 May 2009 (UTC) Err, let me look into my crystal ball ... the mists are clearing. I see that Xeno is an administrator; his behaviour is therefore beyond reproach. Mild trout slap at worst. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:15, 21 May 2009 (UTC) Admins can be blocked as readily as any other user for a policy violation; we as admins have no special protection vs. blocks. One admin was just blocked 9 days for edit warring. If two users create an equal offense, one an admin and one not, both must receive equal blocks if blocks are given. The admin is not More Special. rootology (C)(T) 00:28, 21 May 2009 (UTC) Yeah, right. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:39, 21 May 2009 (UTC) The size (and contents) of AMIB's block log is atrocious. Majorly talk 00:41, 21 May 2009 (UTC) That only happens once an admin gets sanctioned by ArbCom. After that everyone starts piling on, about 10 times harder than any random guy, like any ArbCom-sanctioned user. Apart from, that admins are above the law. I can think of some who got congratulated by the AC for their admin work even though they insult people on a daily basis and block immediately after reverting. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 03:23, 21 May 2009 (UTC) Since Xeno was apparently deliberately provoking Giano, he/she should be blocked for at least half as long as Giano was. Yes, it's a punitive block, but Xeno's behavior needs to be corrected. Cla68 (talk) 00:15, 21 May 2009 (UTC) If it's punitive, what's the point? Just to rub his nose in it? Majorly talk 00:47, 21 May 2009 (UTC) Since ArbCom lately has been making a lot of noise about how important it is for administrators to model good behavior and to be held to a higher standard because of their elevated status in the community, it seems to me that xeno is actually more culpable here, since he provoked the incident and is an administrator. Giano is "just" an editor, and presumably not required to be held to those extra high standards we demand of administrators.Woonpton (talk) 00:29, 21 May 2009 (UTC) Looking at Xeno's "improvement" edits, and the fact he seemed to then change his mind afterwards, it seems fairly obvious even to a deaf, dumb, blind pinball wizard that the edits, whilst seemingly plausible were nothing more than an attempt at baiting Giano - which unfortunately, he fell for. It's quite sad and utterly pathetic. Minkythecat (talk) 00:48, 21 May 2009 (UTC) Block Xeno!? Xeno doesn't even want Giano blocked for goodness sake! So why block Xeno, risk losing a bloody good sysop and editor? This whole thread is just plain madness.... John Sloan @ 00:42, 21 May 2009 (UTC) Perhaps if he/she had mentioned it here as well as their talk page all this drama could have been avoided. Ah well! Jack forbes (talk) 01:00, 21 May 2009 (UTC) My memory may be fading, but I vaguely recall that one of the Giano sanctions also forbade editors from baiting or provoking Giano. [27] isn't exactly non-provoking. Gimmetrow 01:02, 21 May 2009 (UTC) Also, per Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Motion:_re_SlimVirgin#Restriction_on_further_enforcement, "Until further notice, no enforcement action relating to Giano's civility parole shall be taken without the explicit written agreement of the Committee." Since the block mentions past "incivility" this seems to be related to the civility parole. Was there written agreement of the arbs? Gimmetrow 01:02, 21 May 2009 (UTC) Both irrelevant on face and expired. This isn't a civility parole issue, xeno wasn't the blocking admin.--Tznkai (talk) 01:04, 21 May 2009 (UTC) It's relevant to the block. Everyone knows that blocking Giano leads to problems. It would be reasonable admin behaviour to ask and get feedback first, and WP:AE is probably more likely to get better-than-kneejerk responses than is WP:ANI. Gimmetrow 01:12, 21 May 2009 (UTC) No one is blocking Xeno over this. Lex talionis in specific and retributive justice in general isn't done on Wikipedia because it is a really counter productive policy. Xeno is however, expected to explain his troubling edits, and I hope he has a good explanation of why this thing that looks like malicious baiting isn't.--Tznkai (talk) 01:01, 21 May 2009 (UTC) Let me see if I understand this correctly. If two users (pick two, doesn't matter) display the same inappropriate behavior and one of those users is an admin...the admin will get a "trout slap" and the non-admin user will get a block? Seriously? - NeutralHomer • Talk • 01:07, 21 May 2009 (UTC) I've already opined at length that blocking Giano was the wrong call to begin with. I am not going to compound the error by blocking someone else in some misguided attempt at evening by distribution of misery.--Tznkai (talk) 01:10, 21 May 2009 (UTC) So Xeno is simply required to explain, while the target of his undeniably provocative behaviour is blocked? Does that seem equitable to you? It sure as hell doesn't seem that way to me. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:12, 21 May 2009 (UTC) Equitable isn't really my goal, because when you pursue equality over say, justice (getting what they deserve) or fairness (getting what they need), you tend to do stupid things. (That man only has one kidney. I will remove one kindey from all other men so that they may be equal). He is expected to explain, and that explanation will make clear what should be done next.--Tznkai (talk) 01:20, 21 May 2009 (UTC) Equitable is not a synonym for equality, just as "well-dressed" is not synonymous with "immaculately dressed". If I had meant to use the word "equality" then I would have done so. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:44, 21 May 2009 (UTC) Can I propose we award the "I hope you are proud of your baiting"-award, and subsequently slap him with a large trout ? His behaviour was truly not helpful either. Pushing people over the edge is not something we should be engaging ourselves in. Although in my opinion, this was an unavoidable situation. Had it not been Xeno, it would have been someone else within the next month. Although in general we should not treat people differently, it is clear that community patience had ran out for Giano (it actually did long ago, but we are a community with high tolerances and many appeal systems), Xeno has not yet reached that point however. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 01:13, 21 May 2009 (UTC) I was making good faith edits to tone down what I saw as slightly over-the-top language - Giano suggested I take a stab at it. Some other editors pointed out how a some changes were slightly askew. I hadn't contributed to the above because it begun after I logged off. Please unblock Giano, his comments didn't bother me; but he perhaps could have been more clear what he didn't like about my suggestions. –xeno talk 01:14, 21 May 2009 (UTC) Where exactly did he invite you to do so? Because as far as I can tell, you mentioned the particular article that giano had been working on in an unrelated noticeboard thread, then your next edit less than a minute later was to edit it. I'm sure you can see why I am troubled.--Tznkai (talk) 01:17, 21 May 2009 (UTC) Here. Giano was the one who suggested Xeno edit it. Majorly talk 01:21, 21 May 2009 (UTC) But the edits I am concerned with occured 33 minutes earlier--Tznkai (talk) 01:25, 21 May 2009 (UTC) You'll notice my mainspace edits often float all over the place. This is because I follow links on whims and try to improve them wherever I can. As I said it seemed slightly over-the-top ("immaculate") and it didn't have a ref (where I edit leads have lots of refs), so I thought toning it down was appropriate. –xeno talk 01:31, 21 May 2009 (UTC) Let me spell this out then. At 14:19 you made your first comment on the Flying Toaster thread on the Bureaucrats noticeboard. Followed by 14:48 17:31 18:38 and finally 19:20 Giano had made his first comment at 06:49 and commented throughout the thread. Most notably 18:58 Where he said "This has now gone beyond the ridiculous: You talk of a re-run. 100 people have just voted for an Admin (known as Boriss on IRC) who is hardly known at all on Wikipedia, who is so unused to Wikipedia that she did not even know it was wrong to coptpaste other people's work onto Wikipedia and claim it as her own. Those same people who supported her RFA now have the audacity to argue now in her defence. You insult everyone who has ever spent more than an hour writing a page. This project is sick - really sick. I suggest that those of you who do not see this as wrong, very wrong, fuck off back to IRC or wherever it is you came from and stay there; leave writing this encyclopedia to those that care about it and are prepared to do some real work to prove it." Following Prodego's comment you replied "Indeed, you've made your point Giano. Perhaps you should take your advice... You are doing the good countess a disservice spending so much time on this." at 19:20 One minute later at 19:21, you edited the Raine Spencer article (a BLP for goodness sake), the same article you linked above as "good countess", for the first time in your wiki career. This establishes that 1. You were involved in a heated dispute where you and Giano were in some amount of dispute 2. You were aware of Giano's contributions to the article 3. You mentioned this article specifically to Giano in the midst of that dispute 4. Immediately after mentioning it to Giano, who you were in conflict with, you began editing the article, and 5. This all happened before Giano told you to improve the article. If you were a redlink, we would immediately conclude you were baiting Giano. It certainly could appear to an outsider you were doing so. Regardless of your intentions, which I assume are good and not malicious, doing something that looks so much like baiting is not something a wise or reasonable editor would do. Certainly, after the fact you should be able to stare at the bare evidence and realize your mistake.--Tznkai (talk) 02:07, 21 May 2009 (UTC) While I was acting in good faith (the language did seem a little much, and lack of citing with some arguably contentious statements seemed off for a BLP), I see your point in that it could appear as if I meant to provoke - I did not. In hindsight, it was probably not a wise move. –xeno talk 02:36, 21 May 2009 (UTC) As a bemused outsider looking in, it appears there is a significant problem: an admin and a non-admin indulge in silly behavior, but the non-admin gets blocked for a couple of weeks but the non-admin is allowed to edit with nary a wrist slap? Either someone has to get unblocked or someone else has to get blocked -- the split-level justice is more than a little peculiar and it leaves a sour residue for those who subscribe to the notion that adminship is no big deal. Pastor Theo (talk) 02:20, 21 May 2009 (UTC) Block them both or block neither. لennavecia 02:40, 21 May 2009 (UTC) I never wanted Giano blocked; it is unfortunate that he was for comments made at me, just a humble wikignome. I'd suggest unblocking. However, if blocking me in return will make things right, so be it. –xeno talk 02:44, 21 May 2009 (UTC) That would just be a punishment. What you ought to do is to apologise and to unblock Giano. --Malleus Fatuorum 02:50, 21 May 2009 (UTC) I considered unblocking but I don't think it would be appropriate; I'm involved, Prodego specifically stated on my talk page he would object to unblocking, and I also have a gut feeling it wouldn't be well-received by the recipient (his dispute partner being the one to let him out of the penalty box, so to speak). My feelings weren't hurt in the least. I've asked Prodego to unblock, but I believe he is offline. Perhaps another admin can review whether unblocking based on the circumstances is the best thing to do. –xeno talk 03:42, 21 May 2009 (UTC) After very much consideration I have unblocked giano. I know this will be unpopular, I know this is out of process but I also consider myself uninvolved. I have read all above but given the circumstances of the RfA and xeno following to a new article I feel the block is already more than enough. David D. (Talk) 05:03, 21 May 2009 (UTC) Terrible idea. TERRIBLE. Did you review the block history? Did you read the blocked comment? Terrible idea. But I won't wheel war. I would be prepared to defend it though, if I were you. - Philippe 05:08, 21 May 2009 (UTC) Yep, unpopular is one word. Out of process and out of consensus are more. Did you read any of the discussion below? I'm always amazed at people that unblock in these circumstances without any discussion with the blocking admin at all. This isn't votes for unblock you know. Please revert your unblock, thanks. RxS (talk) 05:10, 21 May 2009 (UTC) Break There are ALOT of people who are saying "block Xeno" or "unblock Giano". Talk is cheap, actions speak. So, can someone actually do something instead of talk about doing something? - NeutralHomer • Talk • 02:47, 21 May 2009 (UTC) Blocking Xeno would be against our blocking policy, unblocking Giano against consensus is also against our policies. You want something done, martial some consensus, or convince the blocking admin to change his mind (which I have been trying to do.--Tznkai (talk) 02:52, 21 May 2009 (UTC) Many editors are blocked against your beloved policies, so I don't see why unblocking is so very different. WP:IAR and all that jazz? --Malleus Fatuorum 02:59, 21 May 2009 (UTC) In this case Giano was blocked before discussion. What if someone blocked Xeno first and then tried to determine if there was a consensus to unblock? Gimmetrow 03:00, 21 May 2009 (UTC) I personally don't care which you do. Block both or have both unblocked....but something needs to be done because at the moment you have two editors who exhibited the same behavior and one get one punishment and one got the other and because the other is an admin, it looks like preferential treatment. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 03:04, 21 May 2009 (UTC) At the risk of being considered as rude: will some admin (and I assume they are reading this) either unblock Giano or block Xeno or present Wikipedia with an honorary Tony Award for drama? This situation is veering into to the nonsensical. We really need to stop talking and resolve this mess. Pastor Theo (talk) 03:08, 21 May 2009 (UTC) So, you and the rest would like me to bell the cat? --Tznkai (talk) 03:10, 21 May 2009 (UTC) I'd like you to act like a man, not like a mouse. --Malleus Fatuorum 03:13, 21 May 2009 (UTC) If you're so adamant about fixing the situation, find something you can do about it, and fix it.--Tznkai (talk) 03:18, 21 May 2009 (UTC) I don't have an unblock button, but if I did I wouldn't be at all hesitant to use it. --Malleus Fatuorum 03:46, 21 May 2009 (UTC) How about something more fitting - since Giano is gone, Xeno will be forced to work in creating content and only creating content until Giano comes back. No talk page use unless its for collaboration, no use of the tools, and his edits must be furthering the development of pages to GA/FA level. We did lose a content contributor by his actions, so the only way to redeem the encyclopedia is to force him to pick up the slack. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:10, 21 May 2009 (UTC) I believe there are 1,600 admins, yes? Not counting Tznkai and Xeno, can one of the remaining 1,588 admins please resolve this situation? Thank you! Pastor Theo (talk) 03:24, 21 May 2009 (UTC) There's not much to resolve. The block of Giano is within policy and very much appropriate. It has been endorsed by several users and does not depend on whether any action is or is not taken against Xeno. If Giano wants to contest the block, he is free to do so. There's nothing that needs to be done. --auburnpilot talk 03:29, 21 May 2009 (UTC) Leave Xeno alone. They were being clueless at worst, not malicious. Giano should be unblocked at the 24 hour mark. FlyingToaster needs to resign. That's going to be the end point of all this. Jehochman Talk 03:28, 21 May 2009 (UTC) So the message we are going to give is that admins get preferential treatment, no matter how bad their behavior? That is great, really great. Today we have set precedent that admins, unless they do something like crazy bad will recieve no punishment for behavior that the regular editor will. