Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive480

My Neighbor Totoro tagging

Resolved

 – Discussion on-going on talk page; more of a content issue than a 3RR issue. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ will never be anybody's hero now 11:04, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Got a 3RR issue with JJJ999, but I'm rather frustrated with the complete lack of good faith given to a tagging editor, even after I expressed agreement with all of his tags bar one, and the fact that suddenly the aesthetics of tagging seem to have trumped the very valid OR and V issues that this article currently is experiencing. To make matters worse, this isn't even an OWN issue - the editors apparently have pre-existing issues with the tagging editor which clouds their AGF abilities, and therefore only the tagger and myself seem to be willing to discuss the matter at hand (at least as of now). Some experienced and neutral parties - preferably several at least - are needed - I'm unable to get anywhere apparently. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 09:45, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I didn't see any issues with the tag since the article has a whole need to be improved but I do see issues with the removal[1]. Bidgee (talk) 10:03, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd also agree that these tags shouldn't be removed. There is an insistence by some editors that tags are somehow evil in articles, and I've seen more than one who seems to religiously defend certain articles from there ever being a tag placed on them. Instantly reverting them. That kind of behaviour is counter-productive.--Crossmr (talk) 10:45, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

All the time spent adding and removing the tags and discussing the inclusion and exclusion of them on the talk page might have been better spent actually addressing the article's problems. Easier, too. Nevertheless, there seems little to be done by admins at this point. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ will never be anybody's hero now 11:04, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Consider blocking.

Resolved

 – No. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ will never be anybody's hero now 11:00, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:69.211.51.107 and his edit history; his last edit to NSA warrantless surveillance controversy suggests it's time to consider a block. —Preceding unsigned comment added by IReceivedDeathThreats (talk • contribs) 10:10, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

The editor seems to be focused on creating point of view in various articles from neutral points to something a bit tainted. I'd recommend a look through and rollback of most if not all edits.--Crossmr (talk) 10:38, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

What? As best I can tell, the IP and IReceivedDeathThreats had a minor revert war - four days ago! - over whether some quotes should go around "private network" ([2]). The IP even explained their edit in the edit summary. Most, if not all, of the IPs edits are good faith edits (e.g. [3], [4], [5]). Did you even look at them? For IRecievedDeathThreats to issue that final "this is the final warning you will receive" to the IP is a gross overreaction. fish&karate 10:57, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Neil: there's nothing block-worthy in recent edits. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ will never be anybody's hero now 11:00, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not saying he should be blocked, I'm saying his contribs should be looked at harder. I had a quick skim of a few edits by the IP and they appeared to be non-vandalism edits, but they all appeared to be changing the point of view of things they were editing. [6], [7] as examples of what I saw the first time through.--Crossmr (talk) 11:04, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I can't see anything contraversial in either of those edits. In fact, one of them seems more NPOV than the previous version. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ will never be anybody's hero now 11:07, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

(post-archive comment) Thanks for considering the block, as requested. (I thought a final warning was appropriate, given that there had been four prior warnings the same month. A short block might have put the user(s) on a better path.) It's getting worse: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_wars_and_disasters_by_death_toll&diff=prev&oldid=241477562 --IReceivedDeathThreats (talk) 20:58, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikiport cubed

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

Fresh back from being blocked for "disruptive editing, and unfounded accusing of Blaxthos being at fault", Wikiport's very first edits again make sideways accusations that I am either lying or editing in bad faith, and he continues to take an adversarial approach (including condescending "quotation marks" and snarky statements) while stedfastly refusing to acknowledge the longstanding consensus that exists. This editor has yet to make any constructive contributions, and has proven time and time again that he's more interested in fighting battles, canvassing (here and here), and pushing an agenda than he is in building a community project and respecting consensus. Not sure what to do, so I'm bringing it here again for a third time. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 19:55, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

With respect, I think the "canvassing" may be nothing more than an invitation for concensus with perhaps an overuse of "". As for this comments, he does appear to be baiting you slightly, however I am also wise to the possibility that you may be reading more into it than there is intended, as you have been a previous victim of his attitude (note, I am assuming good faith in your report, don't get me wrong, I am just exploring all angles.) I will have a word regarding his baiting, assuming as much good faith for him as warranted, but I personally think that canvassing issue may be taking it a litle far. SGGH ^speak! 20:07, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Appreciate the outside perspective. I think the major challenge here is his persistant baiting of admins and established editors, his refusal to acknowledge previously decided positions, and his snarky attitude. Given that he's been given plenty of warnings, and even blocked for his behavior, and has returned with the same agenda and tactics, I think it's time to call a spade a spade here. If there had been any constructive contributions, or indication that there was any sincerety in his comments or that he's interested in participating in the community (rather than battling), I'd be a lot more understanding. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 20:21, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I think it is clear what you are attempting here. I have made no such allegations towards you. Please do not spin my conduct in such a way, and then portray it as an attack against you. If an editor has an opposing viewpoint then you, fine. I have made every effort to make "editors" PLURAL and not singular, just for you. Regarding the quotation marks, I'm not sure you can make them condescending. Wikiport (talk) 20:34, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I have reviewed the diffs above. I think Blaxthos needs to look beyond minor baiting or blowing off steam by an editor who was recently blocked. Wikiport needs to try to follow civility policy more closely. Further difficult communications can be discussed at wikiquette alerts, since they are unlikely to need blocks. I note that Wikiport has familiarity with Wikipedia that is unnatural for a newcomer.[8] They could have experience at another wiki, or might be an alternate account or replacement account of another editor. Wikiport is under no obligation to reveal those facts, of course. Wikiport should avoid disruption and honor the collegial spirit of Wikipedia. That is the salient point. Jehochman ^Talk 20:47, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I believe Wikiport should be indefinately blocked. His recent re-factoring and removal of comments here (which he claims he did in error) is not the first time that this editor has felt fit to remove other editors contributions on talk or project pages. I believe this is a troll we would be well rid off. No useful contributions have been made by this account. None are likely in the future. Pedro :  Chat  20:52, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I strongly support Pedro's statement. With all due respect to Jehochman and any other admins/editors with no previous contact with Wikiport, it's clear to those of us who have had extensive interaction with him that he's a troll. Browse his entire edit history... tt's good to AGF to a point, but there is a clear history of his intent in a very short amount of time, and it's quite unlikely that he'll do anything more than become better at gaming the system, baiting other editors, and disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point. In this case, it's more prudent to give some credit to your longstanding administrators and editors than it is to continue to bend over backwards extending good faith to an editor who has never given any reason to continue doing so.

Posted from Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Non-autoconfirmed postsGreetings to all. I'm sure some are aware of the now three ANI entries that Blaxthos has levied on me. I think it is clear that Blaxthos and I have differing opinions, although I don't believe it warrants constant ANI entries. I have not attacked him, or degraded his character in any way. I think it is clear that he is using the ANI process to further this feud which quite frankly doesn't need to exist here. I believe that these constant attempts to have me blocked is contrary to the existing philosophy of this section. I would be appreciative if this issue of constantly reporting me could be addressed. He is reading a bit too much into this, to the point of accusing me of making condescending quotation marks! Thanks Wikiport (talk) 21:06, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

NB: I have advised Wikiport regarding RFC or Peer Review to help reach concensus in a stable fashion regarding the articles he works on. SGGH ^speak!

If the user is trolling, there is not much harm is assuming good faith and giving them a chance to prove it beyond a doubt. If you think they have already proven it, post diffs and I will look. Jehochman ^Talk 21:50, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

We're probably coming to a point of handing out enough rope anyway. As it goes I consider myself uninvolved on this, having not being involved in the Fox News article that seems to be the issue. Simply put, I don't want to sound all Big Brother ish but if Wikiport continues with snide remarks let alone outright WP:POINTy edits I'm afraid my patience has become exhausted. Pedro :  Chat  22:09, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Some highlights of (not all-inclusive):

1. Spurious G11 nomination 1
2. Spurious G11 nomination 2
3. Spurious sockpuppet accusation
4. Spurious POV accusation
5. Removing admin comments from talk pages
6. Patronizing comment (also here, here)
7. Spurious warning of an admin (another fake warning here)
8. POV addition to established FAQ
9. More trolling
10. Smart assery

The list goes on... you could almost pick any diff and chances are there's going to be trolling somewhere it in. Go read his talk page (or, should it be blanked, browse through the history) and see if you don't find some very disturbing indicators. Also, please don't be fooled by his faux friendliness, a detailed examination of his edit history reveals the truth. I've never before suggested or voiced support for an indefinite block, and Pedro is a very well known/respected admin. The suggestion is not made lightly. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 22:06, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

• I'm not seeing this the same way you are, obviously. It looks to me as if he is trying at least not to escalate the dispute, and you are not doing much to damp it down. The two of you disagree, big deal; see if you can find the points of agreement or get a WP:3O. There's nothing for us to do here. Guy (Help!) 22:10, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Come on, JzG... third opinion on what? Spurious G11 nominations? Smart assed passive-aggressive comments? Removing admin comments on talk pages? This has nothing to do with a content dispute. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 22:20, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I have agree with Blaxthos. This feels like passive-aggressive behavior intending to drive everyone crazy. I'm not sure I support a complete block now but I would have a single last warning to stop this nonsense. I mean, [proposing to deleted Fox News Channel]? And twice? Even his first comment at talk indicates a very high level of knowledge. This has gone on long enough. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:10, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

We are trying to come to a consensus regarding wording for a sentence in the lead of the MSNBC article, based on what is being reported in sources, and Wikiport's remark here accusing us of bad faith isn't helping things. Switzpaw (talk) 22:25, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Posted from Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Non-autoconfirmed postsI have seen many concerns regarding the speedy G10 deletions of the FNC article I made a little while ago. I should have researched it a bit more, but I was mistaken thinking that people would vote on it. I was corrected by Pedro. I know I don't know everything here regarding Wikipedia, but I do think a couple of growing pains are natural. I am passionate about the issues that I believe are important, as I believe many editors are. This feud with Blaxthos is quite simply childish on both sides. I believe much has been taken out of context, and elevated to a point where it doesn't need to be. My goal here is to address the FNC article, and edit a couple other of articles which interest me. My goal is not to perpetuate a "back and forth" argument with Blaxthos in a community setting. We disagree, yes; but, that's how progress is made in history. It isn't made by silencing one side of the table. Thanks again..Wikiport (talk) 22:37, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Please don't characterize it as a "feud with Blaxthos", as it's not. You were blocked by one admin, and have now had another call for you to be indefinitely removed from Wikipedia. You've made more than a few really inappropriate comments. You've outright lied in accusing me of sockpuppetry, and even tried to misrepresent an anon editor's request for assistance at WP:RFCU as a sockpuppet report against me. When you get your ass in a sling, you start trying to play nice, but every time you're given good faith you turn right back to the same disruptive behavior that got you into trouble in the first place. You've made no constructive contribution to Wikipedia, and you've not shown any remorse, humility, or respect for policy, consensus, expectations, polices, norms, or mores of Wikipedia. In short, you've already shown what your real agenda is, and you've thus far been the epitome of what Wikipedia definitely does not need. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 23:41, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Posted from Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Non-autoconfirmed posts: I don't wish to continue the back and forth. Blaxthos, it is clearly a feud ok? I am not trying to play nice in the wake of a 3rd ANI. I believe you are a bit quick to nominate here quite frankly. Otherwise, I have explained my prior actions. I did nominate the FNC for speedy deletion, prior to me actually understanding it - which was addressed and corrected by Pedro on my talk page, in fact, I thanked him for his patience and viewpoint. I never accused you of "sock-puppetry", I stated I had SEEN controversy regarding the issue which I quoted. You explained what I saw on your talk page. Now, I have tried to establish sections within the talk page of FNC to address this issue, which you continue to perpetuate a back and forth argument. I understand there is a consensus, I am challenging that consensus in the wake of new information given current events and objectivity. I appeal to you to stop this silliness and move on. You have been in constant argument with several editors, that's apparent to see in your history. Please stop the back and forth on the FNC talk page, and move it to my page if you want to continue slamming me for being a novice and etc. etc. Thanks..Wikiport (talk) 00:01, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

You're a liar who has tried to re-write history; the fact that I've never made such an outright accusation in my four years on Wikipedia should indicate the ferocity of the charge. Though you claim to have honest intentions, your actions belie your purpose. Slick tongue you may have, but at least two admins and multiple editors have already reached the same conclusion. In this circumstance, WP:AGF works in your favor, and few admins/editors will take the time to read all of the history. However, given how quickly you've gone from "newbie" to potential indefinite block I'm sure at some point the community writ large will reach the same conclusion those of us who have interacted with you already have. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 00:13, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