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 03:41, 21 May 2009 (UTC) I will respond. While Xeno did provoke Giano, it is only Giano who did the attacking. Saying that Giano and Xeno did the same thing is totally incorrect, if that were true, they would both have been blocked. Prodego talk 03:47, 21 May 2009 (UTC) Your blindness is quite astonishing, and your use of the passive voice "they would both have been blocked" very telling. --Malleus Fatuorum 03:50, 21 May 2009 (UTC) Provoking an attack is worse than the attack in my opinion. The outcome of was blindingly obvious. David D. (Talk) 03:55, 21 May 2009 (UTC) Oh don't get me wrong, I see the baiting quite clearly. But at the same time, never did Xeno engage in such blatantly flagrant attacks as Giano's: "You are a pathetic little runt. You exemplify exactly what is wrong with the project, and why so many are bailing out. You are a person to be despised and ridiculed. You are obnoxious and stupid. You are ignorant and to the project a handicap." Saying Xeno's baiting even approaches the incivility of that attack is a total misstatement. I am not sure what is so telling about my use of the passive, but if you see something in it, by all means. Prodego talk 03:57, 21 May 2009 (UTC) Your use of the passive voice is a clear, if unconscious, attempt to distance yourself from the action you yourelf took. It's clear though that there's going to be yet another whitewash here, which makes me feel dirty even participating in this disgusting charade, so I'll leave you to it. --Malleus Fatuorum 04:06, 21 May 2009 (UTC) Did the blocking admin post at ANI or anywhere else first to get feedback before blocking an established editor? Had that admin done that, what sort of feedback do you think that admin would have received? Do you think, prior to the block, there would have been consensus for a three-week block? Gimmetrow 04:09, 21 May 2009 (UTC) This isn't a case of admins getting preferential treatment, though I'm sure that happens. Giano has a long history of personal attacks and incivility, Xeno does not. Apples and oranges. Shorter blocks in Giano's case have failed to help, so longer blocks are now in order. Xeno has no history of admin abuse or personal attacks, or at least none talked about here [28]. Why should they be treated exactly the same? RxS (talk) 04:00, 21 May 2009 (UTC) Giano's history is irrelevant -- we are talking about a current situation, not the past. If Xeno was an equal partner in this mishap, either Xeno should be blocked or Giano should be unblocked. No matter how you spin this, there is a separate and unequal justice system here, one for admins and one for non-admins. And, quite frankly, it is a bit troubling that the admins coming to this discussion are taking a circle-the-wagons strategy to protect one of their own while the non-admins are rallying to Giano's cause. Pastor Theo (talk) 04:07, 21 May 2009 (UTC) Last time Giano's block history came up during the Neuro blog affair it was revealed that his block log was inflated due to unjust blocks which were later reversed. I wonder why noone seems to be bringing this up. Dr.K. logos 04:11, 21 May 2009 (UTC) History is absolutely relevant. Editors (admin and non-admin) have been trying to get Giano to tone down his rhetoric for quite some time now. This is just the latest in a long string of incidents. There have been no similar attempts to change Xeno's behavior. An editors history is a factor in many different venues here, it's considered when deciding if an RFC or an Arbcom case is called for, an escalating series of blocks depends on an editors history...even an IP's vandalism history is considered when deciding to block or to warn. The past needs to be a part of the discussion, as it is in any other area relevant to blocking or dispute resolution. No one is circling wagons here. RxS (talk) 04:27, 21 May 2009 (UTC) For the record, Xeno asked Prodego to unblock Giano: [29]. It appears that Prodego is either unaware of the request or is intentionally ignoring it. Pastor Theo (talk) 04:15, 21 May 2009 (UTC) I would appreciate some time please, I have been responding to comments here and via email, and have not yet had time for that. Prodego talk 04:19, 21 May 2009 (UTC) (ec) Xeno has also apologised to Giano (diff). Dr.K. logos 04:22, 21 May 2009 (UTC) C'mon, Prodego (or any other admin paying attention) -- please unblock Giano and let's call it a day. This is going on too long. Pastor Theo (talk) 04:29, 21 May 2009 (UTC) Second that. This has been going on long enough. It was an unfortunate incident but it needs to end. Dr.K. logos 04:41, 21 May 2009 (UTC) Third. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 04:42, 21 May 2009 (UTC) The block was placed due to a conflict between Xeno and Giano. It seems that Xeno has forgiven Giano. Therefore, the block is presumably no longer preventing anything, especially because Giano has walked off for a while, if not permanently. As for deterrence, Giano has a very long block log and I think we can all agree that blocking Giano does not deter anything. If he needs to be blocked, it can only be for prevention. Considering these factors, I think it would be best for Wikipedia if Giano were unblocked. Does any administrator besides Prodego disagree? Jehochman Talk 04:44, 21 May 2009 (UTC) It appears Xeno has blocked himself until 6/10 for "poking bears". Since we now have both blocked, shall we consider this resolved? - NeutralHomer • Talk • 04:54, 21 May 2009 (UTC) Since everyone seems to be on the same page now, I think they should both be unblocked. Dr.K. logos 05:00, 21 May 2009 (UTC) Nope. Giano has a history of civility issues; Giano was incivil. Regardless of what else happened, that's a major issue for me. - Philippe 05:01, 21 May 2009 (UTC) Here's why I have trouble with that (Jehochman's comment above), the block wasn't specifically because of the conflict, it was because Giano was really uncivil and insulting in a way that's been a problem for a long time. If you or I had had the same conflict and said the same things the worst that would have happened was a nasty-gram on my talk page. If the goal is to get Giano to tone things down, blocks of increasing length are one way to achieve that. We can look at his block log and see that short (or over turned) blocks haven't helped...so a next step would be to increase the block lengths. All with the goal to prevent further outbursts. The block wasn't to protect Xeno, but to try and reach Giano because overall his lack of civility is bad for the editing environment here. And if that's the case, Xeno's attitude toward the block at this point doesn't really matter. These ANI threads will just continue over and over because we treat each outburst the same. That's a bad thing and should be avoided. Let's try something different and let a block stick...RxS (talk) 05:01, 21 May 2009 (UTC) Giano unblocked by David D. It appears David D. has unblocked Giano (terrible idea, in my judgment), so a wheel war is, well, imminent. Talk about raising the drama quotient... - Philippe 05:09, 21 May 2009 (UTC) I was unwise in my actions, let's just move on. –xeno talk 05:10, 21 May 2009 (UTC) As you can see, I have unblocked Xeno. I believe that block was erroneous because we don't block ourselves. Xeno can try WP:TEA or a wikibreak if they feel stressed. Jehochman Talk 05:12, 21 May 2009 (UTC) <sigh> Folks, don't we learn from the past? Archiving, closing discussions before they are truly over is... madness. It results in more upset than just leaving them open would. Unblocking under controversial circumstances rarely generates consensus. All that's happened through these actions is to raise the drama level. Those who don't learn from the past are doomed to repeat it, and we certainly have, here. - Philippe 05:15, 21 May 2009 (UTC) This board is for items that need quick admin intervention. If anything, we need less admin intervention here. Please move on. --MZMcBride (talk) 05:25, 21 May 2009 (UTC) I'm not trying to wheel war. Why prolong this beyond its shelf life? If anyone wants to revert my action they are free to do so. I will not have any more to do with this discussion. David D. (Talk) 05:25, 21 May 2009 (UTC) Needless to say this is not acceptable. Discussion here did not support unblocking, at most a slight reduction of the block. Prodego talk 05:25, 21 May 2009 (UTC) You can't just unblock under these circumstances and then just walk away from the discussion like this. Admins are expected to be available for commenting after a controversial action such as this. RxS (talk) 05:36, 21 May 2009 (UTC) The Civility Policy has a purpose - The purpose of civility is to prevent behaviours that disrupt the project and lead to unproductive stress and conflict. Xeno has stated that he was not particularly bothered by Giano's words. There was no unproductive stress or conflict except to Prodego. The other participants on the talk page were having a heated discussion, that appears to have stressed or nonproductivized Prodego. If he was the one who was upset - then perhaps as an involved party - he should have let someone else block. Uncle uncle uncle 05:48, 21 May 2009 (UTC) This is but one of many cases of Giano's incivility. The civility policy is about creating an atmosphere that is conducive to collaborative editing, not just about individual cases of disruption. There is obviously a long term problem going on here. I expect David to restore the block while discussion continues as unblocking was clearly both against consensus and out of process. Prodego talk 06:05, 21 May 2009 (UTC) Two editors were having a heated discussion - neither was offended by the language used. Only you Prodego objected and you were a participant in the discussion (although perhaps trying to calm it.) There was no disruption either on or outside of Xeno's talk page. Uncle uncle uncle 06:25, 21 May 2009 (UTC) Arguing that Giano does not have a civility issue, or that his comment to Xeno would be appropriate in any circumstance is missing the point of civility. Prodego talk 06:27, 21 May 2009 (UTC) Prodego, let it go dude. It is likely that with a scrambled password we won't be seeing Giano again anytime soon. Let this thread be resolved. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 06:33, 21 May 2009 (UTC) Thank you for the reply - I think I see where our opinions differ. Would I be correct if I stated that you believe that the purpose of the civility policy is about creating an atmosphere that is conducive to collaborative editing? I believe that the purpose of policy is the converse: The purpose of the civility policy is to avoid an atmosphere the is inconducive to collaborative editing. It may seem a small difference but perhaps both ways should be looked at. Were Giano's words conducive to collaborative editing? No. Were Giano's works inconducive to collaborative editing? No - Xeno has stated that the words did not bother him. So, as far as collaborative editing is concerned, Giano's words had no effect. They made no one unhappy, they did not result in discouragement or departure, they made no one angry, no one lost good faith. On the other hand - your block did in fact lead to discouragement, departure, anger and even Xeno who was not blocked by you, ended up blocking himself. Uncle uncle uncle 06:42, 21 May 2009 (UTC) Interesting but flawed point. This isn't just about Xeno and Giano, as I said above. Where you comment, "So, as far as collaborative editing is concerned, Giano's words had no effect. They made no one unhappy, they made no one angry..." you are in fact incorrect. I am angered that Xeno was exposed to such abuse. I am unhappy that Giano thought fit to use such language. It's caused complete chaos across loads of noticeboards and talkpages. It's not conducive to collaborative editing. ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 11:02, 21 May 2009 (UTC) Reblock Acting on the prevailing sentiment that the block was appropriate (with which I agree) and that the unblock was ill-considered, I have reinstated the original block. In view of David D.'s statement at [30] that "if anyone wants to revert my action they are free to do so", I trust that this will not be considered wheel-warring. The original block rationale still applies, because Giano II has not indicated that he will cease with the conduct that caused him to be blocked, and we cannot verify whether he has indeed permanently retired.  Sandstein  09:13, 21 May 2009 (UTC) Endorse re-block, and - why would it matter whether he's genuinely retired or not? If he really has, then being blocked won't bother him... ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 09:23, 21 May 2009 (UTC) Endorse re-block; there was no consensus for an unblock, rather the opposite. Ironholds (talk) 09:51, 21 May 2009 (UTC) It's been two hours since a post here, and things were settling down. You've blocked Giano before, so you're not uninvolved. What were you thinking? Gimmetrow 09:59, 21 May 2009 (UTC) I was thinking what I said above. I am also not involved in the present dispute. Do we have a policy according to which a disruptive user may be blocked only once by any given administrator?  Sandstein  10:08, 21 May 2009 (UTC) The unblock was ill-considered - whether or not you agree with it, you would be hard-pressed to argue that there was a consensus for it. A reduction, possibly... Either way, I would endorse the re-block and be indifferent to a shortening. If someone wants Giano unblocked, get consensus for it. Ale_Jrbtalk 10:15, 21 May 2009 (UTC) User:Sandstein has violated WP:WHEEL for repeating an administrative action knowing that another administrator opposed it. Gimmetrow 10:56, 21 May 2009 (UTC) Not so. The unblocking administrator has consented to a reversal of his action, as noted above. You may, of course, freely refer this matter to arbitration if you disagree.  Sandstein  12:33, 21 May 2009 (UTC) Yeah, this is wheel warring at its purest. Not the first call from Sandstein. He should have resigned several years ago. --Ghirla-трёп- 11:03, 21 May 2009 (UTC) This is arguably a technical breach of WP:WW, but my experience is that these days the community in practice tends support reversal of non-consensual unblocks (e.g. Coren's unblock of Malleus_Fatuorum a wee while ago). Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 11:28, 21 May 2009 (UTC) Not in the purest form as I purposefully added the revert disclaimer to be used if the community felt strongly enough. I had hoped it would stop the fighting and be seen as an opportunity to move on. I'm sorry that is not the case but I will support Sandsteins decision. David D. (Talk) 11:36, 21 May 2009 (UTC) Sandstein could have come to ANI and proposed a reblock to find out if there was consensus for it. He did not. Gimmetrow 12:31, 21 May 2009 (UTC) So, to be clear, if someone comes to my talk page using bad language and telling me what they thought of my actions, actions which I later regret, and I don't mind in the slightest, they will get blocked, even if I ask that they don't get blocked? I could see the point if I was offended and made a fuss over it, but it is my talk page (not main space) and if it doesn't bother me why should it bother anyone else? This is the exact same scenario here and it makes me wonder why so many people jumped on this when leaving it on the talk page would have resulted in Xeno and Giano going there seperate ways. Jack forbes (talk) 09:52, 21 May 2009 (UTC) The civility policy doesn't just apply to the recipient. I was offended to see such insulting langauge used against a well-meaning admin. I dare say others were too. Giano knew that making such abuse was unacceptable, so there was a mens rea. They've shown no remorse, instead only carrying on their tirade against Wikipedia in general, so the fact that Xeno (very generously) hasn't demanded a block doesn't exempt Giano from the rules. ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 10:01, 21 May 2009 (UTC) Well, it's all done and dusted now. I do though think if it was left on Xeno's talk page we wouldn't have an excellent contributer leaving the project whilst an admin is admonished and even goes to the extremes of blocking himself. All that and the drama surrounding this thread could have been avoided. Just my opinion. Jack forbes (talk) 10:21, 21 May 2009 (UTC) Absolutely true. On the other hand, it would have sent a strong message to Giano and anyone else seeing his comment, that such language is tolerated on Wikipedia. Or at least, one can use it and get away with it. And that wouldn't be right. ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 10:24, 21 May 2009 (UTC) I'd really like all these people who claim people should be given a pass on civility because a discussion was heated, or someone else said a bad word first, or someone had the audacity not to bend right over and accept some stubborn individual's pov right away could point to the part of WP:NPA where it says that makes it okay.--Crossmr (talk) 10:27, 21 May 2009 (UTC) Oh please. It's a little thing called COMMON SENSE. Giano pointed out the obvious - Flying Toaster's flawed RfA. Supporters thus got into a teenage strop. Xeno made poor edits to an article Giano was involved with - purely to bait Giano to react. Of course in a perfect life, Giano would be all sweetness and light, say the right things people want to hear... but for me, he gets irritated by people doing things other than aiming for perfection in articles for something purporting to be an encyclopedia. Maybe he shouldn't snap, sure. In this case, you can hardly poke somebody with a stick, albeit in a "civil" manner and then cry to mummy when you get a smack in the nose! Still, people got what they wanted. A highly prolific contributor creating / improving articles to a high level quality, albeit an often difficult person to deal with gone. Again, it's common sense the many teen admins aren't going to have the people skills necessary to deal with "problem" editors. Let's hope Xeno and Flying Toaster can fill the void now created with many marvellous articles ( though in FT's case, be difficult without plagiarising... ). Minkythecat (talk) 10:44, 21 May 2009 (UTC) Well, we are right back where we started: with one justice for admins and one for non-admins, and the non-admin receiving punishment that certainly does not fit the crime (despite repeated requests from Xeno that Giano not be blocked). This was quite the carousel ride,no? Pastor Theo (talk) 10:49, 21 May 2009 (UTC) Just my two cents. Everyone keeps saying they cant block Xeno because that would be punitive. But I ask you, when you block vandals is this not a punishment? When you indeffinetly blocked that guy who was in the new for the Maurice Jarre thing, was that not a punsihment? Generally vandalism blocks last between 24 and 72 hours. Indeffing that guy was a way to get back at him for making us look a fool. So you cant say that you cant block Xeno on that grounds. Honestly, I like Xeno, and personally I don't want to see him/her blocked, but the double standard really isnt right. Someone needs to block him, and throw in WP:IAR if someone calls it punitiveDrew Smith What I've done 11:32, 21 May 2009 (UTC) Noooo...when a vandal is blocked, it's primarily to prevent additional damage. Effectively, there is a punative side, but the priority is to stem the flow of future additional damage. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:37, 21 May 2009 (UTC) But there is that one little punative side. And you cant deny the indeff on the maurice jarre kid was revenge.Drew Smith What I've done 11:40, 21 May 2009 (UTC) Let's just block admins and call IAR when someone declares this puntive? Has anybody read IAR recently and realized that the purpose of IAR is to IMPROVE Wikipedia? All you are doing is creating more drama, which is hardly beneficial. A mistake should be realized and fixed; we can't just sit here and wack each other with sticks as revenge for revenge. 