You are letting this get under your skin. Relax. Your behavior is starting to look a bit too emotional. Look, as I said, we are both passionate about the articles we find interesting. There is no need to go back and forth and pick each other apart. I initiated an RFC on the FNC article talk page in a genuine attempt to put this to rest. Let's see where it goes. I apologize if I have in some way caused you harm or insult. Take care, Wikiport (talk) 07:43, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Very clever to again try and shade this as some sort of feud or "emotional" vendetta. It's not -- you're a liar, plain and simple. You lied about TWO G11 nominations being "typos" when also admitting that "it was a long shot" and an intentional violation of WP:POINT. You lied about a sockpuppetry allegation against me, then tried to repeat that lie here. You lied about removing other editors' and administrators comments from THIS FORUM as well as article talk pages. You've lied about your intentions for Wikipedia. You were blocked for making false statements. You turn nice when you either want something, or realize you're in real danger of being removed, but you always return to your faux passive-aggressive bullshitting, of which your latest comment is slathered like icing on a cake. I have absolutely no doubt that you'll continue to cause disruption should you be allowed to stay on Wikipedia, and strongly believe that you're a troll who should be excised immediately not because I'm "emotional" or "upset", but because you've already proven what kind of editor you are. Anyone who needs confirmation should read all of the diffs I posted in a numbered list above and then re-read this entire thread. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 12:11, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

You are not emotional how? I haven't lied about anything. I did see controversy regarding sock-puppets on your talk page. I did use (2) <G10> nominations for the page, but I didn't quite understand the format and made plenty of typos; all explained on 3 talk pages. I haven't intentionally removed any comments from this forum, as I started to comment on the other ANI talk page, just so that wouldn't be an issue. You are in constant disagreement with editors, constantly threatening blocks, etc. I don't appreciate your language one bit, it only shows how you continue to escalate this silliness. The only continual and constant disruption I see, is from you refusing to let a pertinent conversation take place on the FNC talk page. You bully editors until the point of absurdity. Anyone is welcome to see the diffs and realize how you are blowing this out of proportion. You have consistently attacked me on several forums, and are abusing this ANI process to gain support for your cause. If you constantly need the last word, here; take it. I have neither the time nor inclination to continue to engage your heated attacks. You have stated your point, now stop addressing me as you have crossed the line in your language and accusations. Wikiport (talk) 18:16, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I have had a talk with Wikiport, and he has agreed to utilise RFC and Peer Review to discuss, openly, the changes he wishes to make to the article. As far as I am concerned, this is the best solution, and you should both hold fire. WP:ANI is not the place to start arguing again, and I believe you are both on the verge of disrupting Wikipedia to make your points about each other. If Wikiport can keep his views to the content along Wikipedia guidelines as he has promised, then Blaxthos you should be able to calm down also, or this is just going to escalate into a back-and-forth gotta-have-the-last-word where no one will be able to untangle the mess and discover what originally happened. Is this acceptable? SGGH ^speak! 10:58, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree, thank you for taking the time to address this issue. Wikiport (talk) 11:12, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

With all due respect, SGGH, I have to take some exception to your WP:POINT claim with regards to me -- I have an unblemished editorial history going back to 2004, and I've never been blocked or the subject of any action or admonition, and I'm not the only person here who believes Wikiport is a troll who should be removed indefinitely. That being said, I'm glad to be done with this ordeal and will happily move forward from here, with one caveat (that I think is well earned given past behavior): If Wikiport returns to any sort of unacceptable behavior (namely: making false statements, violating WP:POINT, making bad faith nominations, engaging in personal attacks, removing others' comments, or making blatantly patronizing comments) he be blocked for a very long time. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 15:23, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

User:FMBlogger

Please block this user's account as his/her updates have been disruptive to both the WPRS and WPTVS projects. Several users have complained and I'm now reporting it. Thanks. --RoomDownUnitStage (talk) 00:56, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

As a member of both of those projects, I have only seen one complaint about User:FMBlogger, when he linked the frequencies in the state-by-state lists. If there are others, I am not aware of them.

Also, RoomDownUnitStage isn't doing anything to really help the situation. RoomDownUnitStage first called User:FMBlogger "Mr. Idiot" in one post (later removed it) and tagged the user's talk page with a "Banned" template. That isn't doing anything to help the situation.

The edits FMBlogger is making appear to be good faith edits, as a non-admin, I see no reason for FMBlogger to be blocked. - NeutralHomer • Talk 01:24, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

While I'd agree that User:FMBlogger has been causing a bit of havoc recently and it's been tough to engage them in discussion, I'm highly inclined to assume good faith. However, it seems odd that User:RoomDownUnitStage created their account only an hour ago, and has done nothing in that time other than revert a change, insult User:FMBlogger on their talk page, improperly add the banned user template to both their user page and talk page, post to the talk pages of multiple administrators asking for them to be banned, and file this report. Seems a little like trying to swat a housefly with a bazooka, but maybe it's just me. Mlaffs (talk) 01:36, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

It's not just you, I smell something fishy here. Mainly on User:RoomDownUnitStage's end. Check out [9] (mainly the last couple of votes and their editor's histories). User:MrMarkTaylor ^{What's that?/What I Do/Feed My Box} 02:08, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Ah, the plot thickens. Dlohcierekim 02:24, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I suppose you will all just be stunned to know that all these accounts edit from the same PC and IP address,

• FMBlogger (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• RoomDownUnitStage (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• MajorCopyPriceAbove (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• AfterDarkTaken (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• TruthSaid0 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• BoyBomber (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 1110khz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• DavidTheLion (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Spencer1151 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• TasksPrice (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Who woulda thunk it? Thatcher 06:48, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

• By the way, someone needs to cleanup the TFD for Template:RadioByFrequency. Thatcher 06:49, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

   Done. Blocked the socks that had been missed, too. fish&karate 13:01, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Why would "FMBlogger" create something (a template) and create 9 accounts to sway a vote to get what he created deleted? Sometimes people don't make sense to me, they really don't. - NeutralHomer • Talk 06:55, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

There are 10 more sockpuppet accounts, it was easier to just block them from the checkuser interface, so see my block log or Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of FMBlogger. Thatcher 07:02, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Neutral, it's all about the drama for some people. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:21, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I guess so, just seems like a waste of time that could be spent doing something good. - NeutralHomer • Talk 08:38, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Apologies if I don't understand properly how blocking works, but shouldn't FMBlogger's account be blocked too, or was that just missed in the clean-up of this mess? Mlaffs (talk) 13:27, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

• The puppet master account could be warned, blocked briefly, or blocked indefinitely, depending on the scope of the problem. For example, is this a generally good user who messed up a couple of times or is this a generally poor editor who used sockpuppets to disguise how bad he was? An admin or two should review the overall situation, perhaps someone familiar with the radio/TV wiki projects. Thatcher 15:02, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

What now?

So, the next question is what to do with the large mass of individual frequency pages created by FMBlogger. And the hundreds of redirects to those pages. At the TFD that started all this, I had expressed that I felt this could be useful once completed. With this sock meltdown, that completion looks unlikely. And IMHO a partial effort on this is worse than nothing. So the question remains, what is best to do with the mass of partially completed frequency pages? Leave them? Mass-AFD them? Mass-PROD them? And there are several hundred redirects as well to the mass of frequency pages. Sigh. I had hoped this would end well. - TexasAndroid (talk) 13:19, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Sigh, indeed. And here I'd hoped I'd only ever have to look at this page as a voyeur — oh well. This sort of drahma is why people are all too ready to skip past assuming good faith. I'm certainly feeling a little burned.

I've said a couple of times that I can see some value to those frequency pages for disambiguation purposes, as long as the template is deleted. In fact, before FMBlogger got all this mess rolling, a handful of frequency pages like these already existed. I cleaned links to them only a few weeks ago.

The beauty of a disambiguation page is that, unlike a list, it doesn't have to be complete. In fact, the common intro line for a dab page — XXXX may refer to: — rather explicity envisions that it might be incomplete. It may refer to these things, which means it may also refer to other things not yet listed there.

That being said, I'd be prepared to adopt them and try to finish the work that was started, assuming that there's consensus for keeping them. I don't think a mass AFD is the way to go to figure that out, though — it'd be an absolute dog's breakfast. Do we have another venue for having that discussion, seeing as it'll interest at least the radio station, TV station, and disambiguation projects, if no one else? Mlaffs (talk) 13:46, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

If we are not going to mass-AFD them, then yeah, one of the broadcast WP-projects would seem to me to be the logical place to take this discussion. - TexasAndroid (talk) 13:51, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Even though my time is more limited lately, I can take a look after them as well. The template is useful in terms of organization. spryde | talk 16:20, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Probably a more appropriate discussion for the template deletion discussion, but I think it's only useful for organization for us as editors of the pages shown in the template. It would also be useful if these were set up as lists, because a reader might want to navigate between related lists, but they're not — they're disambiguation pages. I can't envision a reason any reader of the site would need to navigate from one dab page to another. For editing ease, it appears that these dab pages are all included in [[Category:Lists of radio stations by frequency]], which I think is a more appropriate method of organization.

That being said, I'd be thrilled to have more eyes on the pages, in the event there's consensus to keep them — thanks! Mlaffs (talk) 16:46, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Template deletion

Just to make sure this doesn't get lost in the shuffle, it would be helpful to get an admin's eyes on the discussion at the templates for deletion page. Before we get too deep into the discussion at either of the broadcast projects about the pages themselves, it would help to have the fate of the template decided. I think we've had all the eyes on the discussion that we're going to get. Mlaffs (talk) 13:22, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Armenia-related concern over multiple accounts

The users

• MarshallBagramyan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• The Fighting Matador from Spain (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

appear (from a brief check) plausibly the same user, and also to have edited on the same articles in the same time frame.

Sample articles:

• Levon Chookaszian (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (both accounts)
• Sirarpie Der-Nersessian (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (both accounts and multiple IPs)

I'm a bit busy, but can another checkuser look into this a bit more? (And notify the users, busy here, thanks)

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 17:08, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Uh-huh. How plausibly is plausibly? Can I take it to the bank? Will it last longer than the bank? I've been stung recently which CU "likelys" that turned out to be not-so-plausible after all. BTW, as of yet this doesn't actually constitute alternate account abuse, seeing as the articles in question are non-controversial and no falsification of consensus appears to be involved. Moreschi (talk) 19:59, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I can't speak for others. I prefer understatement; "plausible" in this case means "same IP, likely same computer, multiple articles in common". That is why I have asked for another checkuser's input. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 18:28, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

User:VartanM

I am writing to this board losing any kind of belief in balance and fairness of WP:AE in judging the issues of basic civility. I opened a thread at WP:AE few days ago, emanating from the usage of "rv: did you drop something on your head? because you're showing signs of amnesia. See talk" language by User:VartanM. Instead of addressing the issue of personal attack, arbitrator User:Moreschi banned me from two topical pages for this addition of reference on one of them(!), and issued about a dozenth warning to User:VartanM (see some prior counts of incivility warnings: [10], [11]; and incivilities of User:VartanM:

• "Atabek, your accusation that I blind reverted this article is idiotic"
• "You have to apply your non expert abilities on someone else"
• "Your mud slinging and wiki-retaliation will leave no doubt in anyones eyes, including the arbitrators, that your presence on Wikipedia is not in good faith. That there is one option left to stop your disruptions"
• "Thanks for sharing your views Atabek, but this is not the Atabekipedia, can't deny the well known fact"
• "removal of Armenian source just because its Armenian is called nacism"
• "learn to speak English and don't add nonsense to Wikipedia"

and now: "rv: did you drop something on your head? because you're showing signs of amnesia. See talk"

Please, let me know your judgment as to how many more times does VartanM need to be warned before becoming bolder every single time. As a matter of fact, I expect few users, including VartanM, appearing after me here, opening gigantic thread of WP:SOAP, and accusing me of forum shopping. But provided the evidence and lack of ability by AE to arbitrate in a balanced fashion, I am just frustrated. I contribute to Wikipedia definitely not for listening to such language or to be page banned for adding reference to Oxford scholar. Atabəy (talk) 22:28, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Reviewing administrators should note Wikipedia:AE#Result. Moreschi is an administrator, but not one of the arbitrators (which isn't necessary anyway to do arbitration enforcement).--chaser - t 00:38, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Note to admins. The matter was closed by an administrator who is very well familiar with the case and all of its intricate details. This report is frivolous, midly put.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 03:04, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

• Look, I've told Vartan to cool it. If he doesn't, next time I will block him regardless of circumstances. He has agreed to do so. As regards WP:AE#Result, I can quite understand Vartan's frustration: the discussion on the two pages was hashed out almost a year ago: for Atabek to come back pushing exactly the same rejected arguments (though not completely meritless ones) is just WP:TE and WP:ICANTHEARYOU, something he is prone too. Moreschi (talk) 13:38, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Moreschi, your judgment is in violation of WP:OWN. The discussion at Talk:Khachen and Talk:Sahl Smbatean was not "closed" neither it was moderated by a third party to reach to agreement. It was just left out of attention because of constant revert warring, baiting and POV pushing by a group of users from one POV side, starting with User:Anatolmethanol, a sock of User:Fadix. If at all, your topic ban is only favoring one party over another.

And you're incorrect that my edits violate WP:TE. In fact, this is one of my initial edits [12] of Khachen page and past edit [13] of Sahl Smbatean, where I indicated both Albanian and Armenian references. Yet the result was an edit war by POV contributors from one side to remove any reference favoring Albanian version.

And now you're banning me from two articles, while VartanM is doing this? - a) removing an Oxford reference violation WP:TE; b) personally insulting me violating WP:NPA. And he is on parole with Nth warning (N being far larger than 5 already), while banning User:Baku87 for 48 hours without any warning for just one revert(!).

Anyways, I expect these facts to be reviewed by an independent admin, and all of these will be further pursued until we find out based on which Wikipedia rule I am being topic banned from two articles for this edit, while others fail to follow WP:NPOV, WP:NPA, WP:OWN.

Chaser, I thank you for archiving irrelevant SOAP, this post of mine is addressed to Moreschi, so I expect Moreschi or another admin to respond to it. Thanks. Atabəy (talk) 14:52, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't see how attempting the gimmick of putting a banned user in the equation would reasonably make Atabek's case stronger. When the only edit made from that sock in either article was this one which was to revert to Atabek's version. VartanM (talk) 17:51, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Here is a recent example that shows the problem with Atabek's conduct. Addai is a Osorene related article from all of which he was banned for two months, back in March.

He added this to Addai article, the only reference about the subject in the entire book is on page 16.

Destroit's Chaldean pastor proudly told me in 1962, they have been Catholic from the beginning. Their people, it is claimed, were converted by Saint Thomas the Apostle on one of his journeys; by Saint Addai, a disciple of Christ; and by Saint Mari.

It is true that he is venerated by the Orthodox Christians, but the source he provided does not support the claim, in fact for the Orthodox Christians he is not a disciple but an Apostle. It is very difficult to believe that Atabek did not knew the source was talking about the Catholics. Besides saying disciple alone is misleading, since it refers to to one of the 12 apostles, not the seventy, which is different. It does not seem Atabek even read the article, otherwise he would've seen that the information he was adding was already covered.

It is quite often that Atabek makes such edits, which can not be ignored and will almost always be reverted, at which point he will then accuse the reverter of removing sourced information. The above mentioned was done after he reported me. It was as if he was expecting me to revert and have something to add. Administrators usually do not go as far to check for misuse of sources, so Atabek's claim of removal of sources will be the only complaint being considered.

In short he misuses sources, and when they are removed he reports the user for removal. A lot like fishing, only when nobody takes the bait, the bait starts eating Wikipedia's integrity. VartanM (talk) 18:31, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Assuming this even requires an administrator's review, continuing the tit-for-tat here makes it less likely that anyone will bother to look at it. Let's not.-chaser - t 13:20, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Cross posting from User_talk:Moreschi. Please pay closer attention as to how Atabek is cherry picking. For example, his second quote was an answer to his own incivil reply which included: Also, I am not an expert on spiritual or moral matters, but what's your opinion on deliberate removal of evidence,..., for which he was banned for 4 days, by Chaser[14]. You will see here that Thatcher actually agreed with me on the matter. Third quote, I don't take this back at all, and find nothing wrong given the situation, this was what Atabek was doing. See this edit, Atabek reinstated (material coming from tallarmeniantale) which was already shown in the talkpage to be misused, for example Auron which Atabek attributed the figure to, did not claim this. It was already explained back in March 2006. See here, last paragraph. See the entire talkpage preceding Atabek reinsertions. You can also read this section and see how many times Atabek attempted to put words in the mouth of a scholar. The fourth quote Atabek presented is ...., please open the link and see what happened, it will become obvious that my comment was way too light. See the context in this report, on this page, about Atabek's conduct here while this usually will have been considered as a severe case of vandalism, he got away without even a block. For the rest, I'm sure you can go on and read the discussions and context. Every user has bad days and may occasionally resort to incivility, but it is quite obvious that Atabek disruptions go beyond this. I will not even bother replying to his claim about Dowsett, that he sustains what has been shown wrong by several users shows that the topic ban was more than appropriate. VartanM (talk) 05:26, 30 September 2008 (UTC) And just as I predicted above, here came the WP:SOAP. Anyways, I expect an answer and some balanced judgment by administrators. I guess previous ArbCom based on false identity accusations, WP:HARASS and other flagrant violations by the contributors accusing me above, should be sufficient to see how their behavior wastes community time. And now all of it for a simple inability to say I am sorry for for incivil language which, based on evidence above, seems to be habitual. Atabəy (talk) 08:19, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Advertising

I have just rv an edit on British Empire where a reference was made to a web site of admittedly interesting photographs, although not directly related to the topic. Checking the edit history] the edit concerned (who owns the site) seems to be on a mission to insert the web site onto many pages possibly to gain revenue from Google ads. This seems to me a breech of policy, but I may be wrong. If someone with more knowledge that I could look at and advise/action I would be grateful. --Snowded TALK 08:04, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

It looks like spam to me. I've reverted their more recent edits and left a spam warning on their talk page.-gadfium 08:32, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Agree with that, and would suggest a block if he continues as he does not seem to have made any constructive edits. Stifle (talk) 08:51, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

If the user continues to insert spam links, report the user to WP:AIV. Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 17:54, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

RE: Watchlist problem help

Hello, I am wondering if anyone can help my technical problem. Whcih is quite important:

Everytime I try to enter "My Watchlist", I get this message:

Redirect Loop

Redirection limit for this URL exceeded. Unable to load the requested page. This may be caused by cookies that are blocked.

The browser has stopped trying to retrieve the requested item. The site is

redirecting the request in a way that will never complete.

• Have you disabled or blocked cookies required by this site?

• NOTE: If accepting the site's cookies does not resolve the problem, it is probably a server configuration issue and not your computer.

I really need some help on this one, thanks. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 16:15, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

This is under discussion here already. Try bypassing your cache to see the Watchlist again. Regards SoWhy 16:17, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but that doesn't solve the problem for me at all. Instead, things run as slow as treacle as well as getting the iedntical error message that was posted above. I've cleared the cache, bypassed the cache, set the cache to zero and tried all the solutions suggested in the link you provided: none work. Firefox 3.0.3 being used here, but the problem also persists if I use Internet Explorer instead.  DDStretch  (talk) 17:12, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I cant even log in now, I'm User:Police,Mad,Jack, I really need some help. 217.42.11.95 (talk) 17:15, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#Apparent_server_problem. While wikipedia is still very slow for me, adding "?action=purge" to the end of the URL worked to at least get my watchlist back. – sgeureka ^t•c 17:18, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Its on a bit of a go-slow. But its fixed now, thanks very much for your help. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 17:32, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Its fixed, thanks very much Sgeureka. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 17:36, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

• See here for explanation. In short: squids got confused and it takes a while to untangle their tentacles :) – Sadalmelik ☎ 17:58, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, that link provide good explaination. AdjustShift (talk) 18:08, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Violence threat

Resolved

Does anything need to be done about this or is it a case of RBI? 211.30.12.197 (talk) 11:10, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

This is a death threat. Anyone live in Newfoundland? Gwen Gale (talk) 11:15, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

No one lives in Newfoundland. It was abandoned back in the 70s. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:14, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

IP is blocked. 134.153.184.17 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) was the subject of a report here last week due to a suicide threat. Anyone in Canada want to report this? Contact details are here -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 11:16, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

This is the same troll IP account that posted the suicide threat last week (see his contributions). He's almost certainly watching this thread, having enjoyed the drama last time. He's blocked for 6 months, now ignore.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 11:18, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

While I'm loath to say WP:RBI for a death threat, this IP has a history of trolling. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 13:05, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Please see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Policy_on_threats_of_violence_and_suicide. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:13, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

First a suicide threat, now a death threat? Reminds of the old joke about a guy holding a gun to his head and telling his audience, "Don't laugh - you're next!" Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:14, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Wiki libs

Hello, I've been a Wikipedia editor for about 3 months and I've enjoyed being a part of the site--until today:

At about 9:06 PM today, I went into the "Grace Under Pressure" (the Rush album) page and decided to revert the page back to a version that Stereoroid had written. It contained a section about the equipment that Rush used on the album. Originally, the whole section was Original Research and was removed. Being a follower of the band, and good observer, I knew his edits were accurate (even though they were uncited) and I found [15]. This page was simply about the equipment that Geddy Lee used over his career with Rush. I cited Stereoroid's edits and went back to reading Wikipedia.

I came back to the page about 35 minutes later, and the referenced edits were deleted! I couldn't believe it! I looked in the revision history and saw that Wiki libs reverted them back using pop-ups. I started a section in his talk page called "Grace Under Pressure" and wrote, "What was wrong with the Grace Under Pressure edits? They had references." He replies back 13 minutes later with, "Destructive edits rather than constructive edits." (He didn't spell destructive right--he spelt it "distructive)."

I was completely baffled!!! How was my referenced edits "districtive" as Mr. Wiki Libs wrote?!?!

Well, I replied back saying they were properly cited. I thought I did the reference right--but just in case I didn't I wrote in parentheses "At least I think so."

A few minutes later I get a rambling, incoherent, and completely wacked-out paragraph of BULLSHIT saying that I vandalized the page, tampered with the links, and that I violated rules and policies (WTF?!). And if that wasn't enough, Mr. Wiki Libs writes the following sentences: "I thought it was funny when you created your RedPenofDicks sockpuppet account. But your attempt at real editing is not funny and 95% of them have to be reverted."

I read this and I was completely shocked and enraged!!! I write "What in the blue blazes!" And all this idiot writes back is "Goodbye." I tried writing back, but I couldn't because of "edit conflicts."

Let me say some stuff first:

1. Lets get something straight--I DIDN'T FREAKING TAMPER WITH THE PAGE!!! I wasn't aware of the "vandalism" edits that Stereoroid made: I thought it was just the instrument section that needed to be edited. I had no intentions of doing anything else to that page besides fixing that one section.

2. Wiki Libs has made personal attacks at me. He is completely out of line and HE needs to be AWARE of the policies here.

3. The last thing I need to hear is being accused of creating sockpuppet accounts. I have edited from only one account "Greg D. Barnes." That's my freaking real name! My account is clean. (No warnings, etc)

4. Most of my edits are good faith and reliable. No vandalism edits. I can guarantee you that some of my edits them are are still in their respective pages.

5. Who in the blue hell is "RenPenofDicks?" If you are talking about RedPenofDoom, that is an editor here who is known for identifying sections of pages without references/links. I will admit, I was mad when he deleted half the page for The Game (Queen Album) but he says he did it because it was unsourced. I was in the process of rebuilding the page with accurate references (he said I could as long as they had sources) when Wiki Libs deleted them all AGAIN!!! (Even though they were sourced).

6. I have no beef with RedPen. I am a good person who obeys the policies here.

Have a good day Sincerely, Greg D. Barnes —Preceding unsigned comment added by Greg D. Barnes (talk • contribs) 03:49, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Well this is rather unfortunate. The communication on the part of both wasn't terribly good in this case (explaining what you're doing in edit summaries is encouraged). I'm also rather confused about Wiki lib's allusion to "RenPenofDicks" (an account created specifically to annoy RedPenofDoom, actually), as I can't obvious evidence linking you to that account (I assume this is because there is none). I hope this incident doesn't cause you to leave the 'pedia; we need to keep as many editors as possible. Cheers, and feel free to let me know if you need help with anything. lifebaka++ 04:04, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I apologize if I sounded like a dick in my statements. I don't think I'm going to leave Wikipedia--but I'm going to stay low for while until Wiki Libs calms down. I just want to talk to him to straighten this mess out--but he won't listen!--Greg D. Barnes (talk) 04:27, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I told him of this thread. I assume he just lost it for a bit and I hope he apologies. I do have to agree with Lifebaka that you should use edit summaries. Most of your edits are clear but when you are adding new content like that, it is helpful if others understood what you were doing. Next time, I would wait a little while (both of you sleep on it overnight) before going any further, instead of coming straight here. This really isn't the place for this kind of stuff anyways. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:53, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Rick, you're a good guy. I'll just sleep this incident off. I will use edit summaries from now on.--Greg D. Barnes (talk) 06:13, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I am late coming to my own defence... but... as I said before... it was as plain as the nose on... oh never mind. What am I apologising for again? :-D The Real Libs-speak politely 18:55, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Blocked: Greg D. Barnes blocked for 1 week for disruptive editing proven by checkuser, including creating the vandal accounts Hagrid's half brother (talk · contribs), G.r.a.w.p.y.1.9.9.0.0 (talk · contribs) and RedPenOfDicks (talk · contribs), editing warring while logged out (from multiple IP addresses), and harassing user:TheRedPenOfDoom from those IP addresses. Thatcher 16:40, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Greg D. Barnes indefinite ban

After my block of him for a week, see his talk page, also this. Having been caught red-handed, the thing to do is apologize and promise not to do it again (even an insincere promise will get you a second and even a third chance). But he is not just caught with his hand in the cookie jar here, he has crumbs on his shirt and melted chocolate chips on his fingers, and he says, "No it was the other guy" while simultaneously vandalizing my user page. No contrition, no apology==no editing privilege. Thatcher 20:10, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Not questioning the ban, but the link is not working for me (probably related to Thatcher's having to purge Grawp vandalism from history). Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:01, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, sorry about that. One of Grawp's tactics is to post a link to an old diff on /b/ and ask people to click "Save"; basically reverting to an old vandalism edit. So periodically I purge my talk page history of 4chan edits. Barnes' vandalism (pretending to be Grawp, in fact) can be seen in these admin-only diffs [16] [17] or by looking in the deleted contribs of 141.209.214.80 (talk · contribs) and 141.209.21.241 (talk · contribs). Amazing what a $17,000 per year education buys these days. Thatcher 21:22, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Real life threats

Resolved

 – Sockpuppet indef blocked. Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 18:47, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Assuredly decided to go gung ho and call me in real life. He threatened to remove me from the internet forever or something like that. I hope it doesn't mean coming to my house with a hatchet. But supposedly one of his IPs registers him in Alaska which might help. While I calmed the user down enough to divert them to IP, I'm left disturbed. Besides leaving messages on various pages, should I inform WP of such incidents? Another user claims he has done the same to another WP user (a Federal employee). .:davumaya:. 04:01, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Two threads up. Totally not cool. If it's not too late, I'd do a call trace on the number. If you need to call the authorities eventually (ie. he continues harassing you or whatnot), that will help. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 04:16, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

How did he get your number? Grsz^talk 04:19, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh I make no effort to hide an easy Google path to "find me." Partially because I haven't taken much effort and that if its really important, it will be for a reason. Perhaps it hasn't been. Oh well. .:davumaya:. 04:28, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd be inclined to let ArbCom know by emailing them at arbcom-l /a/ lists.wikimedia.org. Cheers, Daniel (talk) 04:49, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Assuredly has been blocked indefinitely by Jehochman. Stifle (talk) 09:09, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

FYI, I sent an email to the rest of the Committee with links to this and and the above discussion so they will know the background information. FloNight♥♥♥ 11:26, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't think this is the only ohe, a user in the same project he was causing trouble in, said he got called as well over Wikipedia. See User talk:Hurricanehink.Mitch32^(UP) 13:52, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

That might be what Davumaya was referring to in the last sentence of his initial post. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 17:09, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

How to remove things from a Deletion Log

I've gotten an interesting request on my talk page, namely someone who says that there is inacurate personal information in the deltion log of a certain article. I could direct them to Oversite, but I'm not certain that even oversite can clear out entries in a deletion log. This edit, last section, now only accessible to admins, is the one from my talk page asking for the assistance. I've deleted it from my talk page because I don't want to publicise the specific situation beyond admins, and many, many people read AN/I.