黒い白い (KuroiShiroi) 11:54, 21 May 2009 (UTC) And letting admins run free for doing the same thing as a normal editor is improving wikipedia? Honestly, anything that would end this dialogue would be improving wikipedia.Drew Smith What I've done 11:57, 21 May 2009 (UTC) Then formally declare what he did was wrong. Tell him to unblock, apologize, and admit fault. I still don't understand how this is relevant in the grand scheme of this mess. 黒い白い (KuroiShiroi) 12:06, 21 May 2009 (UTC) Kids, this is stunning and very disappointing. Xeno baited Giano. This is clear. Xeno edited an article Giano was working on and made edits only to infuriate Giano, not to improve the article. Giano got wound up like the predictable top he is and told Xeno his edits were less than stellar. They were. Giano gets blocked for three freakin' weeks? Wtf is that? Xeno feels ashamed and gets censured on his talk page. Here we are in a circle jerk over what to do about Giano. His block should be decreased to 24 hours, which will end in about 12. Is this admin system so fragile that we must twiddle thumbs and wait for consensus? It was an excessive block! Why do we have to wait for the majority of people to realize this? How easy is it to destroy consensus when there are other forums where editors who are tired of Giano can congratulate themselves on shutting him up when articles sit fallow? So I decreased his block to 24 hours from now. I know it wheel wars, but I don't care. Seriously, folks. Get your priorities in order. Content is first always, and it makes people lazy to make decisions based on a string of bad words. Three weeks for Giano is not rehabilitative or corrective and everyone knows it. Stunning! I predict my actions will be overturned in short order. Which means this admin system apparently is fragile. Then fix it. It appears there are a multitude of admins who are very muddy on a lot of concepts and value winning! against an opponent. What kind of atmosphere are we perpetrating here? --Moni3 (talk) 12:21, 21 May 2009 (UTC) Notice: I will block any admin who changes Giano's block after this, or blocks him again after it expires absent new activity from Giano, unless there is prior discussion and clear consensus for the action here or at Arb. Gimmetrow 12:34, 21 May 2009 (UTC) You're clearly involved in this fiasco and have made your opinion well known. Whilst I hope no further actions are taken, you certainly aren't the right person to be blocking anybody over this. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 12:42, 21 May 2009 (UTC) Not the best idea. The consensus so far has been that the reblock was fine - I must admit that I would have favoured a reduction, however consensus does not currently exist for a specific reduction of the block. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 12:42, 21 May 2009 (UTC) You know, I hate being accused of perpetrating some predictable syndrome here, but consensus doesn't always rule over what is just and right. This is a tired argument in my part of the world. If we waited until everyone agreed on what actions are just and fair, nothing would ever be just and fair. Consensus fails when common sense negates it. --Moni3 (talk) 12:48, 21 May 2009 (UTC) That depends on your definition of common sense. Most people would call common sense not wheel warring and totally ignoring consensus. Not such a great idea, imo. Ale_Jrbtalk 12:49, 21 May 2009 (UTC) Consensus is absolutely key when blocks have already been removed and restored. I would say the common sense way of handling this is to go with the consensus - this was the worst move you could have made in my opinion. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 12:51, 21 May 2009 (UTC) A far worse move is one that you and too many of your fellow administrators have made, turning a blind eye to evident corruption. Moni3 is absolutely right; corrupt systems are only changed when someone has the courage to challenge them, not by consensus. --Malleus Fatuorum 12:54, 21 May 2009 (UTC) Consensus is cloudy here, the situation is complex and the last thing we want to do is start losing more good editors (and administrators). Some people have supported an unblock, supported a re-block and there's really mixed messages here, on Giano's talk page and on the various other locations where this has been discussed - I notice there are people not explicitly supporting an unblock, but who have commented on the unfairness of the situation, people who want Giano to return and so on. It's reasonable to conclude that there's no firm consensus for anything here, and a sensible compromise is for a short block, anything from 24 to a week, I'd say. The situation is further muddied by the involvement and behaviour of Xeno, people may be unaware of the situation and have supported a block purely based on what was said, but not on what was done leading up to the block. I really, really don't want to see further wheel warring, people trundling off to Arbcom demanding heads on a platter (and you might not get the decision you're hoping for, of course). We really don't need to lose more good content contributors over this situation, so let's accept a compromise block of 1 day to 7 days, let's tone down the rhetoric, let's drop threats and plans of arbitration, please. Giano's comments may not have been the most conducive to collegial collaboration, but the fall out from the whole incident is a lot more damaging and we need to stop inflicting more damage and start repairing things. Please, let's leave everything now and walk away. Nick (talk) 13:53, 21 May 2009 (UTC) Well, one thing we've learned is that if an admin feels that he or she is Right and sees Evident Corruption, wheel warring is a perfectly acceptable way of getting your way. I haven't run across that concept before, but it'll sure to become pretty useful to those inclined. RxS (talk) 14:13, 21 May 2009 (UTC) Common sense is clearly in pretty short supply around here. --Malleus Fatuorum 14:30, 21 May 2009 (UTC) It really is, no doubt about that...RxS (talk) 14:34, 21 May 2009 (UTC) Oh, and another leason we've learned. If you're repeating unblocking or reducing a block you can do so without any discussion what-so-ever. But if you replace a block that's been in force you'll get yourself blocked. That's something that should be more widely disseminated, maybe something in the signpost? Maybe WikiEN-I? RxS (talk) 14:19, 21 May 2009 (UTC) And that admins will be criticized for attempting to stop further wheel warring. Gimmetrow 14:22, 21 May 2009 (UTC) Ok so should Giano come back... I propose a topic ban of sorts. Specifically Giano is restricted to the article space and article talk space (entirely for the purpose of collaboration/article building) and his own userpage and talk page. Anyone noticing a violation of the restrictions must report it here (ANI) and any administrator may block for a period of up to 12 hours. No admin can be both the person noticing/reporting the violation and the person blocking. If actioned, this sanction should be quoted verbatim for purposes of clarity. Reasoning: Giano, partially his own fault, and partially the fault of others, is a cause of drama on wikipedia that we could do without - so we reduce that drama. Giano is also a very good and prolific article writer and it would be a shame to lose that (if we haven't already) - hence allowing article and article talk page usage rather than just removing him entirely. Giano has gathered quite a crowd of ill-wishers - including among admins. Having a different person block to that which noticed it removes a bit of the subjective nature of sanctions like this, also puts the person a bit higher above being accused of stalking for the purpose of blocking the person - the usual problem with civility sanctions. Any admin may block Giano for going outside the sanctions - but some who could be called involved probobly shouldn't for the sake of drama reduction. But because of the less subjective nature of reporting then someone else blocking, an admin who may be called somewhat involved (say sandstein here) is a bit more above reproach and therefore dramaz are less likely to appear. 12 hours: no more than that should be needed to get Giano to step away from the computer for a while and calm down (noone likes being blocked). Past experience has shown that escalating blocks don't work in this case. In reality they end up being a small part prevention and a large part punishment - at least in regards to the incident that caused them. Comments? ViridaeTalk 12:21, 21 May 2009 (UTC) I believe the only conclusion any uninvolved editor can draw from the latest IRC-inspired bruhaha is that he should flee from this backwater to healthier Wikimedia projects as soon as possible. I'm glad that Giano has come to the same conclusion. --Ghirla-трёп- 12:26, 21 May 2009 (UTC) Noted, but can you keep those sentiments elsewhere, they are not really helpful. (oh and I generally agree that he would be better off elsewhere - and I do like Giano) ViridaeTalk 12:30, 21 May 2009 (UTC) The same also applies to you, Viridae. And I do like you. --Ghirla-трёп- 12:36, 21 May 2009 (UTC) That's a really well thought out idea Viridae, but I feel Giano, should he return, should not be prevented from the other namespaces, he (and every other user) should at least have some say over content he's contributing and the direction of the project, so disenfranchising any content contributor from the Wikipedia namespace is wrong. If some administrators want to, perhaps Giano could be prevented from commenting in the other namespaces but his comments could be posted on his behalf, I know it's far from ideal but if Giano's comments are vetted by friendly (and, of course, unbiased) administrators, perhaps that would prevent the need for blocks. I do like the idea of a civility parole, but I fear that many users would continue to goad and bait Giano, so there needs to be very strict guidelines on what will get Giano blocked, and if he is baited, goaded or followed and harassed, those who are responsible are similarly (and severely) reprimanded - a blanked both sides get blocked rule, unless there was no provocation, would be appreciated. Nick (talk) 12:57, 21 May 2009 (UTC) (ec) Putting a proposal forward like this one, one has to consider the likelihood that the intended target, in this case Giano, could possibly go along with it. Unfortunately this proposal amounts to putting Giano on a short leash. It is doubtful that anyone, not only Giano, could accept working under such conditions. Dr.K. logos 13:23, 21 May 2009 (UTC) You cant propose a both sides block, as Xeno got off after provoking Giano.Drew Smith What I've done 13:24, 21 May 2009 (UTC) This is a proposal that is only tentatively related to the above discussion and present block, it specifically is about moving forward and how we intend to deal with any future situations, should they arise. There are a great many users who don't wish to see Giano leave the project and we're trying to find a way forward, with the hope that Giano will return and that we can stop future incidents from arising, or at least, deal with future incidents when they are relatively minor and before they start to warrant blocks. Any proposal needs to make sure that if Giano is to be placed under a parole of some sort, no user dares think they can use that parole and the automatic punishment/preventative measure such a parole invokes to have a user blocked automatically. Nick (talk) 13:41, 21 May 2009 (UTC) Should Giano return under parole / restrictions applied by the all knowledgable, you know full well he'll be baited - yet again - as seen by the Xeno edits. Parole / restrictions would thus trigger action against Giano, validating the baiting. Yes, Giano does get frustrated and not react in what many deem the "optimal" way, but unless you address all areas of the issue, it's a non-solution and the "encyclopedia" is the worst off for it. Minkythecat (talk) 13:49, 21 May 2009 (UTC) I think, if Giano comes back, he should be welcomed under the same civility rules as anyone else, as ever. It's up to him, to deal with his snares of rudeness. This said, it's Giano, most experienced editors know him, I think it's ok to put up with a bit of rudeness now and then and I also think it's ok to go on blocking him when he wantonly lets it seep over the edge. Lastly, I think the block was way too long, but I understand it, don't see it as "abuse" and hence, am neutral on that. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:48, 21 May 2009 (UTC) Giano himself will decide if he comes back or not so this discussion is really irrelevant. The only thing we need to discuss is the length of Giano's block after one of his usual outburst. A block of weeks is clearly excessive, this should be reduced to a matter of days as Giano does make excellent contributions when he controls his temper and avoids baiting other contributors - Galloglass 13:50, 21 May 2009 (UTC) At least, have the block reduced. The supposed injured party Xeno, has declared he 'was not' injured. GoodDay (talk) 14:29, 21 May 2009 (UTC) Viridae, doesn't the above just seem a tad like slave labor? Wikipedia doesn't have prison work camps, you know. And remember, the actions that changed this from a heated discussion to a brawl happened in article space, so your above restriction wont stop the leading cause of this disaster. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:30, 21 May 2009 (UTC) Wait a minute, I thought this was over last night when Giano was unblocked and Xeno "apologized." As far as the apology, it didn't look much like an apology to me; he didn't say explicitly that he realized he had been entirely in the wrong when, in the middle of a heated dispute about a corrupt RfA, he followed Giano to an article he had been working on, which Xeno himself had never before edited, and made provocative edits. All this business about good faith doesn't fly. The very fact that he deliberately followed him there gives the lie to any assertion of acting in good faith. Anyway, I thought it was over then, and I hoped Giano would come back and things would be kind of put back together as well as they could, although if Flying Toaster's RfA isn't either overturned or re-run, I don't see how anything can ever be restored to any reasonable order. I should say I don't know Giano, but I do recognize someone who adds value to the encyclopedia when I see him. Giano has added immeasurable value to the encyclopedia, and continues to do so in the face of almost irrational hostility; but his dedication to the encyclopedia should be rewarded, not punished. As to the present proposal, I think it's brilliant. When you want to maintain the present system of corrupt RfAs, the best thing to do is ban the person who has the guts to express indignation about the corruption from the pages where his protests would annoy those who don't want to hear them. I certainly hope Giano, if he did come back, would have the self-respect to refuse to work under such restraints. Woonpton (talk) 14:58, 21 May 2009 (UTC) Good idea but not going to happen. Many of Giano's supporters like him being uncivil in project space, because he is uncivil to people they dislike. --Apoc2400 (talk) 15:28, 21 May 2009 (UTC) Your lack of any sense of justice or fair play is quite breathtaking. Nobody that I've seen has supported Giano's outburst yesterday, but I've seen many supporting Xeno's far worse behaviour which precipitated it, most of them fellow administrators or wannabes. --Malleus Fatuorum 17:07, 21 May 2009 (UTC) Arbitration I have requested arbitration at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests. It was my intention to limit the scope of the case to the wheel-war between Moni3 and I, but Jehochman (talk · contribs) has, in what was perhaps a wise decision and perhaps not, changed the title of the request and requested a comprehensive arbitral examination of this situation.  Sandstein  14:12, 21 May 2009 (UTC) I did not change the title of the request! Show me the diff where I did. I think it is wise to look at the entire genesis of a dispute, not just the final step. Jehochman Talk 14:33, 21 May 2009 (UTC) My apologies, it was Rootology ([31]). I should have looked more closely.  Sandstein  14:40, 21 May 2009 (UTC) And with that, this whole sorded section should go away. spryde | talk 14:46, 21 May 2009 (UTC) Where should this be discussed? It appears to me, a complete outsider, that the crux of the issue is this statement by the admin who originally blocked giano, "given that Xeno's behavior was a bit more subtle than Giano's (to put it mildly)..." Is "subtle" goading, hounding, and baiting less egregious than using four letter words and schoolyard put-downs? This appears to be the main bone of contention in this discussion. I believe many of us would say that the former is more insidious and damaging to the project than the latter. untwirl(talk) 14:51, 21 May 2009 (UTC) I have to agree. Its disconcerting to see admins act in an innaproriate manner and then have no action taken against them whatsoever, while their victim\apparent enemy is blocked, sanctionied, banned.. etc. Its not as if this is the first contentious thing Xeno has done either. Let us not forget his blocking of Dougstech, among other things. —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 15:51, 21 May 2009 (UTC) Yes. "Subtle" goading, hounding and baiting (especially when followed by an innocent explanation ("I was acting in good faith") is far more insidious and damaging to the encyclopedia IMO than straight out "incivility." Bluntness and exasperation never bother me, but this other kind of stuff is what keeps me from editing the encyclopedia. Woonpton (talk) 16:32, 21 May 2009 (UTC) Charles, Would you care to expand upon the "among other things" part? (Perhaps here) –xeno talk 17:11, 21 May 2009 (UTC) Clarification* The purpose of this question wasn't to get xeno blocked. he has apologized, blocked himself, asked for giano to be unblocked, etc. The point was that prodego (and some others) seem to find "subtle" incivility more innocuous than the more blatant kind, while many believe civility means more than not calling names. i think this is an issue that needs to be addressed. untwirl(talk) 17:46, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