Anyway, the basic question is whether what the user wants, removal of an entry from a deletion log, is even possible for Oversite, or are they out of luck. - TexasAndroid (talk) 12:56, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is just a big database, and someone with full access to it can delete (or alter) anything. I'm not sure if there are limits on what an Oversighter can delete, but a Developer could do it, for sure. --Abd (talk) 13:55, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

And I would assume then that if an Oversighter considered it a needed removal, but could not do it themselves, that they would pass it along? The point then being to just go ahead and direct the user to Oversight, and let Oversight handle it, I'm assuming. - TexasAndroid (talk) 14:40, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Deleted revisions can be removed by an oversighter - if absolutely necessary, they can simply restore the versions they need to remove and then oversight them. The only reason a dev would need to be involved if there were personal information in the log entry itself, in this case, "Deleting a specific edit from the page". As long as the edit is accessible somewhere by an oldid number or timestamp, that's all an OS needs. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 15:38, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

It *is* in one of the logs, the deletion log of a page, rather than a specific edit. Kinda moot now, as from Alison below this has indeed already been sent to oversight. Either they'll fix it or they'll be able to get someone to fix it. - TexasAndroid (talk) 16:25, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and I deleted the request from my talk page so that this AN/I thread would not send a flood of people looking at the problem information. There's nothing directly problematic about the edits on my talk page, other than them being a link to the true problem. There's nothing on my talk page that needs oversight. The one deleted edit can stay just deleted for now, allowing admins/oversight to find the problem, and keeping gawkers away from it. If the problem log gets oversighted/removed, I may or may not restore the one edit, as it'll be moot with nothing to track to. - TexasAndroid (talk) 16:31, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Oversight can't really do this (I just tried as there was a request placed), but we can restore the page, move it to some other-named place, like temp00001, and delete it over there. Any sysop can do this. I've seen the log entry in question and doing this will effectively disconnect the guy's RL name from the deletion summary - Alison ^❤ 15:43, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I kinda tried this but to no avail. I was able to oversight the move, though :) I've sent a note to Brion to see if he can purge the log entries as this has now gone to Oversight - Alison ^❤ 15:58, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Alison, look again at the page log (not just the deletion log). The move is still there.--chaser - t 21:09, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for trying all this...I offered as much advice as I could to the user in question, but was unsure of the limitations of oversight. Cheers, — Scientizzle 16:29, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Autoblocker causing extra collateral

Just a warning to everyone: based on an email we recently received at the unblock list, and a short test I just conducted on myself, the user talk page locker recently added to the block menu appears to be interfering with the autoblocker. Users who are affected by someone else's autoblock do not appear to be able to edit their own talk page, which means they cannot request unblocking through the normal means, only via email or through IRC, neither of which are the most accessible or desirable means, especially for someone we didn't mean to block. The logs from my test are here: [18]. I've filed a bug report already at bugzilla:15789, but I'd appreciate someone else looking at this and making sure I'm not going mad. If there is a problem with the autoblocker, please be careful about when you block and possibly consider disabling the autoblocker in cases when it's not entirely needed until this is fixed. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 19:20, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

A temporary solution is to not use it at all and just protect talk pages where needed. Like we did in the olden days of... last week. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ will never be anybody's hero now 19:57, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

As far as I am concerned, I honestly can't see any benefit in this new blocking option. In my opinion you simply can not know whether there will be continuing disruptive editing on the talk page when blocking an user/an IP or not. From where should you know? You can't know what will happen in the future (!). Therefore, as far as I can see, this blocking option is completely needless. If there actually is vandalism after blocking an user/an IP, the talk page can be protected. That worked well until now and there is no reason why it shouldn't work any longer. Is that just my feeling on this issue? —αἰτίας •discussion• 20:31, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Just a followup that in my experience with some of the blocking scripts, the talk page disabler is being applied by default instead of by choice. Can we force the software to default to non-disabling? MBisanz ^talk 20:34, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

The bug 15789 has been fixed apparently. Re MBisanz, there's a thread over at WP:VPT questioning that, but the default doesn't look likely to change. People will have to update their scripts. Re aitias, see my comment here. At the moment, anyone who was blocked before the introduction of this feature cannot edit their talk page. It's due to be fixed apparently. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 20:43, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I also applied a block to an account that was on a shared IP. Another editor was using the shared IP and got caught in the autoblock. As above, he emailed to say he couldn't request unblock on his talk page. This is a pretty major flaw and we need this fixed ASAP - Alison ^❤ 20:37, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Mr.Z-man has reported on bugzilla that this should be fixed in r41444. As for when this will become live, that's not yet certain, but I'm guessing it'll be in a couple days. In the meantime, it may be possible to consider temporary IP Block Exemptions if the autoblock really shouldn't be removed. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 21:02, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Problem with Ave Caesar & CadenS on Jesse Dirkhising

I'm having a problem with two editors on Jesse Dirkhising, an article I've fully vetted, re-written and am trying to get to GA status. The article has been largely free of disputes and stable since the rewrite several months ago.

Another editor and I were discussing converting over the citation style to make editing the HTML easier for them when Ave Caesar (talk · contribs) added the {{citation style}} tag, which was odd because the discussion was already in process and the tag is about the uniformity and appearance which was already done. Our discussion was about switching over from one system to another. I explained in my edit summary "rmv tag as unneeded, they are all consistent at present and there is presently a discussion on converting them". They re-inserted the tag so I tried to explained the tag wasn't addressing any relevant issue to Ave Caesar and they deleted the thread citing my concern should only be placed on the article talk page. They didn't join in the discussion but instead re-added the tag. I, tried again to explain how the tag was unhelpful - they deleted this thread as well. As far as I know tagging the article and reverting my edits has been their only involvement on that article. Looking at some of their recent edits I was a little shocked to see edit warring over the WP:LGBT project tag on Lindsay Lohan with Dev920 who has, as part of their signature "who misses Jeffpw". Stunningly Ave Caesar follows up with Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User talk:Jeffpw/Isaäc's Memorial Page.

My introduction to CadenS (talk · contribs) was a bit more blunt as they were a newbie, as far as I can tell, and on the Jesse Dirkhising article they plain out just accused me of a few things and lobbed a few personal attacks my way then left the article about six months ago. We had been dialogging on their talkpage as I tried to help find them some grounding and on-wiki resources so thought that whatever hard feelings were there had dissipated. Then again within the last month or so on E.O. Green School shooting I could feel the level rise a bit and CadenS takes a bit of a dig at me and follows it a day later by accusing me and two others of "hateful attacks". No requests for explanation are answered but they seemed to be dialogging with others on their talk page so I left well enough alone. Now CadenS is back to Jesse Dirkhising and their first edits there were to change instances of gay to homosexual, which is generally considered pejorative outside a research context - for instance, it's not the "Homosexual Pride Parade" except to some conservative religious folks - it's Gay Pride. They also changed some content thus misrepresenting what the sources stated. I reverted back and point out the concerns and they respond by calling me a POV pusher. At this point Ave Caesar reverts "restoring encyclopedic language" which i revert and going back to the sources to see if there is a better way to reflect what they state I return to the article to insert a quote in hopes of resolving misrepresenting a source to find CadenS has again reverted.

I'm unsure if they are working together on purpose but they are effectively causing the article to fail the GA process for being unstable, amongst other concerns, and I see no future in trying to complete the clean-up with two users edit-warring and inserting problematic and POV language. I would appreciate others looking at this and I'm uncomfortable reverting either of them and don't see engaging them any further as a good path for me. Just writing all this up has taken away the rest of my time for editing today. I have to get some sleep but I think the above lays out what I see as the issue. -- Banjeboi 14:11, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Agree that these users should be discussing on the talk page instead of reverting. Have you contacted kotra (talk · contribs), who is CadenS's mentor? Although that is an option, I expect editors to be responsible for their actions, and not require a mentor talk them out of disproportionately defensive posts. CadenS is clearly passionate about gay-themed articles and has been asked to avoid them in the past, to my memory. Though his comments about E.O. Green school shooting correctly indicated the poor writing and layout of the article, the stressful way it was brought about was unnecessary. --Moni3 (talk) 15:08, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Moni, Benji never once initiated any type of discussion on this matter. He went and filed this report instead. Let me remind you that Mr. Benji was reverting left, right and center. How convenient to see how you leave that part out. Furthermore, Kotra did not talk me out of anything. You insinuating such a thing is insulting to both Kotra and I. And another thing, since when is rape, murder or shooting's suddenly classified as "homosexual-themed" type of articles? That's a narrow way of thinking on your part and I'm shocked that you would post such a thing here. Caden S (talk) 10:50, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I find Benj's choice of words ("they", "their", "them"), to describe me personally, as very offensive. I have a name. My name is Caden. That's C-A-D-E-N. I'm also a male. That's M-A-L-E. Therefore my gender is "he", and not "they" or "them" or "their". Got it? Now, in regards to the word "homosexual", this is the correct word to be used. It's used in the same way as the word "heterosexual" is often used. Homosexual is only considered pejorative by those who support the political correct movement. I did change some of Benji's POV content because he was misrepresenting what those sources stated. He deliberately did that to mislead the readers just like he's been doing with the E. O. article by adding the POV "see also" sections that serve his biased POV. The real issue here is the issue of POV language used by Benji and him misleading the readers by insinuating this in the main article. I also find it highly insulting that he is accusing me of working together with Ave Caesar on purpose. I've never spoken to User:Ave Caesar, and he or she has never had any contact with me. Furthermore, Benji claims I took a dig at him? Please. I was defending myself. I was replying to an attack made by him (on the E.O. page) towards me when he had the nerve to say: "Let's not paint all gay people as predators or liars or anything else". I found his statement offensive, bizarre, and completely uncalled for. Caden S (talk) 17:40, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Caden: Chill, no one can tell your gender on teh Internet. A simple "Oh, btw I'm male" would have done. Your "get it?" etc is very hostile. I am sure no rudeness was intended. People on Wikipedia refer to other editors as "he" "she" and "they" almost at random it seems, and it is generally best to ignore or tactfully inform the editor using the incorrect term. As regarding "homosexual" vs. "gay" that is a content dispute and belongs on the talk page of the article - but the parade is certainly the "gay pride" parade and not the "homosexual pride" parade, so at least one of your edits is simply wrong. KillerChihuahua^?!? 17:53, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Hello, it's me. I haven't been contacted, but as you say, all editors are responsible for their own actions (though I would appreciate it if these issues were discussed with me occasionally). I want to clear up a few things, though. Caden has already apologized for some of the issues raised above, and has voluntarily maintained long breaks from LGBT-related articles in the past. As for this recent incident (changing "gay" to "homosexual" on Jesse Dirkhising), that seems like a minor content dispute that you should discuss with each other first before bringing up here. So concerning Caden, I'm not sure what this incident report is for, since it's a minor dispute and has not yet received much discussion. Concerning Ave Caesar, I don't really have an opinion about their edits, except I very much doubt they are conspiring in any way with Caden. -kotra (talk) 18:18, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Killer, I'm sorry but you are so wrong. Benji knows full well that I'm a male and he knows my name very well. He and I have had conflicts in the past concerning the Dirkhising and E. O. pages. Furthermore, I know nothing about such parades and have no interest in them. And for the record, I made no edits on any parade so I have no clue what you're talking about. Also, I agree with Kotra. He should of have been contacted regardless of my actions. He is my adopter. Caden S (talk) 18:36, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Ah, did he? Still not seeing why you should bother to care. KillerChihuahua^?!? 19:03, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I beg your pardon? How would you like it if I called you "it", huh? Because that's basically how he's referring to me on this report. And that sir, is why I bother to care. Caden S (talk) 09:40, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

A bit of a side-note concerning this: "I expect editors to be responsible for their actions, and not require a mentor talk them out of disproportionately defensive posts.". I actually disapproved of that comment, and I did not "talk him out of it". -kotra (talk) 18:33, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, this is a content dispute and not really a matter for ANI. This should be on the discussion on the article talk page. The issue is over the inclusion of encyclopedic language. The user wishes to replace "homosexual" with the slang term "gay." --Ave Caesar (talk) 20:50, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. Sorry I see this as an editing dispute. Ave Caesar's only participation there has been disruptive, IMHO, coupled with their other, apparently anti-LGBT concerns are also alarming. With CadenS, his changing gay to homosexual, reinforced too by Ave Caesar, along with misrepresenting sources is basic vandalism that should be reverted under normal circumstances. Gay is not considered slang and that both these editors fail to see its pejorative connotations is also disquieting. That CadenS couples this with bad faith accusations and hostility aren't encouraging. Wikipedia isn't a battleground or a place for POV pushing. If any of the gay people involved self-identified as homosexual it's usually good to put that in the article as such. Instead mainstream society and media outlets use gay. I find having to explain this is this decade a bit odd - homosexual is used predominately in conservative religious venues to vilify LGBT people - its use on Wikipedia is dubious - especially on biographies. I came here because I'm trying to get the article to GA, I see these two as disrupting that process. I want to nip editing warring in the bud here. Considering each of their recent actions and looking at editing histories of these two my concerns are justified. The article had been stable for six months - with gay intact - why now the interest? Why now the changes?