wiki-hounding continues

By turning a blind eye to the evidence and letting FyzixFighter off the hook, you have off course given him the green light to continue his activities. He has just reverted a fully sourced edit at 'centrifugal force' and replaced it with the incoherent mess that existed in its place. There was a chance that the edit war on centrifugal force could have been over, but it is obvious that certain persons are determined to keep it going. As before, FyzixFighter's intervention was pointless and it was motivated by sheer opportunism. David Tombe (talk) 22:23, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

If the IP who just reverted FyzixFighter's edits was you, I suggest you acknowledge it. Since nobody else has ever supported you in your quixotic struggles, the probability seems high. Looie496 (talk) 01:28, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Looie496, That was not my reversion. You really ought to be more concerned about why FyzixFighter made his reversion. David Tombe (talk) 09:39, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Ah, so basically you are in an edit war with this user right? And you think that by coming here and posting about their "malicious" activities, we will automatically take your side and block the other user? C.U.T.K.D ^{T | C} 08:17, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

No. I'm in an edit discussion with other users. FyzixFighter does not edit on 'centrifugal force' in his own right. He only comes to that page to revert my edits. Last year I tried to insert what was essentially equation 3-12 from Herbert Goldstein's 'Classical mechanics' into the centrifugal force page. It resulted in FyzixFighter going to the administrator's notice board and reporting me for disruptive editing. That brought me to attention in a bad light and it indirectly led to me getting an unnecessary block record. I was wrongly accused of trying to impose a controversial point of view. This accusation came from elements who clearly had no knowlegde of the topic.

My suggestion is that you fully investigate this issue. I have done alot of research in certain areas of physics and I have been going around making tricky subjects easier to read by emphasizing the unifying features. FyzixFighter follows me around and tramples over those edits. You only need to examine FyzixFighter's latest reversion to see that he is engaging in wiki-hounding. There was progress being made to end the edit war on centrifugal force but FyzixFighter has destroyed that progress by bringing it down once again to a revert war. You gave him the green light to do so because you ignored the evidence that was presented last week when the first complaint was made.

I don't know who this guy FyzixFighter is. He appears to have an ability in physics, but for some reason he is determined to follow me around and undermine my attempts to make physics articles easier to understand for the lay reader. Just take a look at that latest edit of mine which he reverted. I carefully described what Newton's reactive centrifugal force is, giving direct access to two references, and pointing out how attitudes had been changing. FyzixFighter comes in and restores in incoherent and factually wrong jumble that know reader could follow. That is what you need to investigate. David Tombe (talk) 09:39, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I have informed FyzixFighter of this thread, so that he will have the opportunity to reply. Cardamon (talk) 17:33, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

You guys are obviously biased as you continue to believe that you have some access to what the truth is, although you dont have any real facts to back up your positions. You need to realise that you don't have the absolute truth and that Mr Tombe does have a valid position that needs expression here. I am not a sock puppet and you need to stop falsely accusing Mr Tombe. You guys are an annoying group of poorly informed pseudo-experts. I suggest you actually learn what you are talking about before you delete edits of people who obviously are better informed than you are. This wikipedia continues to publish poorly researched articles that seem to be biased and not very scholarly. You eed too correct this or realise that the public perception that wikipedia is not an accurate and valid source of knowledge is going to continue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.64.47.152 (talk) 11:42, 21 May 2009

Anonymous 72.64.47.152, most of the administrators reading this will not be physicists. If I am correct, I think the point that you are making relates to the unexplainably high degree of trust which they put in FyzixFighter's knowledge of physics. It would certainly seem that way based on what we have read from those few administrators that have stepped forward to speak. But there are a few hundred more who may have read this thread. If they are genuinely interested in making the physics articles more accessible to the reader, then I'm sure that some of them will already be checking through all the reversions to try and establish why this guy FyzixFighter is so determined to undermine all my attempts which are aimed at clarifying difficult subjects in physics. FyzixFighter's most recent reversion would be the one to start on. I suspect that this will all come out in the wash eventually. David Tombe (talk) 19:14, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Cardamon for letting me know about the thread. I'm not certain what kind of reply though would benefit the discussion. The edit that seems to have precipitated it this time is this one: [32]

At least three other editors agree with the reversion:

• User:Brews ohare - who had earlier made the same revert [33]
• User:Wolfkeeper - [34]
• User:Wilhelm meis - [35]

I reverted for pretty much the same reason that Brews stated in the edit summary and Wilhelm's comments on his talk page. The preferred text is also consistent with the various sources provided.

As for some of the other accusations:

• The first noticeboard encounter David refers to can be found here. The report was intended to be less about the edit debates, and more about David's behavior of reverting random, unrelated edits of editors with whom he had a disagreement.
• The reverts from last week or so that David got up in arms about ([36] and [37]) were done because the text David was inserting did not match the source he provided. When I brought the specific statements not supported by the source, David admitted that he had provided the wrong source but still maintained the accusation that I was removing sourced material.

Like I said before, I'm not certain what kind of reply would benefit this discussion. If any of the interested admins have any specific queries, let me know and I'll respond as best I can. Likewise, if any of the above is more detrimental than beneficial to the discussion, let me know and I'll redact it. --FyzixFighter (talk) 19:46, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

FyzixFighter, You only come to physics articles to revert my edits. Your first complaint against me last year was specious because you were insinuating that I was trying to introduce controversial original research into the article, and everybody believed you. But we have all since seen that equation 3-12 in Goldstein's 'Classical Mecahnics' presents a perfectly legitimate approach to centrifugal force, and that is the approach that I was pushing. Few of you, if any, knew about that approach till I brought it to your attention. And your latest reversion is contrary to what it says about reactive centrifugal force in the 1961 edition of Nelkon & Parker when they were still teaching that approach. How about more discussion on the talk pages before you move in for your reverts? You're obviously capable enough of understanding these issues. But it seems that you are learning as you are going along and then digging in to your previous preconceptions. David Tombe (talk) 20:12, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Template:Hadith authenticity and religious POV-pushing

I notice a troubling cleanup tag at {{Hadith authenticity}} that says "This Hadith article needs to state the authenticity of the Hadith to conform to a higher standard of quality." (The Hadith is a collection of Islamic sayings.) It seems that this cleanup tag is used to encourage adding religious POV to articles. No article should need to state the authenticity of any religious text. Religious-themed discussions tend to be a controversial, so I wanted some more eyeballs on this TFD, which is located at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2009 May 20#Template:Hadith authenticity.--Blargh29 (talk) 23:37, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I've commented there--the objection is I think due to a misunderstanding about the need to include the traditional chain of transmission, which is a key part of an hadith, and missing in most of our articles. DGG (talk) 02:09, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

That's a tough call. Both the New Testament and the Koran come from literate cultures, yet there's no solid original text for either. Both texts have a long period of "oral tradition", followed by a cleanup and codification phase. For the Koran, this is well covered at Koran#History_of_Qur.E2.80.99an#Making Mus'haf. The Hadith come from an even weaker oral tradition; there remain disagreements today over which non-Koranic sayings of Mohamed really came from him. See History of Hadith. So a disclaimer isn't wrong. Most of the Hadith spinoff articles discuss multiple viewpoints and texts of the same items. --John Nagle (talk) 17:22, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Still, it is a confusing and unnecessary template--a problem that is more easily solved with a regular cleanup tag and a talkpage note with "Hey! Let's include the traditional chain of transmission." --Blargh29 (talk) 19:09, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Suspicion of another sock puppet involving user Caden

Resolved

 – User is being taken care of down the hall

There is another brand new user, Uikopdep (talk · contribs), whose account was created today (23:53, 20 May 2009). Just three minutes after the account was created, this user tries to sing the praises of Caden’s body of work, while condemning all of those who have distasteful dealings with him. Maybe it’s just me, but this sounds like déjà vu all over again with the sock puppet from yesterday, Corpiestre (talk · contribs). No brand new user in the right frame of mind will just create a new account on here, and immediately comes to the defense of a user guilty of many violations. Clearly, there is motive involved here. Anybody wants to chime in on this. It would be greatly appreciated. KeltieMartinFan (talk) 00:24, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Already blocked and has been reported here. —Travis^talk 00:34, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Corpiestre was a sock of the long-term abuser User:Pioneercourthouse, so it's reasonable to expect that this one might be likewise. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 00:36, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Except he's from a different harassment sockfarm, as it turns out. See below. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 04:08, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

This is not "resolved". The SPI report basically says there's no way to stop these characters in the future other than whack-a-mole. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 11:27, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Let's make this offical already

Pioneercourthouse (talk · message · contribs · global contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · user creation · block user · block log · count · total · logs · summary · email | lu · rfa · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · checkuser · spi · socks ^confirmed_suspected | rfar · rfc · rfcu · ssp | current rights · rights log (local) · rights log (global/meta) | rights · renames · blocks · protects · deletions · rollback · admin · logs | UHx · AfD · UtHx · UtE)

Per all the socking, not to mention the harassment of other users, and the attempt to get other users banned through socking to make it look like PCH is them, I believe it is time to formally ban User:Pioneercourthouse from wikipedia. Opinions?— Dædαlus ^Contribs 02:24, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Could there seriously be any more links in that template? :p Nakon 02:43, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

It's {{Usercheck-full}}, so I doubt it. Besides that, I wanted to make sure all available information was available on this user for others. — Dædαlus ^Contribs 02:46, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Except that it doesn't do that, it hides information through volume, and is kinda a mess. Support the community ban, btw, but seriously, we need a discussion about what to do with that template, too. --M^ask? 03:30, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

• Support- Caden is...prickly, but this ridiculousness only serves to make him look undeservedly bad. //roux   02:58, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

No offense, but you know this has roughly nothing to do with Caden, in the fact that Caden was almost blocked because a sock was attempting to impersonate him.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 03:52, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

That is precisely my point. //roux   05:12, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Alright, I guess I misread then. My bad.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 05:55, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

• Support - Obviously. Pioneercourthouse has been a royal pain since October of 2006, when he first started posting some uncited nonsense about the homeless in Pioneer Courthouse Square. No amount of reasoning with him would get through his thick skull. Until now, at least far as we know, that one article was the extent of his activities. Now he seems to be branching into outright harassment. He's already had more socks than I can count. If no ban was sought before, it's probably that he had confined himself to that one article. Because of him, the PCHS article is permanently protected. It's hard to imagine why such a mundane article would require permanent protection, but those of you who know the history know why. It's time to bring the hammer down on that character. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 03:49, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

And it turns out that tonight's sock Uikopdep (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was actually a sock of Fondesep (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and presumably Horneldinkrag (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), rather than last night's sock Corpiestre (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who was a sock of Pioneercourthouse. So now we have at least two of these characters running around, as well as the Axmann8 impostor from a month ago, who might or might not be one of these two. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 04:05, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Mr. Bugs isn't lying. Pioneercourthouse creates more socks than a Hanes factory, the amount of time that has been spent on page protection, whack-a-mole at checkusers, and so on is amazing. tedder (talk) 04:13, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

• Support permanent community ban for Pioneercourthouse. The part that really is outrageous is impersonating another user and getting them in trouble. — Becksguy (talk) 04:47, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

*Oppose. I would be inclined to AGF here, and give them one more chance, as long as it is shown to them just how serious their situation is. If they then choose to abuse our trust, ban them for all eternity. C.U.T.K.D ^{T | C} 08:10, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to say that you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. This user spends his free time trying to get others blocked by trying to make others think his socks are the socks of others.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 08:14, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Whilst I accept that I cannot produce an expert opinion on this matter, my thoughts are as follows. If this user has been threatened with a community ban before, yet continued disruption, endorse ban. Otherwise endorse last chance saloon. C.U.T.K.D ^{T | C} 08:24, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

No, this user has been indefinitely blocked for continued disruption and harassment. I immediately lose any good faith with users who sock to continue to harass others. I suggest you actually read up on all relevant material before you post your opinion.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 08:46, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Support C.U.T.K.D ^{T | C} 09:03, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

The SPI report is not at all encouraging. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 11:25, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I remain unconvinced that these aren't all emanating from a single user, just maybe using PC's in sufficiently different places that they look like different users. What's discouraging is checkusers' apparent unwillingness to look outside the box on cases like this and also the Axmann8 thing from last month. What's encouraging is that these attempts to implicate another user have gained higher visibility due to increasing attempts at it. So given the link of one of them to Pioneercourthouse, the next time one appears, we can probably take it straight to WP:AIV instead of wasting time setting up tedious and futile SPI's. Just say "single purpose, harassment-only account, and probable sock of the banned user Pioneercourthouse." If that happens enough, maybe the guy will figure the game is up and will go away for awhile. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 12:22, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I believe it's beyond our power to control this user's behavior or persuade him/her to cease the disruption. What is within our power is to limit the amount of time (read: Wikipedia's precious volunteer resources) we spend on the issue. In this particular user's case, there is a clear pattern of disruptive behavior, accompanied by zero constructive contribution to the encyclopedia or to the community. I fully support a community ban, because I believe it will enable us to make quicker, less resource-intensive decisions if and when there are future violations. -Pete (talk) 19:29, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Blocked another one, seemed like WP:DUCK, was responding to report from WP:AIV: account Explainingpioneer (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 23:28, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

• Support permanent community ban. Seems like this sockmaster/block evasion user has exhausted the community's patience. Cirt (talk) 23:29, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
• Support permanent community ban. This person has cost somewhere in the neighborhood of 100 to 200 hours time resulting in a net project value of zero. That's enough to have made significant improvements to dozens of articles, even increase a hand full to featured. What a waste.  :-( —EncMstr (talk) 23:59, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

User:Montana's Defender

Resolved

 – Blocked indef, then they retracted and apologized

Already the subject of an RFC (for frequent reversions while not participating in talk-page discussions), Montana's Defender just posted this to his talk page. It in part reads, "I don't like the fact that you are all ganging up on me and I feel like this is bullying and needs to stop before someone gets hurt or killed which would be a crime. I will or should report this to the cops or someone in charge" (emphasis mine). Suggest an indef. block. (Full disclosure: another part of the message singles me out as someone who's giving him a hard time and, yes, I've nibbled at this newcomer.) --EEMIV (talk) 03:00, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Blocked and templated for violating WP:NLT.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:23, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Hang on a sec, contacting the police because they feel they're being cyber-bullied, after a recent verdict against someone whose cyber-bullying led to someone's death? This person needs help, not blocking ... that to me is not a violation of WP:NLT. If they don't know to go to an admin to deal with the situation first because they're new, then someone needs to help. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 08:46, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

What part of I will or should report this to the cops or someone in charge doesn't sound like a legal threat? If you think he needs help, encourage him to seek it. But so long as he's threatening to call the cops he should be finished here.--Crossmr (talk) 10:30, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

What part of I don't like the fact that you are all ganging up on me and I feel like this is bullying and needs to stop before someone gets hurt or killed which would be a crime.

P.S. Please respect my edits instead of fighting me try helping me.

"Cyber-bullying involves the use of information and communication technologies to support deliberate, repeated, and hostile behavior by an individual or group, that is intended to harm others." actually violates WP:NLT. Yes, he could be crying wolf. However, using phrases like "I feel like..." and "try helping me", and then direct quoting of cyber-bullying shows that this editor needs to be blocked? There is not threat of a lawsuit, it's a cry for respect, and a concern about cyber-bullying (which is a criminal extension of wikihounding). Both WP:NLT and WP:BULLY give recommendations if someone feels there's an issue: perhaps the editor could have been provided the WP:BULLY link, and ask them to deal with their cyber-bullying following policy, rather than just blocked someone who "feels like they're being bullied", because that just places an exclamation mark on it. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:19, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I would also note that the user has removed the "cops" portion from their talkpage (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:23, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

He's making legal threats / intimidations over Star Trek minutia? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 11:24, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

This user has rescinded his threats. Seems like he should be unblocked now. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 19:31, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

SarekofVulcan has unblocked, I have restored their userpage (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 22:39, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

SPA/COI accounts editing on Philippine showbiz-related articles

OK, it seems as though User:Danngarcia had to deal with some fan accounts of which their usernames suggest that they only concentrate in adding potentially COI/POV edits on showbiz-related articles, as shown here. Can someone help me and my mates with this? Blake Gripling (talk) 06:04, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure someone can, although there's not really much I personally could do. C.U.T.K.D ^{T | C} 08:03, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

George Pelltier

Unresolved

George Pelltier (talk · contribs) Currently disrupting Thirteen (House) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) et al (e.g. Allison Cameron (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), and previously Chris Taub (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and Lawrence Kutner (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)) by adding frivolous merge tags to pages. Personal attack after final warning. Sceptre ^(talk) 06:45, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I have notified the editor concerned of this thread. Mfield (Oi!) 07:06, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

That last link you posted was not a personal attack as far as I can see, it was fairly civil if anything. It is my opinion that this thread was started in bad faith. C.U.T.K.D ^{T | C} 08:02, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but accusing an editor of having a mental illness is a personal attack. Sceptre ^(talk) 18:16, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

What makes these proposals frivolous? Sceptre, please explain I think this is a stronger violation by Sceptre of AGF than it is of George Pelltier violating NPA. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 19:33, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Malformed link

Um. I don't know if this goes here, but here it goes. The banner at the top of every project regarding the licensing poll links to a page "Licensing update/Result" specific to that project instead of pointing towards Meta-Wiki ([38] Spanish Wikipedia, for example links there). I caught it a minute or two after it happened and created a soft redirect from Licensing update/Result to the page at Meta. I know this isn't the norm, but until its fixed I think that will suffice. I also asked for it to be page protected, via IRC, because before I redirected it someone else had created the page and added a huge image to it... Hopefully what I did is acceptable. I just didn't know where to post to let people know about this problem (I never use Meta, and wouldn't know where to put this message on there where it would get seen quickly), and I'm about to go to bed. Killiondude (talk) 08:32, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Should be fixed now — vvv (talk) 09:03, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Genocides in history

Resolved. Page procted by Sandstein (talk · contribs). C.U.T.K.D ^{T | C} 10:49, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Could an uninvolved administrator please look at the article genocides in history, and see if the revert war there warrants page protection. --PBS (talk) 09:18, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Done, protected. This may also require A/A arbitration enforcement.  Sandstein  09:22, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Behavior (Editors involved: Edokter, Drew R. Smith, and Arcayne)

(Ok people lets leave the title alone now, its neutral)
Can someone tell Arcayne (talk · contribs · logs) that it is not OK to keep dredging up past issues regarding my conduct that happened long ago, in each discussion we happen to end up in? I am quite sick and tired of content discussions being sidetracked focussing on my past conduct. I have removed his personal attack twice now, but I'm leaving it to other admins to decide what to do next. In any case: I refuse to be subjected to Arcayne's constantly provoking me. — Edokter • Talk • 11:05, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunatly your past behavior was relevant information and wasn't presented in an attacking way. However, your actions in removing his entire post, removing {{fact}} tags from an unsourced bit of information, and harrassing the editor for seeking assistance are all inexusable.Drew Smith What I've done 11:14, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Again, this happaned MONTHS ago. I have provided the proper venue to discuss the issue; what possible benefit is there dredging up old cows from my past? Discuss the content, not the editor. Open a conduct RFC if you have to, but I am no longer tolerating my past actions being highlighted in every discussion I take part in. — Edokter • Talk • 11:19, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

(my apologies; I was crafting this for AN/I, and learnt that Edokter had already posted here)

Edokter is now removing posts from WP:Editor Assistance/Requests from other editors. The discussion surrounds the lack of citation on a page, and the edit-warring that began between between pd_THOR and Edokter. The request for assistance was initiated by pd_THOR and Drew Smith was pretty much siding with pd_THOR. Then Edokter started dropping in the following ominous phrases:

" "I advise [pd_THOR] to cease and disist[sic] this petty dispute"

" "And I am warning [pd_THOR] not to engage in any further forum shopping"

• "This matter is closed.

As someone who has been on the receiving end of Edokter's inappropriate use of his admin tools, I knew what these sorts of comments presaged, and said so. Immediately, Edokter refactored out my post, calling it a "personal attack", and putting a warning on my talk page. I reinstated the info, as refactoring is not the proper method for addressing personal attacks, real or imagined. Edokter removed it yet again, with more ominous language in his edit summary. Then Drew readded it, and suggested that he might wish to open a complaint here to discuss his admin conduct. Edokter again removed the info (for the third time), which brings us here. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 11:23, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Three times? I must have missed the first one. This is a real question, not an attack or anything, but does 3rr apply to EAR?Drew Smith What I've done 11:26, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Removing personal attacks is valid. I will pose the question again: Why does Arcayne see fit to enter a discussion he was not a party of, only to point out past actions which are unrelated? I tell you why: to discredit and to provoke me. That is how I see it. I said so above: I will no longer tolerate personal attacks of this nature dispersed throughout content discussions. Discuss the content. If my conduct is subject to scrutiny, find the proper venue for it. — Edokter • Talk • 11:39, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

One, look at the title of this section "Edoktors behavior again". Seems like the proper venue to me. Two I am reposting this as you apparently didnt see it or were ignoring it "your actions in removing his entire post, removing {{fact}} tags from an unsourced bit of information, and harrassing the editor for seeking assistance are all inexusable." Three, he had every right to chime in there as it is called Editors Assistance, and he is , first and foremost, and editor. Four, it wasn't a personal attack, or dredging up old cows, it was pertinent info. He was expressing the concern that your current actions were mirroring your past actions.Drew Smith What I've done 11:44, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

(ec)I also find it distressing that Edokter doesn't feel that his past behavior should be involved in a discussion about his behavior. Had it something that happend years ago, maybe he'd have a point. Maybe if the behavior had improved, he'd have a better point. The problem is, it hasn't. He still edit-wars as an admin, which colors how all admins are viewed. He still threatens the use of his admin tools (though, in fairness, he hasn't called for anyone to be topic-blocked in almost a whole month).

On the prior occasions where Edokter's questionable behavior has been discussed here at AN/I (1, 2, 3, [39]), he has proven resistant to adjusting his behavior to be less attack-y, more civil, and avoiding the use - or threat of use - of the admin tools to block users, maliciously nom pages for deletion when he doesn't get his way, etc. On each occasion, Edokter is counseled and warned about his behavior. How many warnings does he get before we de-sysopp him? That won't address the underlying problem of incivility - indeed, nothing to this point has - but it will effectively remove his ability to use, or threaten to use his admin tools to block those he opposes.

And, to respond to Edokter, just because I am not part of your argument with pd_THOR and Drew Smith doesn't mean I am unaware of the familiarity of both the subject matter and the manner in which you address such arguments. If you have done nothing wrong, you cannot be discredited. If you own your own behavior, you cannot be provoked. Take ownership for your own behavior, for crying out loud; stating that someone else is trapping you and making you be uncivil is preposterous. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 11:46, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

That is exactly my point! There is absolutely no reason to point out any past actions. Doing so only serves one purpose: to discredit my current position. It is also Arcayne pattern of behaviour to discuss the editor rather then the content, at least that is the pattern when I am involved. I dare Arcayne to discuss any issue without even referencing my blocking him in the past; I will guarantee it; he will not be able to do so. — Edokter • Talk • 12:02, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

As a general comment (and I've not looked deeply into this dispute, but just stumbled across this diff on my watchlist) I think that there are definitely some civility/tone issues[40] that need dealing with. ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 11:59, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Wow, Arcayne, those were some harsh words there. While it doesnt constitute an attack, it was defenitly uncivil, and should be avoided. Perhaps you should take a break from this and come back when you've cooled down. On a side note, what did I do to get my name in the title?Drew Smith What I've done 12:05, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

My talk page is not article or article-talk space, now is it? And frankly, asking someone to stay away is indeed my prerogative. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 12:07, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Not that it should be there, but you did question my conduct implying that I abused the admin tools. An admin is just another editor, and I acted as an editor. So any reference to my being an admin was misplaced. — Edokter • Talk • 12:10, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Please post diffs to prove this. I only said you were breaching the admin code of conduct, and Arcayne pointed out that your language seemed to indicate that you were going to abuse your admin tools.Drew Smith What I've done 12:13, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

(ec)Indeed, you used language very close to this before blocking, calling for topic bans, nominating entire articles for AfD, etc. If I had not said anything, what might you have done, as the consensus was against your reasoning? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 12:20, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

And that's the whole problem here: Arcayne's prophecies. I learned well from my mistake. If I warn someone, which is well within my right, it does not in any way indicate an action on my part. There are 1600 admins here, and it is no trouble pointing their attention to such an editor. Arcayne continues, to this date, to imply that anytime I issue a warning, that *I* will be the one using any admin toos. As long as her maintains that unsubstantiated accusation, there can be no discussion between me and him. — Edokter • Talk • 12:19, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

<---- In most cases I would believe you, however your past behavior seems to indicate a trend of vindictive use of admin tools. And once more I ask you to explain your actions outlined here "removing his entire post, removing {{fact}} tags from an unsourced bit of information, and harrassing the editor for seeking assistance"Drew Smith What I've done 12:22, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Edokter, please refrain from posting unconstructive edits. The biggest part of gaining consensus is asking and answering questions. We have both asked you countless times to explain your actions, and you have only proceded to discuss unrelated points.Drew Smith What I've done 12:29, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Please point out any "vindictive use of admin tools" I may have comitted. I made one mistake. Any other action never involved any admin tools. As long as Arcayne cannot engage in discussion without yelling "Look look, he blocked me!", any unsubstantiated implication that I will abuse the admin tools again is viewed as a personal attack and nothing more then an attempt to discredit my current actions; I refuse to let that be part of any discussion from now on. — Edokter • Talk • 12:36, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

(ec)Clearly, you haven't learned from your mistake; the same problems pointed out a year ago are still an ongoing issue with you. Do I need to bring every instance of correlation where your language initiated admin action? Not even a weeks ago, when you unilaterally declared in another article that discussion was closed, your next step was to call for a topic ban. Maybe you don't really intend admin action every time you declare one of these fiats of yours, but they have the tone of someone who can (and has) used the tools to get their way.

And lastly, the title has been fixed to more accurately reflect the problem. I am not the problem, and neither is Drew (or pd_THOR). Maybe leave it be, please. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 12:28, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

<--- Leave it neutral Arcayne, the title won't hurt you. Let him have that small victory.Drew Smith What I've done 12:33, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Not that you really controll the discussion, but it is a big part of the discussion. And your use of the phrase "I refuse to let that be part of any discussion from now on" Is extremely troubling. Just how, might I ask, will you do this?Drew Smith What I've done 12:38, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I am refering to any content related discussion. This thread I brought to ANI myself, and my question is equally simple: provide any proof thah I have, or will abuse my admin tools, because that is the heart of this discussion, and I appriciate not deviating from the subject. — Edokter • Talk • 12:44, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I never said you abused your tools. I said you are violating the admin code of conduct. Please address the conduct previously mentioned.Drew Smith What I've done 12:48, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Frankly, you brought the thread here after someone suggested that they might have to; you did so as to attempt to reframe the issue. Which is pretty much what you are trying to do now. Allow me to ask you the simplest of questions: had pd_THOR not chosen to "cease and disist[sic] this petty dispute", or 'close the discussion' as per your demand, what might have happened next? If I choose to say something about the similarity in both tone and tactics, then it isn't a personal attack - especially if it happens to be true.