To CadenS specifically, you assert "Please. I was defending myself." here is the comment I made in full

“ CadenS, please stop, taking little digs at me, or anyone, isn't helping improve this article. You could have let it go with Exploding Boy's comment that indeed another person in the source stated it was likely untrue. And just as some gay kids lie about heterosexual boys, heterosexual boys lie about such things as well. Let's not paint all gay people as predators or liars or anything else. People lie, let's stay on to improving the content. ”

If you felt I was attacking you I apologize, that was not my intent at all, I was trying to figure out what actionable items on that article needed to be addressed as there was a POV tag you had re-inserted and the consensus was that POV concerns had largely been addressed. -- Banjeboi 23:41, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

You are correct that it is an editing dispute. Therefore, it should first be discussed at Talk:Jesse Dirkhising. It is not proper to escalate it to WP:ANI until lower levels of dispute resolution have failed, as you must know. Regardless, I believe you are seeing an example of bias where there may not be one. "Homosexual" as a derisive term is very subtle and recent and depends largely on regional dialect and context. It is not unlikely that it has been used in Wikipedia bios without any actual bias intended, particularly since Wikipedia strives to be somewhat academic in tone. So I don't think there are any actionable items for an admin here. To get more eyes, WP:RFC would be the proper place. And I sympathize that this dispute has come at an inconvenient time for your GA review, but these things happen. -kotra (talk) 01:08, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, upon rereading, I now realize you mean "editing dispute" to mean "a dispute over how a user is editing", as opposed to "a dispute over particular edits". If that is what you meant, I disagree. I don't see any problem with how users are editing, except that there isn't enough discussion (which is the fault of all three parties). -kotra (talk) 02:00, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

My experience with CadenS on this article in particular and then again on E.O. Green School shooting was generally being on the receiving end of bad faith accusations and hostility. Ave Caesar deleted talk page threads about the concern on their talkpage and never discussed any concerns except in edit summary comments. Either are welcome to engage in civil discussion on the talk page but edit-warring is unproductive and, really, do we need an RfC to confirm that homosexual is pejorative and gay should be the default? Or that we shouldn't misrepresent sources? Both have indicated they feel their edits are fine - they really aren't. I'm looking for the edit warring to stop and I've been on the talkpage consistently. -- Banjeboi 03:00, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I had thought the hostility at E.O. Green School shooting was over, so it surprised me that you would bring it up again here. But as for this recent dispute, I still haven't seen any discussion about it on Talk:Jesse Dirkhising, from them or you, so I guess I'm still at a loss as to why you brought this up here, without hardly discussing the issues first. And, you acknowledge that "homosexual" is not always pejorative, so perhaps it is not being used in that tone here? These things should be clarified first before one assumes bad faith; this is why I suggested RfC before ANI, if talk page discussion fails (which has still barely been explored). I think we're going in circles, though. (by the way, since blanking is usually ok on your own talk page, that particular part of Ave Caeser's behavior seems fine) -kotra (talk) 07:05, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

My experiences with Benji have been unpleasant. I feel he's anti-heterosexual, anti-Christian and anti-conservative due to his biased POV. I don't know what his problem is with conservatives, or Christians or even us heterosexuals. But his edits are more than clear he has some serious issues concerning the three. He often assumes bad faith and he's assuming bad faith once again by attacking my good faith edits as "vandalism". My edits are fine and have all been done in good faith. Benji's edits are questionable, in my opinion. "Gay" is a slang liberal word. "Straight" is a slang liberal word. Homosexual and heterosexual are the correct words to be used in a encyclopedia. I am not using the word "homosexual" in a pejorative way (like Benji accuses me of), and I highly doubt that Ave Caesar is using it in a negative way either. But as always, Benji assumes bad faith over any edits made by any editor who does not share his homosexual POV, regardless of the topics. I wonder why? Could it be because of his problems with heterosexuals, Christians and conservatives? He claims: "homosexual is used predominately in conservative religious venues to vilify LGBT people". Please. That's PC nonsense and is not true. You cannot group all people together as one just so you can push your POV on here. Doesn't Benji understand that not all christians are conservative? I assure you that not all conservatives are religious. Furthermore, the slang word "gay" is a liberal mainstream word that liberal society and liberal media outlets use for political correctness. Regardless of all this, Benji's issues are focused on a individual editor's way of editing. That's bad faith on his part. It should be focused on the true issue, which is a content dispute. I don't see any problems with how I edit, nor do I see any issues with how Ave Caesar edits. I do have some serious concerns with an editor who vilifies other editors as, "they" or "their" or "them". That's extremely rude. On a final note, Benji failed to initiate discussion on the talk page. Had he done so, I would of gladly taken part. Instead he filed this report. This alone was bad faith on his part. Caden S (talk) 09:00, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

As soon as you throw "liberal this" and "liberal that" and "political correctness" about, then you are showing your prejudices very clearly, thank you. Never mind what you think should be the correct wording and usage, what does the community think? This is after all a collaborative project. Black Kite 09:41, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Your statement above shows me where your prejudices are. But yes, what does the community think should be the correct words to use? Caden S (talk) 10:50, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

"Gay" is hardly a "slang liberal word". Conservatives use it as well. So does the mainstream media. I'm more interested in the terms used by reliable sources to describe the subject than in a community referendum, though. MastCell ^Talk 16:16, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

You have zero idea what my politics are. However, it is a standard Wikipedia (and general) fact that editors who rail against what they think is "political correctness" and use "liberal" in a pseudo-pejorative manner are rarely very good at editing articles in a neutral manner. Black Kite 18:14, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

The use of the word "gay" to refer to the LGBT community, or it's members, is entirely appropriate and is in accordance with the Wikipedia community guideline WP:Naming conventions (identity)#Sex and sexual identities that states: For people, the terms "gay" (often, but not always, used for males only) and "lesbian" (which is used for females only) are preferred over "homosexual," which has clinical associations and is often considered pejorative. However, homosexual may be used in describing people in certain instances, in particular in historical contexts. Homosexual is considered pejorative, and gay is very mainstream usage. It has nothing to do with liberal bias and it's not slang. — Becksguy (talk) 20:50, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, "gay" could still be considered slang, in the same sense that "Coke" could be considered slang for "Coca-Cola". Both terms "Coke" and "gay" are widespread, though, and much more commonly used than their alternatives. Even so, we use "Coca-Cola" instead of "Coke", though we use "gay" instead of "homosexual". I think the reason we don't use "homosexual" too is because of its pejorative meaning in many contexts. In any case, WP:Naming conventions (identity)#Sex and sexual identities is pretty clear which we should use. But back to the topic at hand, I don't think either user was trying to be disruptive or particularly POV-pushing by using the more clinical term. Many people are unaware that "homosexual" is considered pejorative. -kotra (talk) 22:41, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

The point is that if an editor informs you clearly that the word you're using is pejorative - perhaps your first action should not be to revert them. That just maybe if someone brings an issue to them your response should not be immediate spite, deletion or sarcasm. This is not a battleground and we can work with people even if we don't agree with them. That CadenS also chooses to add more POV and heap bad faith accusations towards me is also unhelpful. That they were misrepresenting sources also seems like a bad prospect for the article. I too had thought their hostility towards me had ended when they again lobbed a jab and personal attack me on E.O. Green School shooting - that's why I mentioned it. They also accused me and two other editors of attacking them. I didn't really see it myself but I apologized anyway as I certainly didn't mean any offense. Up above they attack me a few more times. What exactly do I do to prove I'm not anti-conservative, anti-Christians and anti-heterosexual? Ave Caesar chose to simply revert me as well, I rather doubt either of these editors really thought much but simply reverting someone they disagreed with. If they honestly think homosexual is the default word for gay and lesbian people I'm concerned what else they are changing and inserting. That neither has accepted that just maybe the choice to simply revert without discussing was a bad one also seems alarming - yes it happens but we have a pattern with each separately - unfortunately - of what certainly seems to be edit warring. That each save their most troubling conduct for LGBT-related subjects and hostility towards an editor and have no ownership of their actions bodes ill for the project. -- Banjeboi 10:53, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

CadenS' behavior

• Comment. Another hostile attack this time on my talkpage. -- Banjeboi 10:53, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Do I have to bring up my past ANI reports and links against CadenS or is he going to stop editing articles relating to sexuality like he promised last time to avoid a block? — Realist² 15:59, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
    • Would it be possible to provide a diff or pointer to his promise to avoid these articles?

MastCell ^Talk 16:22, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

• • • • Here. Basically to diffuse the post I made at ANI, that would have likely resulted in Caden being blocked. He instead declared that he quit, thus making a block pointless, came back 5 hours later wanting adoption and promising to avoid sexuality articles. He was back to sexuality articles very quickly. That said, and I must stress this, Caden contributes in a very positive manner to articles unrelated to sexuality. --— Realist² 16:57, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I can't believe it but my wiki stalker Realist2 is back at it sticking his nose where it don't belong. He was warned by several users in the past to stop harassing me. He agreed and promised me that he would stop. And now he's back at it with more threats. I'm fed up with you harassing me. I'm sick of you stalking me and watching my every move on Wikipedia. Get a life. Stop stalking me Realist. You have been stalking me since May 2008. Caden S (talk) 16:33, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

CadenS I'm not stalking you at all! There is a HUGE post about you at ANI. It's quite hard to avoid you know. You also broke your promise not to edit articles on sexuality. Then I see a post where you tell another editor that they disgust you. Christ CadenS, I'm not out to get you, I tried to help you the other week. I'm strongly advising you as a friend (I consider use on friendly terms) to stop editing these kinds of articles before your blocked. You are doing some wonderful work on other articles on wikipedia, but this other stuff is too much for you I think. I don't want to see you blocked, I really don't. Please calm down, before you get yourself into more trouble, please Caden. You love wikipedia (I hope), and we want you here. But you have your hot buttons for understandable reasons. Please make yourself some coffee or tea, take a chill and come back to what you do best. :-) — Realist² 16:38, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm certain this thread about the content dispute and the use of "gay" vs. "homosexual" did not have to come to ANI as members of WP:LGBT would argue about this, but Caden's posts must be addressed. Caden is an impulsive editor who allows his past experience to color his responses, which are disproportionately vehement in the scheme of natural discussion and disagreement editors have over article content. He has posted before that he has had a traumatic experience with gay men in the past, but his trauma should not define how editors communicate about problems within an article. In short, he's making his problems everyone else's problems. It sucks time away from what needs to be done to an article, and requires further intervention by his mentor kotra (talk · contribs). I can only imagine how draining this must be for kotra to have to calm Caden down this frequently. This diff provided by Benji regarding Caden's umbrage taken to non-gendered pronouns is a prime example. I can't think getting this stressed out is fun for Caden, and I suggest taking a break and doing something else that is much more enjoyable. The bottom line, however, is that other editors should not be forced to avoid his temper, especially when it's this unpredictable. He needs to take some responsibility for his behavior, tone it down, drop out of LGBT articles, and come back when he behave calmly and dispassionately. --Moni3 (talk) 16:27, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I would agree with Moni's assessment here - it's disappointing to see the same user here again for the same thing, as I remember the original AN/I from a few months ago quite well, and the promise made which essentially got him out of that one (noting I don't edit in the area but do watch AN/I fairly consistently and have done so for almost two years). Orderinchaos 17:17, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

After reviewing all of this, I'm afraid that I agree that Caden's temper flares when working on sexuality-related articles. That said, I just want to note that he has sometimes been a positive help on these sexuality-related articles, but unfortunately I'm not sure if it's worth all the anger and fighting behind the scenes. So I would be ok with a restriction on articles about sexuality. I agree with Realist, though, that he has usually been very helpful and an asset to the community on other articles, and his behavior had improved greatly until this recent flare-up. So I would support a topic restriction, but in the interests of the project, not a complete block. -kotra (talk) 17:43, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