And for the record, I didn't say you were abusing your admin tools in the 33 discussion; I said that, based on your past conduct, you were likely about to. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 12:50, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, and as I repeatedly point out, saying "I am likely about to" is an unsubstantiated and unfounded accusation, and therefor a personal attack. Asuming that I will abuse the tools again is bad faith, which you have repeatedly demonstrated by not being able to let go. I even apologised for that block, something I am starting to regret. — Edokter • Talk • 12:57, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Break (behaviour)

Ok, Edokter, we understand your side of the argument. Now try to answer some questions. ""I refuse to let that be part of any discussion from now on" Is extremely troubling. Just how, might I ask, will you do this?" and can you explain these actions:"removing his entire post, removing {{fact}} tags from an unsourced bit of information, and harrassing the editor for seeking assistance" I am quoting these to show, that I have asked many many times, and you still ignore me.Drew Smith What I've done 13:12, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

1) I will no longer permit content discussion to contain any reference to my past action to further the other side's agenda. I cannot be bothered to filter out the legitimate part of a post; that is the poster's responibility. That is why I removed the entire post. 2) My removing the fact tag is an editorioal decision, which I have explained in the article's talk page, in short because I believe it does not need sourcing, and an RFC regarding that matter is currently ongoing. 3) pd_THOR was conducting in forum shopping, and I am well entitled to point that out. I am also entitled to issue warnings if that conduct continues. Let me reitterate that warnings do in no way indcate action on my part, they only express my viewpoint of the situation. Implying ohterwise is what has braught us here in the first place. — Edokter • Talk • 13:24, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately forum shopping cannot be applied. Editors assistance is part of the dispute resolution proccess, and you and he were clearly in dispute. As for the fact tag, general practice is not to remove them until it is either sourced, or consensus as been reached to remove the tags.Drew Smith What I've done 13:27, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me? Could the lot of you stop bickering? You've taken up a ridiculous amount of space. Take it to talkpage and let somebody outside and uninvolved comment here, as you (Edokter) presumably wanted when you started the thread. Please. ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 17:45, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

It seems to me that you all have brought your argument here and have done over 95% of the contributions to this thread. Just block all three and be done with it.--Jojhutton (talk) 18:29, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your neutral opinion, Jojhutton. I think you have missed the point. Edokter keeps arguing using language that tends to belittle and threaten reprisal to any opposition. When this behavior was called into question, Edokter saw it as a personal attack and filed here. The remainder here is explanation/clarification of that behavior. As he is an admin, that sort of behavior doesn't really fit the code of conduct that admins have set up for themselves. When such problems occur with admins - specifically this admin - the talk page doesn't work, as Edokter has unilaterally declared discussion complete.

I guess it would be up to his fellow admins; maybe they see this behavior as acceptable. I don't, and neither do Drew or pd_THOR. We were looking for neutral admins to weigh in and offer some advice and assistance; I for one wasn't looking for a Edokter block - a de-sysop, but not a block. With respect, you are neither neutral nor an admin. But again, thanks for your opinion. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:01, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

<< Can the three users with the dispute, each of whom is identified in the section title, please now back off and allow a neutral party to resolve, or advise upon, the issue. I don't claim to be a neutral party, and it seems that Jojhutton isn't either, but his words are nonetheless true - you've made a huge load of pointless discussion that nobody wants to wade through. Please wait. ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 19:59, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I am eagerly awaiting any other admins' comments, and they they are of course free to chime in at any time. — Edokter • Talk • 23:19, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

AIV backlog

Resolved

Can someone help please!!! C.U.T.K.D ^{T | C} 11:21, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Clear. Ale_Jrb^talk 11:31, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

62.6.250.109 (talk · contribs)

Resolved

- blocked for 31 hours. Kingturtle (talk) 14:12, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

User 62.6.250.109 (talk · contribs): Constantly adding unsourced plot details to Ashes to Ashes (TV series) and adding unsourced titles to List of Ashes to Ashes episodes, as well as other edits for which he has received warnings. Despite being given multiple warninsg and a last warning with regards to both Ashes to Ashes articles, the user continues to vandalise the article with the same unsourced additions. magnius (talk) 11:42, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

NCNOLT AfD

Could someone please have a look at this afd? It could use a set of eyes as to user conduct, and being involved, I don't wish to inflame the situation by attempting to address the conduct of others. Thanks in advance. Athanasius • Quicumque vult 17:36, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Warning Chuck. Thanks.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:26, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

His repeated asumptions of bad faith and attempts to subvert the Afd process are not helpful. Does this edit of his [41] count as a legal threat? The edit was made after you warned him. Edward321 (talk) 23:40, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

CfD categories renamed

Resolved

Nothing requiring administrator intervention. - Philippe 22:35, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

In short. After proposing a certain change on Wikipedia:Village_pump_(miscellaneous)#From.2Fsince_in_maintenance_categories and receiving all positive reactions, I and an admin by the name of User:Rich Farmbrough renamed two maintenance categories. The reason was standarisation of category names.

The editors usually busy with this category weren't informed and started protesting. No bad intent was involved, since we thought consensuson the Village Pumpwas enough. Those editors did not bring forth any substantial arguments other than that they were not informed. A discussion ensued on Wikipedia_talk:Categories_for_discussion#CfD_categories_renamed in which we and others participated.

Now, suddenly, in the middle of that ongoing discussion where quite some people have stated their support of the change we made, those editors started reverting our good changes.

Please tell them to stop. Not only for the sake of our good changes, but even just because this is not fitting for admins, to start undoing good work in the middle of a discussion.Debresser (talk) 17:40, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

If you had let CFD know about the changes you were about to make to the CFD administrative categories, you wouldn't have had consensus to make the change in the first place. You don't work on those categories. The people that do didn't think there is a problem. So what's the issue with changing it back to the way it was? --Kbdank71 18:04, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

For the sake of argument. Any editor on Wikipedia works on anything. That is what Wikipedia is about. Also, obviously those working there didn't see the problem, because it is not an inside problem of that category. It is about standarising all of Wikipedia maintenance categories. And see Wikipedia:List_of_monthly_maintenance_categories_given_month that this category is the only one out of 43 which is not standarised!! Debresser (talk) 18:25, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

"Any editor" that is smart enough to read and understand policies and guidelines might be able to work on anything, but that obviously doesn't apply to you. Standardizing categories, of whatever kind, takes place at WP:CfD. That's a policy. Your abuse of Village Pump (miscellaneous) that few read — not even Village Pump (policy) which at least would be applicable — and changing CfD templates and categories without even posting a notice at CfD Talk itself, is so appallingly out of process that it's ... hard to think of a polite word. As for "the only one": that might be true today, but I can read the prior history and it wasn't true quite recently. Moreover, the very idea that discussion categories need to be standardized across projects is beyond silly, even ludicrous. A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds.
--William Allen Simpson (talk) 18:59, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for enlivening the discussion a little with a few personal attacks. Likewise you make such logical arguments that I don't think I need to waste time on refuting (most of) them. Debresser (talk) 19:17, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I forgot to mention their second argument: "this is the way it has been for so long". That argument was discussed there. But that is not the issue. The problem now is misuse of admin priviliges in by reverting changes in the middle of an ungoing discussion. Debresser (talk) 18:14, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Propose: reverting their undoing of our edits; disciplinary action against the admins involved. (I'm not an admin, so I don't know what.) Debresser (talk) 18:20, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Can you provide a link that shows misuse of administrative tools? - Philippe 18:32, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

These two reverts: [42] and [43] Debresser (talk) 18:45, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

The returning to use of Category:CfD 2009-04, Category:CfD 2009-05 and Category:CfD 2009-06 by that same user. Although anyone can do this, it is not customary for non-admins to remove speedy templates. Debresser

I'm not sure if I see any misuse of administrative tools there... I might not have reverted until the discussion was over, but I don't think that's a misuse of tools that should result in sanctions (which this board isn't really empowered to do, anyway, any more than any normal user...). By the way, have you notified the users in question of this thread? - Philippe 18:48, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

All of them, obviously. Debresser (talk) 18:52, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

A change to a protected page only an admin can do. But even if this is not misuse of admin priviliges, they have to be stopped and revert their changes pending the outcome of the discussion. That is unacceptable behavior on Wikipedia, all the more so for admins. They are knowingly engaging edit-warring. Debresser (talk) 18:55, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

And the first set of changes were initiated by you with edit comments that were not appropriate. To imply that the deletion requests were not controversial clearly was not correct. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:03, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I was the person that restored the categories that were deleted out of process and the changes that were made without discussion. While I did rollback those changes, this was a change that any user could have made. I find it interesting that someone has proceeded to re delete the categories. So if the complaint about recreating while the discussion was ongoing is valid then the second deletion should have also waited. I'll also ask how much attention to the facts the administrator who did the first deletes was paying to the task at hand. The number of edits from that account was rather high around that time and the account was doing thousands per day and several per minute.Vegaswikian (talk) 18:59, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I'll support.

• It's hard to fault the poor fellow who followed a false {{db-house}} template added by Debresser yesterday on Category:CfD 2009-04 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs).
• But Farmbrough is misguided at Category:CfD 2009-05 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), but should have known that the whole thing was against policy. He's been around for many years.
• And the log entry for Category:CfD 2009-06 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) was "‎(G6: Housekeeping and routine (non-controversial) cleanup: Administration category by date, expired and emptied)" — yes, next month's date had expired!

There's two administrators that should be sanctioned!
--William Allen Simpson (talk) 19:12, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I have noproblem with you posting here... But it is a little off-topic. Debresser (talk) 20:01, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Does anyone actually disagree with the changes (and if so, why?), or is this just because no one at WT:CFD has been asked beforehand? I agree that that should have happened, but I'm pretty sure that there was no malice involved, so let's not assume bad faith, shall we? --Conti|✉ 19:25, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes. These are used by only a small number of admins who are happy with the current names. The names chosen are not correct as is demonstrated by the adding of a third variation of name to the mix. This is not the place to resolve category naming issues. Personally we should undo the changes that were made and have a proper discussion by nominating those names for a change. Going back to the old names is preferred since one of the parties involved in creating this mess has apparently decided that the first names created out of process are not correct. This is strong support for a full discussion and not leaving the ones that almost everyone likely agrees are not correct. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:07, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Debresser, while I understand your frustration, I don't think there's anything for this board to do. Any issues you have could be dealt with at RfC, but there's nothing here that requires immediate administrative attention, I think. - Philippe 19:01, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I've got no idea who made further edits, but stopping you in the middle of violating Wikipedia guidelines is a good thing by any means, isn't it? Debresser (talk) 19:02, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Over there they give comments. I'm asking their actions be reverted. And I do think this was misuse of admin priviliges. These two things belongs here, don't they? Would you care to explain why you think you shouldn't do anything about these two things. Debresser (talk) 19:06, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

To make all of this more interesting, there are now a third set categories for April and May. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:33, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

And where are these? And why and by whom? Debresser (talk) 19:37, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Category:Categories for discussion by Rich Farmbrough. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:52, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. :) Debresser (talk) 20:01, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Ok. Do I have to take this to arbitration? Debresser (talk) 19:59, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

An arbitration case would likely be denied until you have completed the other steps in dispute resolution, beginning with an RfC, as I suggested above. :-) - Philippe 20:06, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Bureaucracy instead of justice. Law of the jungle rules. Iam disapointed. Debresser (talk) 20:11, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure why. Our Dispute Resolution procedures are in place because, generally, they work. Are you upset that it doesn't lead to the result you want immediately? From what I can see, there's a question as to the veracity of where you posted this for comment, and given that, I think it might be best to re-run the process, beginning with a post, as suggested, in WT:CFD. - Philippe 20:15, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I'll explain. This post of mine here is not to discuss the change of the category names. Ths is about stopping people making edits (part of them on protected pages by admins) in the middle of a discussion. I understand that this is the right place for that. Debresser (talk) 20:23, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

The only way to STOP someone from making edits is to block them, and I don't see a blockable offense here. That's why I'm saying there's nothing here that can be done administratively. Really, your best route is to reopen the discussion or open an RfC. - Philippe 20:29, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Why are you trying to escalate this rather then trying to resolve the naming issues? Vegaswikian (talk) 20:34, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

My comment to the last post of both Philippe and Vegaswikian is that the discussion was not closed by me but by Vegaswikian making changes in the middle of discussion. I hereby ask him to voluntarily undo these pending the outcome of the discussion. If Vegaswikian will agree to this, I will likewise refrain from persuing any outside evaluation and the like of his actions in this case. Debresser (talk) 21:01, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, if you want to get to what needs undoing, you can agree to return everything to the way it was before you started your changes that were not within policy. A partial list of issues is provided above. Clearly you violated policy with a discussion in the incorrect place and then acting on that discussion. Clearly you made changes that required administrator action without accurate, factual and truthful edit comments. I think everyone has been trying to assume good faith here and that is shown by no one placing a warning on your talk page which we all could have done. As pointed out above, the administrator that did some of the changes no longer believes that the names that you are supporting are still correct. So go back to correct names and discuss in the proper forum for the proper length of time the proposed names. Clearly the names selected appear to have a problem since even Rick's action shows that he thinks they are wrong. That clearly shows that the changes were made without sufficient discussion.Vegaswikian (talk) 21:25, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I can not make edits that require administrator action, since I am not an admin. As to my edits, if you mean to say that the category I created could have been named a little more accurate, you may be right, bit in any case I do not think that would be reason for starting to post warnings on my talk page and rightfully nobody has done so. However, all this is besides the point. The only point is you jumping to undo edits in the middle of discussion. I feel obliged to offer you the possibility to continue the discussion at the same point you stoped it, by reverting your edits. If the correct procedure is to go to RfC, I will do so. I will sincerely regret the time involved, as well as the prospect of antigonising people I'd rather work with than against, but Wikipedia can not tolerate such breaching of its dispute resolution procedures. Debresser (talk) 21:42, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Speaking as somebody very familiar with the dispute resolution procedures, you don't seem to know them well. Where is the policy that your changes not be reverted? Note that the guideline Wikipedia:Be bold#...but please be careful clearly says:

"It is important not to be insulted if your changes are reverted or edited further."

and Wikipedia:Be bold#Non-article namespaces

"Although it is acceptable to be bold in updating articles, it is easier to cause problems in other namespaces by editing without due care. The admonition "but do not be reckless" is especially important in other namespaces."

Finally, calling for sanctions against administrators here for properly reverting after a short discussion at the proper place is an example that would lead an RfC against you. As would ad hominem attacks calling citations of your failure to comply with policy "personal attacks", as you did here today.
--William Allen Simpson (talk) 22:50, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to return to the position I held several hours ago: nothing here requires immediate administrator intervention. I'm going to mark this resolved for the purposes of this board. - Philippe 22:35, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Admin actions were reverts on protected templates, hence theoretically a wheel-war, but lets just sort out the substantive issue. Rich Farmbrough, 22:55 21 May 2009 (UTC).

Problematic user

This guy Hrhadam (talk · contribs) is not behaving. For some reason he blanked a legitimate reference I added to an article without any explanation [44], he has an attack posted at the top of his own talk page disparaging people who post there [45], he insists on adding musical genres to various britpop articles and promises to revert war when they're removed [46]. I don't know what his deal is. Iggy pop goes the weasel (talk) 18:44, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Andrewrp

Resolved

 – Apology issued, user will be more careful in future. ➲ redvers ^{throwing my arms around Paris} 21:17, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I do not know if Andrewrp is using a bot to autorevert but i believe he is being abit overzealous about reverting without actually reviewing the tag and articles history and/or contents, however he reverted and deleted a SD tag on an article that i had tagged and blanked as it being an attack page. He labeled it vandalism without bothering to check the article (article was deleted as an attack page. Then told me not to vandalize. When I asked him why he thought it was vandalism. He replied that he didnt personally agree with the tag and deleted it. I responded to him citing what parts were constituting the attack page tag but the comments were immediatly deleted. I noticed that in the history of the talk page there is a possible history of this. Avatar 06349 (talk) 19:03, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

• The article you are discussing appears to have been deleted; what administrative action is required? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 19:07, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
• Andrewrp is using WP:Huggle. I'm not sure if any administrative action is required, though it's disappointing he apparently didn't respond well to your comments (which I couldn't find, by the way - where did this discussion take place?) Personally, I think Andrewrp needs to slow down a wee bit - this could have been handled a bit better, but it's easy to see how it would look like vandalism if you didn't delve into the background. Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 19:29, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
• I agree I should slow down a bit, but what is this guy ranting about? I reverted the page, placed a deletion tag on it, and left it. The page was deleted. I don't see why avatar is ranting. There is no reason to rant. Also, as hugglers will know, I can not see the current revision of the page... only the diff. Maybe in a new version? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrewrp (talk • contribs)

• Andrew, the substantive point would seem to be (as in my general point below), why did you blank his questions on your talk page without comment? ➲ redvers ^{throwing my arms around Paris} 19:40, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

  Also, I'm assuming that the generic warning template you left because you disagreed with his choice of a speedy tag probably wasn't appreciated. --Onorem♠Dil 19:46, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

• I DID comment. I said that I did ot consider it an attack. He said that the homo was an attack, and I left it there. See http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Andrewrp&diff=prev&oldid=291428714 for proof. The page is deleted, over with. Just because a different tag was used, is that a thing to complain about? Andrewrp^Tally-ho! 19:56, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Blanked from his talk page pretty rapidly. To climb on an old hobby horse of mine, users of automated tools very often blank complaints from their talk pages very quickly, and almost as often give a grudging apology on the user's talk page, where it won't be noticed. I am, of course WP:ABF in this. But users of automated tools in general (I don't speak as to this case) rarely display any WP:AGF in their somewhat wanton reversions. ➲ redvers ^{throwing my arms around Paris} 19:35, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

• O.K. In the future I will be careful with my use of automated tools. I am sorry. Maybe a temporary ban would be suited? I will apologize. Andrewrp^Tally-ho! 21:06, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I guess it was more of a issue about bot usage by a non-admin without a measure of control. Or perhaps a warning since he just ssems to delete any comment that is mainly negative from talkpage almost immediatly. Avatar 06349 (talk) 19:25, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, the warning you were given was wrong, and warning him, in the presence of this thread, would be pointless. But for the record: the article in question read:

<redacted name> is a rare type of cheese sometimes found in countries with high GDP per capita, including Liechtenstein, Luxembourg and Norway.

Disambiguation: Flaming homosexual

No matter what Andrew told you, you were exactly right to tag the article. Wikipedia generally asks for such things not to be blanked, in case the reviewing admin is too stupid to look at the history as they are required to do before deleting, although in this case I personally think you were right to do so. ➲ redvers ^{throwing my arms around Paris} 19:54, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

• I think that there are too many people talking. PLEASE get an admin to close this. What is the point of arguing over a deleted page? I know now and I have tried to fix this. Andrewrp^Tally-ho! 20:22, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

• Please provide diffs of where you tried to fix this. So far, all I see is you being too quick to use your automated tools, blanking fair questions about your use of automated tools, offering a grudging non-apology to the person you reverted with automated tools and saying here that you did nothing wrong with automated tools and that thus you want this thread closed. Correct me if I'm wrong. ➲ redvers ^{throwing my arms around Paris} 20:28, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

• And now you've archived selected threads from your talk page and then made 20 nonsense edits to the page, pushing the problems very far down the history. I'm seeking, at this point, a reason why your use of automated tools, which you don't appear to be able to justify, should continue. ➲ redvers ^{throwing my arms around Paris} 20:44, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

• Ok. As you can see, I have about 1,500 edits. My reason for adding jibberish to my talkpage is because I did not have a TOC. But after some talking on IRC, I was told I needed at least 4 messages for it to generate a TOC. I use huggle appropriately, as you can see from my history. I know I have goofed up, and will now be careful in the future. I also have NPWatcher rights. As far as I can see, there is no reason for me to be stopped from using automated tools. I have stopped many vandals.Andrewrp^Tally-ho! 20:54, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but this diff suggests that your use of Huggle is sometimes less than careful. I urge you to take more care in future. Rodhullandemu 20:57, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, your use of automated tools is not 100% perfect and you should not think it so, lest you continue to make mistakes. Additionally, you owe Avatar 06349 (talk · contribs) a (non-grudging) apology, which I'm sure you will make in order to close this matter. ➲ redvers ^{throwing my arms around Paris} 21:01, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

• O.K. In the future I will be careful with my use of automated tools. I am sorry. Maybe a temporary ban would be suited? I have apologized Andrewrp^Tally-ho! 21:15, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Vh1-fac

Resolved

 – Article is no longer speedy-tagged, editors are hacking away at it gently ;-) Apologies for the noise... This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 23:11, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

• Apologies for hi-jacking this thread, but it is tangentially related. Could anyone with a few minutes to spare keep an eye on User talk:Vh1-fac#Re: kytrell? I've been helping them with an article they created which was tagged for deletion (resulting in my involvement in this thread), but I'm going to be offline for a wee while? They may have questions about notability, etc. They have been posting in weird places, and I figured a helping hand would help minimise possible disruption. Feel free to remove this and slap me if it's completely inappropriate... Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 19:52, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

• Refactored to separate a seemingly unrelated thread. ➲ redvers ^{throwing my arms around Paris} 19:54, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

NoRULEZ

Resolved

 – Sent to AIV. ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 19:17, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

There is a user called norulez. He was blocked and came back as norulez2. Can SOMEONE BLOCK ALL ACCOUNTS WITH ANYTHING LIKE NORULEZ? Andrewrp^Tally-ho! 19:16, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

You'd need to list all the relevant accounts on this page. Thanks. ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 19:17, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

(ec)Too broad a brush. But we can keep an eye on this pattern. Report new accounts to AIV, referencing this thread, each time they appear. ➲ redvers ^{throwing my arms around Paris} 19:18, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Possible sock?

I've just reverted an edit by User:Mfybht on the Metallica article. This rang a few bells because I've seen similiar edits before. The user User:Painjoiker earned himself an indefinite block for that and other reasons (you can can see as such on his last contributions). And comparing the two users contributions I can see definite patterns - sporadic(?) vandalism, frequently creating band/music/album articles, usually with issues of notability (which are frequently deleted through various means). Very little communications, very rarely uses edit summaries, never ever seems to respond to questions and enquiries, or justifies edits. Article editing patterns seem to be similar too (i.e. both have heavy contributions to numerous articles such as Artifact (band), Eternal Tears of Sorrow and numerous instanstaces of minor edits after Painjoiker was blocked Debauchery (band) and Turmion Kätilöt). Only down side is that user creation date doesn't match, Painjoiker was blocked this January and Mfybht was created in Oct 2008. Worth looking into? I'd rather get a second opinion/checkuser before I start any sockpuppet cases. Rehevkor ✉ 19:56, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Bishonen using status as admin to control others while violating our civility policy

Unresolved

 – Not blockable without warnings. This belongs at WP:WQA. Please take it there.

Gwen Gale (talk) 01:53, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Unresolving - what and get accused of forum shopping? No thanks - discussion is ongoing, archiving this thread is completely inappropriate and gives the impression admins are trying to bury the issue or shunt it onto another lower profile/traffic board. Exxolon (talk) 02:03, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

It's not forum shopping if the thread has been closed with a note to take it to WP:WQA, where this belongs. Gwen Gale (talk) 02:07, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

WP:WQA is it's own words "non-binding". Also this forum is appropiate for "...incidents that may require administrator intervention" - which is what is required here. Exxolon (talk) 02:14, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

• Bishonen (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Please see this diff, and I quote: Yes, I do, you little shit. Don't interfere with Giano's page. Now get lost. Shoo! Last time I checked, Retired tags are given to those users who have self-identified as retired. So Giano might come back? The user is still retired, and that tag is not any means of insult to them, it is a notice to others that weren't involved in the matter that the user is gone for the time being. Last time I checked, admin status is to prevent disruption in matters you are not involved with, and further, in matters that are seriously disruptive, it isn't some steel toe you can stick in a matter you're personally involved with a use to push around and be rude to others.

True, wikipedia is a private website, but what goes on here, not mentioning matters of oversight of course, is anyone's business. If the matter is private, then make it private, instead of putting it on an open noticeboard. Last time I checked, no one but Bish appointed themselves to be the controller of Giano's user and user talk page, as also noted when they removed an arbcom notice, seen here.

What admin action do I want? Not much, if anything, I would like someone to remind Bish that they can't use their admin status to push those they don't like around, and be uncivil to them without consequence. I may not not been deeply involved in this matter like everyone here, mainly because I chose to stay away from it, but I am not going to sit here and let someone treat me like shit over such a small matter like a retired tag.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 21:43, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

<cough> Where would you like the steel toe? Bishonen | talk 22:08, 21 May 2009 (UTC).>

• Completely unacceptable. Any normal editor would have been blocked immediately for that. Any bets on Bish being blocked? I didn't think so. //roux   21:57, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure I'm just missing it, but can you point me to where admin status came into play? Nathan ^T 21:57, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, when Bish told me what to do, in regards to the template. Yes I do control something, don't do it again? It may not be visible, but if you take the time to look, you will see the or else threat.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 22:11, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

It's nothing to do with admin status, it's just plain rude. Nothing will happen though. Admins are generally excempt from policies. Majorly talk 22:00, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Please, not more nonsensical behaviour - you shouldn't have put the retired tag on the page, I'm sure you can see how that would be considered, by many, to be a highly contentious thing to do at the moment, and of course, Bish shouldn't have spoken to you in that manner. You both should be hit about the head with a trout (and perhaps not one that is fully defrosted). Nick (talk) 22:02, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Apparently, Bish is now threatening me. More use of status to push others around, when will someone put a stop to it?— Dædαlus ^Contribs 22:09, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I see no evidence of Bish using her status to push you around, I see a comment than any editor, indeed, even an anon IP could have made. You've reported the incident, now please stop pushing the matter, it's harmful to the project. I don't know what you want, and I honestly don't think there's anything actionable about the second comment anyway. I do agree that the first comment was out of line, but I believe you adding the retired tag to Giano's talk page was equally inappropriate and that there's no pressing need to take action against either of you. Nick (talk) 22:17, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

See Maxypoda pair of theses on User talk:Bishonen. Little 'poda think it good solution here. maxypoda tik-tik-tik! 22:35, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Someone who sets out to be petty and juvenile as part of a longstanding grudge of severe incivility against another editor shouldn't expect some tonguelashing for it. This whole concept that disruptive and uncivil behavior is somehow fine but less than civil comments are not (especially as a response to the bad behavior) is completely backwards. DreamGuy (talk) 23:21, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a battleground. Bish knows better, and will either be suitably ashamed of herself in the morning, or continue this behavior until she finds herself with our other high-profile, well-loved, and sorely missed forced retirees. As for Daedadelus, you've made your complaint, there is no serious threat Bishonen can do anything to you or your wiki-career, and if you continue pursuing this, you will lose whatever sympathy you've gained.--Tznkai (talk) 23:40, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh noes, he'll lose all that? You're a cruel man, Tznkai. Bishonen | talk 23:52, 21 May 2009 (UTC).

Looks to me like you ran out in your Sunday finest and big grin to dance on a well-known person's grave, and got kicked to the mud for it. Which is the primary incivility? Should Bishonen have responded in that manner? No. But then, odds are good you were hoping a certain other person would have, so you could bring them here instead. Now your'e here crying that someone ruined your fun. Walking away would be best. ThuranX (talk) 23:46, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Please. I did what I thought was necessary. A retired tag on a retired user's page. I was then told what to do with a unspoken threat, and was told I'm a little shit. I could really care less about the retired tag, what I care about is how I was treated. I wasn't hoping that anyone would have responded that way, so please stop with the assumptions.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 00:00, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Surprise, surprise, once again the solution to everyone's problems is leave Giano alone. If he's retired, then let's actually make something of his disappearance--namely, not to create more drama to compensate in his absence! Is a tag on a user page really important enough for an ANI report? Motion to close, plz. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 00:13, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

If you actually took the time to read this report, it is not about the tag, but the way I was treated over it.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 00:17, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm thoroughly outraged that you've been described as a 'little shit', and 'little man', daedalus. How could Bishonen possibly know your size? I think maybe we should ban her for stalking. Privatemusings (talk) 00:26, 22 May 2009 (UTC)in other words, you're being a silly person, dude - please consider wandering off to an area of the project where you can help, not hinder - I'm teasing you with the intent of raising a smile, and encouraging you to relax a notch or two.....