As his mentor, I'm glad you suggested a possible solution that was also at the back of my mind. I think a sexuality topic ban is not necessary at this stage. Caden has every right to feel the way he does, but if he can't keep his feelings from disrupting the project in future, I think implementing such a ban is the next step, if only on a temporary basis. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 21:45, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you SheffieldSteel! Yes, I do have every right to feel the way I do, but many editors have attempted to strip me of my rights. At least that's how it appears to me. In regards to why my temper flared, it had nothing to do with the article content dispute. It was based on Benji's offensive description of me in all posts (as "they", "their" and "them"). I asked him many times as did my adopter, for him to refrain from describing me in gender-neutral languge. He has continued to disrespect my wishes nevertheless. A sexuality topic ban, or even a restriction on articles about sexuality is not necessary. My work on these articles speak for itself. If it weren't for me, both the E. O. Green School article and the Jesse Dirkhising article would not be NPOV. There are few POV issues still remaining on the Dirkhising page. Regardless of that, I fought hard against many POV pushers to save these articles and my good edits reflect that. Although those editors created an extremely stressful environment for me and painted me as the bad guy, I'm proud that I did what was right according to NPOV policy. I'm proud that I have the balls to speak up, the courage to be bold, and the strength to take action by doing what's right. Caden S (talk) 17:28, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I think a temporary topic restriction should go ahead, Kotra and even Caden himself seem to think it's probably for the best. We had a similar ANI post a few months ago, Caden said he would stay away from sexuality articles then, yet somehow we are back here. Caden has taken multiple cool of breaks (that last for weeks at a time) in the past yet things soon heat up again. Caden's talents as an editor should be kept to what he does best on other articles, without these other articles as a distraction. We really don't want another overblown ANI episode in the future, something I fear will put Caden off any interest in wikipedia. — Realist² 22:03, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Realist, please do not speak for me on my behalf. You have no business to put words into my mouth. I mean no offense to you, but I never agreed to any type of agreement in terms of avoiding any sexuality articles. All I said to you, was that I understood your suggestion, but I did not agree to any terms. Although I believe your intentions are good, I'd appreciate that you refrain from speaking on my behalf. At this point I have not been contacted by any admin, therefore I have no clue what options are available to me. Caden S (talk) 12:54, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

As an outsider here, it seems obviously better all round if Caden avoids topics that wind him up, however justified the reasoning, and in the long run it's better that he does that of his own accord than have it forced upon him. There are topics I specifically avoid because I know I'd only get het up, and to reduce the risk of threads such as this, er, um, I don't go there. Caden, whatever your past, its a cliche to say that "Wikipedia is not therapy", and neither (to a lesser extent) is it a soapbox for anger. Two and a half million articles should give you plenty to do. Your edits are generally good, from what I've seen, and you just need to point those talents to where they'll make you feel appreciated in the right kind of way. You have good guys on your side here; time is one healer, but doing something else is another, particularly if you've got people batting on your side. --Rodhullandemu 22:16, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Rod, I can see your point on this but I disagree with you. If I were to avoid these type of topics, they would end up being the horribly biased and POV articles they once were before I fought for them to be NPOV. However justified my feelings are concerning these subjects, the articles do not wind me up. It's some of the editors on those pages that get me going, like for example Benji. But I'm working on keeping my cool even when I'm personally attacked, which has been often. I do agree with you that it's better that I choose on my own accord, whether I shouldn't work on these articles or not, instead of it being forced upon me. I am open to feedback and suggestions though. As for working on other articles, I do work on many unrelated type of articles. I enjoy doing so. But as it stands today, I'm not sure what's going to happen with me or this ANI report. I'm not even sure why Moni went and shifted the spotlight from the original content dispute (of which this report is supposed to be about) to my behavior. I have a lot of questions but no answers. Am I going to be blocked or not? Am I going to be given a topic restriction or not? Why is the content dispute not being discussed anymore? What about the other editor Ave Caesar? This ANI was filed against this editor as well, not just me. Why am I being singled out? Why has the real issue here (the content dispute) been forgotten? Caden S (talk) 17:28, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

With the best will in the world, what worries me is that I doubt you are sufficiently disinterested to preserve NPOV, and that is why I think you should avoid those articles, for the very reason that this thread came to be. Up to you, of course. --Rodhullandemu 17:40, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

There's several categories of articles I never go anywhere near for that exact reason - I know that no matter how good my intentions, my personal opinions on the area are so strong that I know I could not be neutral and hence it is best left to others who are. Orderinchaos 18:42, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

L::Well, User:Mastcell has suggested a restriction, at this point though what's most important is ensuring that we don't have another ANI thread like this. This is the second and I'm not sure the community will tolerate a third incident like this. We should be looking to help Caden make the most of his abilities without all this other stuff muddying it up. If a restriction is the best way to prevent that, who knows. — Realist² 18:46, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Rod, you didn't answer any of my questions. Furthermore, this report is not about just me. It was filed against another editor as well. And Realist, this report is not about me. I already told you this before. Caden S (talk) 18:50, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Outdent. The other user - Ave Caesar - basically only reverted and I personally saw their contributions there as disruptive although generally adding tags is usually helpful. That they reverted without discussing and in doing so restored pejorative language and content not supported by sources was also not great. They seemed to be following your lead but in doing so affirmed they felt those edits were correct, they weren't. However, your actions coupled with your previous talkpage conduct and given the recent issues on E.O. Green School shooting put you on a more prominent level. That you interpret my nearly universal use of gender-neutral language as a personal attack against you was news to me. That you coupled that with another personal attack against me didn't help. The issue from the beginning was two editors' conduct on the article using content examples to illustrate the problem. I've held off reverting the problematic changes - switching gay to homosexual and adding an extra molestation in, etc - as well as fixing the refs until I know things are more resolved. Just to be absolutely clear, I don't believe I've ever attack you but if you felt attacked then I apologize as that was never my interest or intent. -- Banjeboi 12:02, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Refactoring this page is hardly a great demonstration at this point. [19] Guyonthesubway (talk) 21:43, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Options

As CadenS's Adopter, I have been asked to impose whatever restrictions I feel are appropriate. However, due to my status as Adopter, I feel I am too involved to make the decision on my own. Therefore, I would appreciate input and/or a decision from other editors, particularly uninvolved editors and administrators. The options I see are as follows (please suggest any others you feel are appropriate):

1. Do nothing (assumes CadenS is not at fault).
2. Continue to urge CadenS to assume good faith and remain civil in disputes with editors.
3. Recruit an additional mentor to help guide CadenS.
4. Suggest a temporary/permanent voluntary topic ban on Jesse Dirkhising.
5. Impose a temporary/permanent involuntary topic ban on Jesse Dirkhising.
6. Suggest a temporary/permanent voluntary topic ban on all sexuality-related articles (including E.O. Green School shooting and Jesse Dirkhising).
7. Impose a temporary/permanent involuntary topic ban on all sexuality-related articles.
8. Temporary/permanent block. (above discussion seems to indicate consensus is against this)

Whatever the restrictions meted out, both CadenS and I would prefer the decision be made sooner rather than later. So please comment! -kotra (talk) 21:08, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I feel I'm too close to this as well so would prefer others input here. CadenS has genuinely good feedback and concerns but they need to be dialed down - we can disagree without being disagreeable. -- Banjeboi 02:06, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I was going to say a voluntary topic ban, but actually Kotra has come up with the idea of an extra mentor. I think two mentors is bound to be better than one and could help. I think an additional mentor is the best way to go 100%. I recently saw some of CadenS comments at an RfA and he's even passing on advise about civility in a brilliant manner to other people. This proves Caden has and will continue to learn from mistakes. With guidance he will be a strong asset. — Realist² 14:41, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Ave Caesar's behavior

We seem to have been distracted from the other user in this report. Only a few of the issues with Ave Caesar have yet been addressed, so for the purpose of discussion, I'm copying Benji's original report on Ave Caesar below:

Another editor and I were discussing converting over the citation style to make editing the HTML easier for them when Ave Caesar (talk · contribs) added the {{citation style}} tag, which was odd because the discussion was already in process and the tag is about the uniformity and appearance which was already done. Our discussion was about switching over from one system to another. I explained in my edit summary "rmv tag as unneeded, they are all consistent at present and there is presently a discussion on converting them". They re-inserted the tag so I tried to explained the tag wasn't addressing any relevant issue to Ave Caesar and they deleted the thread citing my concern should only be placed on the article talk page. They didn't join in the discussion but instead re-added the tag. I, tried again to explain how the tag was unhelpful - they deleted this thread as well. As far as I know tagging the article and reverting my edits has been their only involvement on that article. Looking at some of their recent edits I was a little shocked to see edit warring over the WP:LGBT project tag on Lindsay Lohan with Dev920 who has, as part of their signature "who misses Jeffpw". Stunningly Ave Caesar follows up with Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User talk:Jeffpw/Isaäc's Memorial Page.

Is there anything that needs to be addressed here? -kotra (talk) 21:17, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

• IMO - Caden needs to stop letting his POV influence his editing, and Ave Caesar needs to stop being a WP:DICK - that MfD of the memorial page was particularly dickish. If they can manage both of those things, we can close this, I think - there's no need for prescriptive blocks or topic bans yet. Black Kite 10:32, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Homosexual is a more formal word than gay, and I expect it would be used more in encyclopedias etc. I've not read all the ins and outs of the discussion, but I would like to disagree with the claim that 'homosexual' is always a slur word- it's more often just a formal word. And I'm a bisexual woman so I'm not being shockingly homophobic by saying that.:) It does sound like Benji was trying to get Corden into trouble by posting here, but no-one could really deny that AC's attempt to delete the memorial page was wrong. Sticky Parkin 17:41, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Guys, let's stay on topic here (just to be clear, I'm not singling out Sticky Parkin). This section is only about Ave Caesar, not CadenS. There is another section above to discuss CadenS. -kotra (talk) 19:23, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Sticky Parkin, I wasn't trying to get anyone into trouble - I was working to stop edit warring as outlined in my original post. And has been discussed homosexual is generally pejorative on biographies and should be used with care elsewhere. It's a loaded word persistently used in American culture wars - we don't need to perpetuate it's use needlessly just as avoid doing so with other terms used as such. -- Banjeboi 21:05, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

This is still open? Anyway, not that it should matter but I did edit alongside Jeff under a previous username [20]. My reasoning for putting the memorial page up for MfD was clear. I did, and still do, think that memorial pages violate WP:USER. Wiki is an ongoing project to build an encyclopedia. It is not a social networking tool and is becoming far too personalized. Further, the MfD is irrelevant to the matter of my relationship to Benji which is simply in terms of the content dispute over the Dirkhising article. Two editors (myself included) disagree with him over content. Rather than bringing the matter up on the article talk page as appropriate he decided to bring the issue here which is completely nonconstructive and disruptive to ANI. --Ave Caesar (talk) 01:28, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Not exactly, Myself and another editor were sorting out how to convert cites to make it easier for them to edit and you starting templating the article. When I brought the issue to you, as stated above, you deleted my concerns and persisted. That was quite disruptive. Then CadenS inserted pejorative words and misrepresented sources and you reverted my in cleaning that up. I agree with Black Kite's assessment - you seemed more interested in opposing me or my editing there than in anything else. Hardly helpful to articles to simply disrupt the editing. -- Banjeboi 07:46, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I removed your messages on my talk page because the content of your messages concerned article edits; not due to an unwillingness to discuss them. Discussion of article edits belong on the article talk page as I stated.[21]--Ave Caesar (talk) 11:56, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps actually discussing the issues then - either on the talk page, which you never did, or on your talk page when I brought the issue to you - would have be seen as more constructive than tenditious. -- Banjeboi 21:55, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Since you were the objecting party it was your responsibility to bring up your concerns on the article talk page. You did not. I am fine with the article in its current form - you are the one complaining about it. Instead, you have decided to disrupt ANI with an article content dispute. That being said, that's the last I'll discuss this in this forum since it's simply not appropriate - not all of us are so easily drug down into pointless bickering and ad hominem attacks. If you wish to discuss the article then do so there. --Ave Caesar (talk) 23:37, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

The issue was already being addressed on the talk page, you never joined in even after insisting that's where I should be discussing concerns. Civility concerns are hardly pointless bickering - I wouldn't have posted here at all if previous efforts hadn't failed. Based on your rather dismissive comments it seems likely you see no issue with your conduct. It was disruptive, in conjunction with CadenS's actions I felt nipping edit-warring was a good thing. -- Banjeboi 02:03, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Minor who was a victim of a sex crime

Resolved

 – Error made, apologised for, corrected. That's that. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ will never be anybody's hero now 11:05, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

But see my comments below. Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:16, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Or we could just mark it as unresolved? I've added comments as well. Carcharoth (talk) 00:59, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

An administrator has just recreated an article about a minor who was a victim of a sex crime. This cannot be okay. AniMate 09:32, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

(A non-Admin view) Seems notable but would need to follow the WP:BLP policy. Article needs to be better sourced and cleaned up. Bidgee (talk) 09:39, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I've reverted to the protected redirect. There's a valid, binding DRV result to keep this a redirect; a single editor ought not to use his admin status to unilaterally override the protection and create a new article against that decision. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:49, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

That seems like something you could link to, and frankly if the citations are valid, there isn't a BLP concern. BLP only comes in to play regarding poorly sourced negative material about an individual--Crossmr (talk) 10:09, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

see Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 May 28 and [22]. It was a speedy deletion made by Newyorkbrad, who gave a very detailed rationale for it at the DRV (worth a read), and it was upheld at the DRV. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:32, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't know that I would have closed that the same. There are many good points raised about why Shawn's article should exist (he has a foundation in his name, numerous articles, reader's digest put him on the cover, etc) That ends up going beyond one event (the foundation).--Crossmr (talk) 12:23, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

My worry would be that although the crime is notable, the crime victim(s) here may not be notable in themselves. Moreover, section headings like 2002: Typical 11 year old boy:, A deal with the devil and 2007: Rescue during search for kidnapped "replacement boy" are much more tabloidish than encyclopedic, making me wonder what the writer had in mind. Gwen Gale (talk) 10:17, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

(ec) First, using admin tools (ability to edit protected article) to take a content position (article should be recreated) is not permitted. It also overturns a DRV decision and previous administrator's decision to protect the article. So on strictly procedural grounds it's shaky. Second, of course there is a BLP concern for discussing the sexual victimization of a minor. Poorly sourced negative information is only one of the various things BLP addresses. It also says this about human dignity: "Wikipedia articles should respect the basic human dignity of their subjects". There is also this: "It is not Wikipedia's purpose to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. Biographies of living persons must be written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy." And WP:ONEEVENT. All of these urge against an article about a crime victim. Wikidemon (talk) 10:23, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I hadn't seen the DRV when I posted the above, no way should this content have been recreated, much less how it was written and by whom. Unless I hear otherwise, I'm going to delete the history following both the DRV and WP:BLP. Gwen Gale (talk) 10:39, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I was totally unaware of all the previous actions, or I wouldn't have touched it. I write many articles beginning with previous redirects, and I should have but didn't spot the distinction in this one. My record is clear that I do not take radical actions deliberately, so I ask you to accept in good faith that this was unintentional on my part. Vaoverland (talk) 11:01, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Accepted here. Drama over, IMHO. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ will never be anybody's hero now 11:05, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Good. Sorry to jump to the assumption that it was deliberate. Wikidemon (talk) 11:25, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

He has a foundation in his name, a website detailing what happened, and was featured on the cover of reader's digest...just how worried are we about this person's privacy when he obviously isn't? The foundation moves him beyond oneevent as the foundation is an on-going and likely permanent event. As I said above, there were a lot of good arguments for keeping the article and a lot of support for at least relisting it. So frankly I don't think consensus was overwhelming in that debate. I understand erring on the side of caution, but notable is notable and we've kept far less notable people here than him. Clean-up and removal of tabloid writing, sure. Deletion? I don't think so.--Crossmr (talk) 12:23, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Although this is not really ANI fodder, it is probably time to revisit my speedy deletion of Shawn Hornbeck in May 2007, as I mentioned last week to the editor who originally created the article.

Shawn Hornbeck was an 11-year-old child who was kidnapped and was then mistreated in a horrifying way over the ensuing four years. I deleted his article, together with another article about another child who has been kidnapped and abused by the same criminal, under WP:BLP because these articles publicized the details of the abuse of these children in a fashion that I was concerned could cause grave damage to their well-being. My rationale for the deletions, and a spectrum of other editors' views, is contained in the DRV cited above. That DRV should be read, in detail, by those interested in background on these issues; my comments are perhaps as "tl;dr" as always, but they contain my most introspective writing on any issue since I started contributing to Wikipedia, as well as thoughtful contributions from a number of other editors, some of whom unfortunately are no longer contributing. (For what it is worth, the conclusion of the DRV—protected redirects from the names of the child victims to the name of the criminal—was not a satisfactory one in my estimation.)

I stand very strongly by my views expressed in that DRV debate that articles concerning living crime victims simply as victims of crime raise serious privacy issues. Moreover, as a matter of common decency, especial solicitude must be shown toward crime victims who are minors. (In general, even the mass media will refrain from reporting the names of minors who are victims of sex crimes; in these cases, however, there was a flurry of "missing children" publicity when Hornbeck and the other boy were missing, and given that we are in the Internet age, it is not usually possible to put the genie back into the bottle when the missing child is found, however horrific the events that occurred while he or she was missing turned out to be.)

At the time of these deletions, the community was engaged in a debate centering around the question of whether and to what extent respect for the privacy interests of article subjects is a valid consideration in deciding on the content of the encyclopedia, even in instances where the information that many of us believe should not be publicized is accurate and can be sourced. Fortunately, that debate has largely been resolved in favor of giving appropriate consideration to privacy and related factors (see generally, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Badlydrawnjeff). Related issues continue to be the subject of discussion to this day (compare, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sarah Palin protection wheel war/Workshop#Proposals by Newyorkbrad#Proposed principles). They should continue to receive thoughtful consideration and attention, as a suite of BLP issues remain by far the most important ethical issues that continue to confront this project.

Nonetheless, an important consideration separates Shawn Hornbeck from other articles of this nature—as I acknowledged in the DRV last year when it was brought to my attention. Most victims of the sort of crimes to which Hornbeck was subjected wish to return to their ordinary lives, and have no desire to further publicize what happened to them. In my view, they are entitled to do this and to have their privacy and dignity respected as they choose to do so. (Again, the DRV contains my lengthier discussion of these issues.) It has become apparent, however, that Shawn Hornbeck has made a contrary choice. Within the past week, my local newspaper contained a full-page article on Hornbeck's story. I was prepared to grumble about the ongoing insensitivity of the popular press—until I read further and learned that the article was based on a lengthy interview given by Hornbeck himself. He has also appeared, within the past week, on national US television for a lengthy interview. He continues to emphasize the work of the Shawn Hornbeck Foundation, on which we have an article which publicizes the generalities of what happened to him in any event, as does the article on the criminal who victimized him.

Shawn Hornbeck is now 17 years old and has been free of his kidnapper for more than two years. We must acknowledge that at this point he himself, rather than anyone else in his life, has made a voluntary, intentional, knowing, considered, and mature decision to lay his life's story before the mass media and before the general public to publicize awareness of the needs of the victims of child kidnapping, child abuse, and sex crimes. He has done this not just once (as in a press conference thanking his rescuers immediately after he was found), but deliberately over a period of years, and evidently intends to continue to do so. Under this set of circumstances, I conclude that keeping his story out of Wikipedia is no longer necessary under WP:BLP and the Badlydrawnjeff decision, and in fact that continuing to do so might well be directly contrary to the interests and desires of the article subject whom I, and others in the community, very rightly sought to protect. (For what it is worth, someone attempted last year to contact the Shawn Hornbeck Foundation and learn their position regarding this article, although I do not know of any answer that was received.)

It bears emphasis that any article of this nature needs to be written with the utmost sensitivity. Undue attention on the specifics of the abuse to which the subject was subjected would be untoward and inappropriate; and the names of other victims of the same criminal, who have not made the same life choices that Shawn has, should not be included. I will be heartbroken if my comments here are read out of context, as they nonetheless probably will be, as "Newyorkbrad has now changed his mind and believes that the details of brutal crimes against minors should be splashed all over Wikipedia." In the vast majority of these situations, the privacy of the victims will, in my view, trump all other considerations. But as the deleting administrator in a controversial case, sometimes one must acknowledge that a decision warrants reconsideration. So it may be here. Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:16, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

This one was quite worth reading. I think you worry too much about what you think people will say, Brad. You could probably advocate killing kittens and still have over 9,000 users voicing support. Just do what you think is right. — CharlotteWebb 19:53, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Unless he's Morgan Freeman that isn't exactly a good thing...--Crossmr (talk) 21:46, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't think I follow that comment. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:53, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

My point is you cannot rely on anybody else to decide whether you are right or wrong about this because they are probably a sycophant who will agree with you either way. I'm not sure what Crossmr is talking about, but I'll probably laugh when I figure it out. — CharlotteWebb 22:42, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

In the Morgan Freeman film Wanted, the deadly assassin chases his prey in a van decorated with cute kittens. OK, I don't know what Crossmr is getting at. -- Suntag ☼ 00:56, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Is there a guideline that Wikipedia does not have articles about minors who were victims of sex crimes? If so, then please delete Lina Medina , an article about a girl who is still a living person, who was a victim of a sex crime at age 4. The article contains a nude photo of her taken at age 5. Edison (talk) 02:22, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I've often heard people say that Morgan Freeman is usually such a gentle calm and inspiring character that he could advocate killing kittens and everyone would be okay with it. As for it not being a good thing, it was just a comment on how some people get upset when they see someone who appears to be able to get away with murder on wikipedia and still have a gaggle of cheerleaders following them around. Not saying that is the case here.--Crossmr (talk) 04:25, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Some further comments. I remember (back in June 2007) noticing that the name had been redirected to the name of the alleged (at the time - since convicted) criminal, and thinking this was not appropriate, which is why I created the article on the foundation, and then requested that the redirect (which was protected at the time) be changed to point to the article I had just created. See the talk page (seems to have been left undeleted). I agree with the main thrust of what Newyorkbrad says above, though I'd hope that people would spend time expanding the article about the foundation, and giving that at least equal weight to our coverage of the person after which the foundation is named (but being careful of WP:COATRACKs like this). And I still think that any specific biographical information about the person involved can still be done within the framework of the article on the foundation. Newyorkbrad mentioned a recent newspaper article based on an interview. Why not go and add something to the article on the foundation based on that interview? That would improve the article. I also note that the name of the second victim is in the article despite Newyorkbrad's earlier edit to remove it. I agree with that edit, with the additions made here, and have now restored my wording to the article (quoting from Newyorkbrad's earlier edit summary). But I don't have access to this recent newspaper article, so if others have time to expand and update the article, that would be good. Carcharoth (talk) 00:59, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Megafauna

Resolved

 – No admin action needed. Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 16:07, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

An IP user, 125.164.173.194, has been adding links to Category:Megafauna to seemingly random articles. Should these edits be reverted? I've reverted some of them, but they might be legitimate. Bart133 ^{t c @ How's my driving?} 01:05, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

It looks like some might be legit (e.g., Diprotodon, "the largest known marsupial to have ever lived"), but yeah there are definitely some oddball ones (such as Blackbuck, which I see you reverted). In some respects, categorizing animals as Megafauna might require a reference, considering the non-specific nature of the definition in Megafauna. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 01:15, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

The article Megafauna looks rather screwy itself. Domesticated turkeys are megafauna? Chital (which as far as I know haven't been domesticated) are examples of domestic megafauna? Deor (talk) 01:22, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

(e/c) I've noticed a few of these changes. This may be related to the definitions in the Megafauna article, which start at 40 kg body weight. I find that questionable (the ref is to a slide-show). The Megafauna article itself lists Turkey (bird), which doesn't conform to my Thanksgiving experience. This seems more like a content issue - do we have the correct definition of Megafauna? Franamax (talk) 01:25, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd suggest talking to the user, and getting some expert eyes on the additions. No admin action appears to be required at this point, though. Cheers. lifebaka++ 01:39, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I note that this is marked as resolved but a copule of comments anyway. This is a longtime editor who turns up almost daily with a different IP, look at the Megafauna history. I've never seen them respond to messages or short blocks. They seem OK for the most part and are editing in good faith. The main problem is that they somtimes creeate red linked categories. Of course the red links sometimes look like they might be good categories. The editor appears to be working in good faith but it's frustrating with the IP hopping. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 00:35, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Swami Rama

Edit war going on here [23], with multiple accounts making similar unsourced and POV edits over the last few days. Have asked for page protection, as well. JNW (talk) 23:41, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Just making a note here that I've come across this issue before, and there has been some comments made by Venus Copernicus (talk · contribs) (one of the editors involved) on its talk page. The article looks like it needs some serious clean-up as well. ~ Troy (talk) 23:50, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Delhi

This is regarding a recent vandalism done to the article. User:Nikkul gave an explanation that the changes he had reverted were made "without discussion". Fact remains, that the two users who made the changes (User:Enigma Blues and User:Dilli Billi) did explain their changes on Talk:Delhi more than two weeks ago and no one raised an objection to it. Suddenly, this user bumps in and reverts all the changes made over the past three weeks.

Going by the history of edits made by User:Nikkul (he very proudly states the number of images in various articles contributed by him on his userpage), he is going to revert those changes again. And he will dispute these changes only because ego issues are involved here. It is a matter of common-sense that the newly added images are more encyclopedic and representative of Delhi and removing these images serves no purpose apart from satisfying the ego of one user.