WP:WQA if anything. Let sleeping dogs lie? –xeno ^talk 00:32, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

When an administrator uses abusive and uncivil language with another user in an attempt to "shoo" them or otherwise subdue them it makes it look like Wikipedia is being ran by a bunch of children. I don't give a flying whit(a whit is a very small amount) about the circumstances surrounding this. Administrators who refer to other users as "little shit" or insist that they do decide what is and what is not the business of others should not be admins. All to often we come flying to the idea if desysoping someone, but when an admin really acts shamefully we just seem to let it go. This garbage really makes us look unprofessional. How can we enforce civility when administrators blissfully ignore it. Chillum 00:36, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Archiving this discussion is a perfect example of what I am talking about. The behavior of our administrators is an administrative matter, yet we are so quick to dismiss it. "Let sleeping dogs lie"... This happened just a couple hours ago, when exactly did this dog go to sleep? Chillum 00:37, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I sympathize with what you're saying Chillum, but as a pragmatic matter, I don't think we're going to get anywhere pursuing this tonight.--Tznkai (talk) 00:40, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

"When an administrator uses abusive and uncivil language with another user in an attempt to "shoo" them or otherwise subdue them it makes it look like Wikipedia is being ran by a bunch of children." It is run by a bunch of children though, isn't it? --Malleus Fatuorum 00:39, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Bishonen was mean to Daedalus, >>>WQA is that way>>>. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:41, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

(Just a note that I've unarchived after Chillum's comment). @Chillum when I said "sleeping dogs" I meant the "retired" tag: 'twas unnecessary. –xeno ^talk 00:45, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Wanted. An admin with integrity and the balls (or ovaries, I'm not sexist) to block Bishonen for gross violation of civility, personal attacks and threats of violence - anything less makes a mockery of our policies applying equally to all editors. Exxolon (talk) 01:16, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Admin are not above civility blocking. Any other editor would have been blocked way before now. A block is in order.--Jojhutton (talk) 01:40, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I feel this is serious enough to be brought to Jimbo's attention and I have done so on his talkpage. To put this into perspective this is only the second time in my entire career here that I've notified him about something (the last time was the Publicgirl issue). If admins are incapable of policing themselves then we by necessity must appeal to higher authority. Exxolon (talk) 01:44, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

User:Bishonen's comments to Daedalus are appalling and unacceptable! AND because he is a sysop, every other sysop backs him and tells Daedalus to sit down and shut up! Unreal.... If Daedalus was the sysop and Bishonen was not, Bishonen would now be blocked and every other sysop would be backing Daedalus! This project needs to start treating all users as equals. Anyway, to put plainly, I think this matter should not be dropped until either Bishonen is blocked, or he apologises to Daedalus! John Sloan @ 01:45, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

And yet, Daedelus was not blocked. It's going to have to be a both or neither situation. Daedalus was provocative in a predictably disruptive manner, and got the predictable reaction. Bishonen should have found another way to handle it, but as I said, it wasn't an unprovoked reaction. So unless we block both, it's neither. Finally, it's been a bit of time, so we risk the 'punitive, not preventive' conflict. ThuranX (talk) 01:54, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, is it now a blockable offence to put a retired tag on a user's talk page, especially one who has retired and actually did it himself when he retired? --WebHamster 02:18, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

And now we have an attempt to prematurely archive the discussion and a statement that its "Not blockable without warnings." - we can and do block for gross violations of our core policies without stepping through warning levels - any attempt to suggest this as a way of trying to avoid having to take action looks like a transparent attempt for admins collectively to avoid taking responsiblity for misconduct by one of their number - is this really the impression you want to give? Exxolon (talk) 02:09, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Sort of puts one in mind of the Catholic Church's response to the Fathers and the Alter Boys quandary. Same sort of response really, the admins are spending so much time sweeping these things under the carpet that they don't have time to change the bag in the Hoover (so many analogies, so little time!) --WebHamster 02:15, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I have blocked Bishonen for 3 hours. I trust that's enough to cause a bit of relaxation here and there, as well as (unfortunately) a bit of stress here and there, as well. This all seems sadly unbecoming to me, and a direct consequence of our having been too tolerant, for too long, of toxic personalities.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 02:20, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

User:Marcopronto

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

Here's the back story behind this guy. He was blocked by Tnxman307 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) for 31 hours for vandalism ([47], [48], [49]). He requested an unblock, which was declined by TravisTX (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Travis subsequently reset Marcopronto's block back to 31 hours for this edit, and then to 48 hours (this time with talk page access disabled) for this edit. Following the expiration of his block, this was the first edit he made.

I recommend that we indefinitely block Marcopronto. Thoughts? --Dylan620 _{Efforts · Toolbox} 21:41, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Update: Moved from WP:AN for visibility. --Dylan620 _{Efforts · Toolbox} 22:08, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

You want an indefblock for vandalism to his own talk page? – iridescent 22:10, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

No, vandalism's no longer a problem, the problem at hand is now incivility and/or personal attacks following a pattern of general disruption. --Dylan620 _{Efforts · Toolbox} 22:12, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

He's made two edits since his block expired, one of which was to blank his talkpage, one of which was this, and neither of which was a personal attack. – iridescent 22:16, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Checkuser ping

• GianoSuck (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki), deleted revs
• Incredibly anonymous (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki), deleted revs (particularly nasty)
• Rareriroru (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

If this is someone known, via CU, they have to be shown the door for a duration on their proper account. This is all getting outrageous--even if this is an admin, they need to be blocked for this. Who is the sockmaster? rootology (C)(T) 22:10, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Correction: if this is an admin, they need to be blocked desysopped immedately for this. Anyone else, at least a 30-day timeout. //roux   22:20, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Eh, it's just the latest (?) 4chan meme. --NE2 22:29, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I sort of doubt that "Giano" is on the 4chan/Anonymous radar screen. This still needs Checkusering. rootology (C)(T) 22:30, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

There's certainly a positive intersection between Wikipedia "trolls" and people who like 4chan memes, even if it's small compared to the latter. I'd bet a few bucks that it's not a regular editor, but I guess checkusering can't hurt. --NE2 22:44, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

• Rareriroru (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) needs to be looked at along with the other accounts listed above, it looks like it could be connected with the above accounts. Nick (talk) 22:48, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I've mailed functionaries-en, so every Arb & CU now knows about this harassment. rootology (C)(T) 22:51, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

For future reference Checkuser-L and SPI are better places to go, but this is being looked at.--Tznkai (talk) 22:56, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Incredibly anonymous and Rareriroru appear to be JtV. Not sure who GianoSuck is a sock. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 23:14, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Apparent threats ("We know who you are, by the way")

I'm disturbed by the last line of this edit on a user talk page; "We know who you are, by the way." I don't think this kind of editing is appropriate and feel that it requires quick admin intervention. A quick review of this users edits (Smith research (talk · contribs)) suggests there may be other problems, and there may be username issues, meatpuppetry/account problems ("we"). I brought it here to request admin intervention as I would find such an edit on my own talk page highly offensive and it can only be intended to have a chilling effect. Thanks, Verbal chat 22:25, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I do not know whether to regard it as a threat to reveal the identity of an editor or a threat of external harassment. In either case, they should be advised of our policies. Some of their edits seem useful, and others clearly POV-pushing. I'd suggest a level-4 warning. DGG (talk) 22:37, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

The (related) comment that disturbs me the most is the direct accusation of "condone[ing] this form of child abuse". WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:54, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I missed that in my reading as the last line stood out. I now feel a block is fully appropriate. Verbal chat 23:00, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

(ec with others )Thanks Verbal, I was dithering about whether to come here or to WP:SPI for this issue, but you have helped make the decision for me.

Short version; several editors User:Smith research, User:S_MorrisVP and User:JaniceMT and many IP addresses based in Toronto (see this listing at the Spam blacklist[50]) have been adding POV material and links to copyrighted material hosted Canadian Children's Rights Council to articles on WP against consensus.

All of the named editors have admitted to being linked to the CCRC with "us"-type edits.[51][52][53]. User:S-MorrisVP was blocked for edit warring, and three days later User:JaniceMT was created and has now been blocked in turn. User:Smith research has now restarted editing, adding "warnings" to userpages, including the threat-like statement above and accusations that editors disagreeing with their edits must support child abusers and child abuse in general eg.[54]; see also this one by Janice [55] and this one by one of the IPs[56] There are other signs that the editors are sockpuppets: one of the editors uses exactly the same phrases as a post by another of the editors: cf the second half of this very recent post edit by Smith Research with this one by JaniceMT], who is supposedly currently blocked for editwarring. In addition, User:S-MorrisVP, who hasn't edited since her block, has a year old sockpuppet listing here; a conflict of interest posting here; and I mentioned her activities [57]on ANI just over a week ago, here. I wonder if checkuser is not required here, but sockpuppets or not, these are some very disruptive, COI editors.--Slp1 (talk) 23:09, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

So are you more inclined to take the problems to WP:SOCK, or to deal with the individual incidents piecemeal (here)? WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:34, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Why not decide here at ANI what admin action is reasonable, and then list the complete set of accounts in a posting over at WP:SPI to keep the records tidy. The improper edits by people who say they are associated with the Canadian Children's Rights Council have been going on for more than a year. All our efforts to coax them to behave have failed dismally. It is fair (I think) to consider them all meat puppets, and to indef block all of them but one. Leave the one remaining account free to edit, with appropriate warnings. EdJohnston (talk) 23:48, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

That seems very appropriate to me, but then, I would say that!!!--Slp1 (talk) 00:38, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

The name rings a bell. Didn't we have a rather messy dispute over the trademark and who the real CCRC was?Geni

Not sure about on WP, but this [58] suggests you might be onto something.--Slp1 (talk) 00:38, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm frankly not too worried, these people aren't exactly geniuses (WP policy isn't rocket science but somehow it doesn't penetrate). The only issue is if they did somehow find out about my RL identity, and post it somewhere, I'd be pissed, inconvenienced and mad at myself for not being sufficiently careful. Any admins who do notice this, if the edit could be removed and oversighted, I would be happy. I'm not paranoid about my identity (various admins and trusted users have my real name and e-mail address), but I do find the comfort in anonymity. Naturally, this could all be bluff.

I wonder if there is any appreciation of the time and energy that is wasted due to spurious research and advocacy when children could be better helped by directing it toward good parenting, volunteering, research and funding community agencies. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 00:50, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

This is fucking bullshit. This is the deliberate silencing of dissent, there is no merit to these contributors in my mind. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 00:56, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Here we are otrs #2008063010023045 amoung others.Geni 01:01, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

User:Neomewga

Resolved

 – User warned

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

This user doesn't appear to be here to build an encyclopedia. I realize I have some bad math, so bear with me: almost 80% of his edits are in his own userspace. The body of his edits appear to basically be nothing, so I have no idea what he's using wikipedia for. But one thing is for sure, it isn't building an encyclopedia. Opinions?— Dædαlus ^Contribs 22:30, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Have you tried talking to the editor and explaining your concerns? AniMate^draw 22:43, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I may have in the beginning, but I forget. Other than that, others have. And actually, I have as well. Just check the history of the page. I warned the user several times against using wikipedia as a social network.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 22:55, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Just did a quick check, according to soxred93's edit counter 75% of his edits are in user talk space, 19% are in user space, and 6% are in the article space. He has 6 edits to the article wii homebrew and 1 to MySims Kingdom. His edits to wii homebrew seem to be nothing more than a formating preference, albeit one not supported by the manual of style as seen here. I do not want to get involved, just providing pertinent info.Drew Smith What I've done 22:50, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

User has been warned. Let me know if anything else is needed.n AniMate^draw 23:21, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

User:Born2cycle and Lane splitting

I'm requesting assistance withan ongoing problem with a disruptive editor, User:Born2cycle who has been preventing consensus and making bizarre demands to refute his theories in Lane splitting and Filtering forward. This person has been carrying on endless, unproductive arguments on Talk pages and has been inserting unsupported opinions into the articles, reverting them when removed, and then demanding that other editors must provide sources to disprove these fringe theories. I went to great effort to answer some of his objections here and this only served to keep the argument going and bring on more challenges for more sources to counter his ideas.

The immediate problem can seen at Talk:Lane splitting#Legal Status Edit War. Born2cycle keeps reverting an edit, here and here which is intended to support a novel legal theory. The discussion shows that this person feels the burden is on other editors to find sources to disprove this claim.

This is part of a larger pattern of ongoing disruption, which I believe is due to the Born2cycle's passionate support of a cause called Vehicular cycling. He has stated that that "Vehicular cycling is not a social-political movement, it's the law." When sources are cited from police, transport authorities and judges that contradict this belief, he argues that "the issue appears to be a lack of awareness about the existence of the law, even by police and judges, not a different interpretation of the law." Thus, he wants to use Wikipedia to correct what he sees as systemic bias.

This has caused him to disrupt efforts to merge the two different articles Lane splitting and Filtering forward and to demand that bicycles and motorcycles must be written about on Wikipedia together, rather than in separate articles or sections of articles, because to discuss them separately constitutes an attack on the rights of bicyclists. Giving in to these demands makes reading the articles confusing and writing them awkward. When offered compromise, Born2cycle has returned with more demands, and more pointy arguments and objections. On topics that Born2cycle does not feel so strongly about, he or she has made very valuable contributions. There seem to be several possible routes available to try to address this problem, and I'm starting here with ANI.--Dbratland (talk) 22:47, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

First, Dbratland has made no attempt to contact me on my talk page before starting this ANI. I consider this ANI to be a disruptive attempt to get out of discussing the controversial issues involved.

Second, I understand Dbratland's frustration, but he or she is confusing a lot of issues, and we have different opinions on several of them. For example, what my opinions may or may not be about vehicular cycling have nothing to do with our latest discussion, which was cited above. But, for the record, yes, vehicular cycling, is, by definition, simply riding a bicycle in accordance with the rules of the road. Why pointing this out frustrates Dbratland so much, I don't know, and he or she can't explain.

Third, I did not revert twice as Dbratland claims I did above (not that there is anything wrong with that if I did). I added a statement to the article here, which Dbratland deleted, and then I reverted here, once. Dbratland characterizes that as "Born2cycle keeps reverting and edit", which is an excellent example of how unreasonable and outlandish his or her perspective is.

Finally, editors are supposed to reach consensus through discussion on Wikipedia, and that's all I've been trying to do. My posts speak for themselves, including the entire current discussion. The statement in question, that I added to the article, Whether such a citation will hold up to a challenge in court depends on the particular situation, simply says that something is unknown. Dbratland wants me to cite a source for that. Well, if something is known (in this case whether such citations will hold up in court), there should be a source for it, not the other way around. My position is that as long we don't have much evidence about the issue one way or the other, it's reasonable to say it's not known. That's all this is about. Dbratland notes that he has gone to great effort to explain his position. So have I. The difference is that I've addressed and refuted all of his points, and he's ignored many of mine, and he's frustrated by that. Again, I understand, but if I disagree with what he's saying, and explain the reasons I disagree, is it my fault that he gets frustrated? I think not. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:31, 21 May 2009 (UTC)