I'm relatively new here and I guess this is going to result in an edit war since I have had a brief dispute with this user previously. Any help or advice in this regard would be great! --128.211.201.161 (talk) 00:09, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I'd say that you should talk directly to Nikkul. May be this could be a mistake, but I'm not sure. The involved users should be notified of this thread as well. ~ Troy (talk) 00:15, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I have. But I do not expect a quick reply from other users involved since they haven't made edits to Wikipedia recently. --128.211.201.161 (talk) 00:24, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I am not surprised. User:Nikkul is known for making unilateral, frustrating, many times unreasonable edits without discussing in the talk page. See here and an ensuing discussion and discussion after changing a picture in Mumbai article. Docku:“what up?” 00:34, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, we'll see what happens as it unfolds soon, hopefully. What anon just did is a good way to start a new method of solving this. Now first of all, I would like to clarify that this revert was correct as it was made in good faith, but also, Nikkul's edit is not defined as "vandalism" (it is a common mistake in terms of a meaning). Once you have gotten to the point which we're at now, I believe that there is only one thing to do: wait patiently. You'll get a response, certainly, and when you do, make sure to reply and see if the issue is still unresolved. If it is, then, well, this is technically a content dispute, so I would suggest going to Wikipedia:Dispute Resolution. Of course, before you do that, you have to be sure that you can't use the talk page as a medium to stop this edit war. ~ Troy (talk) 00:38, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

User:Swamilive sockpuppet activity

Indef blocked user Swamilive (talk · contribs) seems to be spending a lazy Sunday using their sockfarm to create nuisance mixed drink hoax articles. Rather than reporting to AIV, which seems sluggish today, or poking individual admins, I'm giving a heads up here. Recently blocked socks are:

• Lorries and owt (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log),
• Stanley Jacobsen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log),
• Colin Jacobsen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log),
• Stanley Collins (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), and
• GilfordJames (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log).

Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:31, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

New, as yet unblocked, sock: Delicious Jacobsen (talk · contribs). Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:32, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Hey, does anyone know if there's a noticeboard where I could report ongoing problems to admins? You know, to tell them about active vandals and sockpuppets that need blocking? Anyone? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:57, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it took that long, but if you need help faster you can try to look through the deletion log and poke whoever's first on the list. Anyways, blocked the new sock. Cheers. lifebaka++ 16:04, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Swamilive Black Kite 16:05, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, it was over half an hour to get an identified sock blocked after I posted it here. Just saying. Thanks to you both. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:18, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

You guys did a great job. I used to work on Sundays too. I recall the day passing by very slowly. TomStanRobert (talk) 16:23, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

*cough*sockpuppet*cough* Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:30, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Already done :) also see the RFCU, where User:Sam Korn has done the job. I've blocked the two that weren't already. Black Kite 16:33, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

This user's been very helpful in reporting himself to me from quite a few of his accounts. Not sure why I get to be the lucky one. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:16, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Got a fresh one at JeremySteve (talk · contribs) (already reported to AIV). Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:42, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

And now I have a wikistalker, User:Jeztheham, reported to AIV about an hour and a half ago and still not blocked. Anyone care to take a look? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:05, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Jeztheham blocked. I suggest reporting similar stalkers here at ANI rather than AIV; AIV is more for blatantly obvious vandals, and it took me a while to become convinced this was another Swamilive sock. ANi is better for things that require investigation. --barneca (talk) 15:44, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks barneca. I'll report any future socks here. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:10, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

New user PalmofYourHand (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is claiming on my talk page that he is User:Swamilive and that recently blocked Jeztheham (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is not his sockpuppet. That's entirely possible, although I haven't had any other wikistalkers lately. Shall I open a new checkuser case or add to the existing? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 01:30, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

(copy/paste of my response on my talk page; let's keep the discussion here so it doesn't get fragmented) --barneca (talk) 01:50, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I didn't block Jextheham based solely on your say-so, or on any Checkuser anything; I blocked them based on behavior. I looked at every single one of their edits. On the off chance this isn't the actual Swamilive, it's still an unwelcome troll. If a Checkuser came back and said it wasn't Swamilive, I'd still stand by the block, so I don't know that a request is necessary, but if you want to do one, I'm afraid I don't know the etiquette of how subsequent Checkuser requests for the same person are handled. I do know that there's a clerk noticeboard of some kind, and if you post a request and make a note there that you're not sure it's formatted right, I'm sure someone will help fix it if necessary. Alternatively, I think Tiptoety (if he's active right now) knows what he's doing on that page. Or, if you want to bring this complication up on that AN or ANI thread we were on to get more eyeballs, I won't take offense; a second opinion is always welcome. I don't believe Jextheham has requested an unblock, though, right? --barneca (talk) 01:42, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not aware of an unblock request, so I guess a checkuser is unnecessary. If someone wants to block the new Swamilive sock (PalmofYourHand (talk · contribs)) that would be great. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 02:22, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

oops. done. --barneca (talk) 02:24, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

btw, if anyone feels a compelling need to unblock and I'm not around, feel free. --barneca (talk) 02:27, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

New, fresh, self-confessed sock FrameSplit (talk · contribs), if anyone gets the urge to block something. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:02, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

IMOD (herbal extract)

Would the admin community step-in concerning the IMOD (herbal extract) article? This "drug" was announced as a "cure for AIDS" by the Iranian government a while back, and it has encountered a lot of revision since the last edit wars concerning it. As with almost any Iran-related article (for those who have had the misfortune of trying to correct overt propaganda) this is another point of contention. I'm tired of trying to fight them only to be accused of being a racist or whathaveyou. The links to the Iranian news agencies' articles have been moved or the content changed. An editor, Scythian77 , appears to be attempting to legitimize the "drug" by removing information and links. I urge the admin community to look deeply into IMOD and into the edits, and to intervene...perhaps with an editing block of some kind. Also, it might be best if an international collection/committee of Wikipedians organizes to identify, examine and correct suspected propaganda as editors such as myself and admins unaware of such efforts by others aren't equipped to maneuver the attacks nor the bureacracy. I have in the past been challenged for making referenced corrections to IMOD (when the first big edit war occurred) for saying things on the talk pages such as "it is obvious to anyone that Iran didn't develop an herbal cure for AIDS using nanotechnology" (for this statement I was accused of "insulting others' intelligence"). A look far back into the history of this page will demonstrate that the information corrected by myself many months ago was legitimate and referenced, and the majority of edits since then seem to deviated from that. Edits to the Iranian higher education page have been made, removing much credible and cited information about Iran's "brain drain" [24](among many other articles and papers) -- some so poorly as to make parts of it nearly unreadable. I'm staying out of this one except for issuing reverts -- I will continuously violate the three revert rule only because the argument isn't about fact concerning this page. The argument is fact vs. the desired message of nationalists. Discussions lead to nowhere. So, I'm calling on you who are supposed to be the neutral guardians of Wikipedia. I'm exhausted of fighting them and sympathetic editors and admins on this, and I don't have the time to do it. TeamZissou (talk) 21:51, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Wow! So I am some kind of "nationalist" now? Too bad for you, I am not even Iranian! More importantly, what I am "ethnically" has no bearing on this discussion, is none of your prejudicial business, and I will not allow you to use it as means to belittle me. I hate to break it to you, but that article went from being encyclopedic, to a nothing more than a political diatribe by certain editors. The purpose of the article is only to report on this "IMOD" subject, and list various facts and opinions of it, all necessarily sourced. Including your opinions of the product, and how it relates to Iran's very real "brain drain", has no business there. Also, referring to the product as a "cure", when it's own makers do not, is just silly. Lets stick to the available facts, and discuss this, instead of engaging in an edit war or running to Administrators just to "win". Oh, and referring to my invitation to discuss the matter with you on your talk page as "crap"[25], is hardly polite, or civil. The Scythian 04:51, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

This is a content dispute. I encourage you to engage your interlocutor on the article's talk page rather than violate 3RR. Perhaps WP:FTN would be a better place to alert other editors who are concerned with the proper encyclopedic treatment of fringe science. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 22:11, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Consensus building on the discussion page is the best way to start. The Scythian 00:46, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Just because its a content dispute doesn't automagically mean that administrators aren't needed. If someone isn't behaving appropriately during a content dispute (e.g. making personal attacks as indicated above) the administrators should step in and correct those situations.--Crossmr (talk) 08:41, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Really? Now which editor made a personal attack in this?The Scythian 04:36, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

There has been one revert made. This should be done on the talk page of the article. Give the user a little longer to respond, me thinks. This doesn't need to be here as of yet; and hopefully not ever :) Paranormal Skeptic (talk) 18:32, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. The Scythian 04:51, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Historian19

User:Historian19 continues to make hundreds of edits, virtually all of which get reverted as they are unsupported by reliable sources or are otherwise nonsense. The rest would surely get reverted for the same reason, but some editors don't notice what is going on and the nonsense gets buried by later, good edits. Please look at this. He was previously blocked for the same reason and seems to learn nothing from that and from complaints on his talk page. Hmains (talk) 05:30, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Final warning left about WP:BLPs. Stifle (talk) 08:55, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I tried to help him earlier, obviously failed. I've given him a 24 hour block (he'd blanked his page earlier I noticed). Doug Weller (talk) 16:05, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Taking another look, he's left a real mess behind, quite a few unreverted edits on the financial information of countries. Not that easy to sort, especially as WP is so slow. Doug Weller (talk) 16:19, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

This editor lacks a basic understanding of WP. I suspect he will persist as soon as his block goes away and we will again have to wade through hundreds of more articles to repair them. Hmains (talk) 04:07, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Egypt article

Please can any administrator follow the recent discussions in this section of Egypt talk page and stop troy 07 (talk · contribs) Changing my comments, I don’t know why he is afraid from showing his contributions or giving examples from others contributions, and I don’t believe it is a good habit to change other editors comments, also I don't think his is using a neutral point of view, Sorry but I warned him for two times « PuTTY^SchOOL 01:54, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I've already responded. I respect your comments, but I was simply bothered by the fact that Putty kept musing about how my contribs are "POV" or "not neutral like mine cause I'm so perfect" type of sentiment. This thread is only a waste of my time like that load of junk I spent repeating my opinion in the discussion, which is why I already asked for help. ~ Troy (talk) 01:58, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Troy 07 (talk · contribs) as Nishidani (talk · contribs) told me before “It's best not to badger administrators with pleas as to what they should or should not do. Note whatever worries you, and leave it to their great experience and discretion to determine what, if anything, should be done” may be you can understand something « PuTTY^SchOOL 02:16, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Solution here is simple. Troy, don't make adjustments to Putty's comments, to avoid further conflict. Should work all around, right? Cheers, guys. lifebaka++ 02:27, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Sure thing. I should note that I haven't "badgered" admins lately, though. ~ Troy (talk) 03:46, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Really aggressive warning about minor with identifying information

Resolved

I'm very uncomfortable with this, even though I tend to agree that the kid has too much data on his user page.—Kww(talk) 03:28, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, which template is that? Daniel (talk) 03:31, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I stand corrected: I saw the "Stop" image and assumed template, but it seems manually placed.—Kww(talk) 03:33, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

No, it's Template:uw-pinfo (there's a hidden comment buried in it that says so). Calvin 1998 ^(t·c) 03:34, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Yep, there it is. Failing to remove identifying information on your user page results in a block? Or is this template meant for another situation, like when and editor has outed another editor?—Kww(talk) 03:44, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I think its meant for the case in which one editor has outed another.--Crossmr (talk) 03:46, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Agree. Although then the last sentence doesn't make much sense.. Calvin 1998 ^(t·c) 03:47, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Looks like the warner added it manually when he saw how forcefully the warning was phrased. So do we all pretty much think this is just a case of a well-intentioned user grabbing the wrong template? Is there a more appropriate one?—Kww(talk) 03:50, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I say WP:AGF when it comes to the user who placed the template on the talk page, I really think his intentions were good. Also, on a side note I have deleted the userpage per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Protecting children's privacy, I will be leaving the user a message shortly. Tiptoety ^talk 03:54, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, I left a msg before I noticed that (do whatever you want with my msg). Anyway, it's done.--chaser - t 03:57, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for clearing this up. It wasn't my intention for the message to come off like I did, which is why I tried to ease it up a little bit. --(GameShowKid)--(talk)--(evidence)-- 04:09, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

"dubious reference ..."?

Resolved

 – This is content dispute on a math article. Nothing that requires admin intervention. I've reported it to Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Mathematics#.22Dubious_reference.22_at_Graph_isomorphism. VG ☎ 23:29, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Mikkalai wrote in the article Graph isomorphism:

"dubious reference and deletion of my changes. Please provide a reputable ref.", about:

"Regular graphs are very difficult for such testing and many of them are very important for chemistry (for example, Cyclohexane, Benzene, Cuneane, Dodecahedrane etc.), but their part among chemical compounds is small, and decreases with increasing of number of vertices<--ref>M.I.Trofimov, E.A.Smolenskii, Russian Chemical Bulletin, 2005, Vol. 54, 9, 2235. (http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11172-006-0105-6)<--/ref>."

Is Russian Chemical Bulletin reprinted by Springer-Verlag is not "a reputable ref."? Is it "dubious reference"? Is User:Mikkalai is expert for such statements?

See, also in Talk:Graph isomorphism: "Who the heck is this Trofimov? What's his international scientific recognition? Why his stuff deserves place in encyclopedia? `'Míkka>t 19:00, 30 September 2008 (UTC)"--Tim32 (talk) 21:16, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

First, the sentence is so badly written that it is almost impossible to understand. Second, Wikipedia prefers secondary sources (review articles) over primary sources (journal articles), so the source actually is not very good for Wikipedia, even though it is reputable. (See wp:source.) Looie496 (talk) 21:36, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

"Academic and peer-reviewed publications are highly valued and usually the most reliable sources in areas where they are available"(See wp:source.) Russian Chemical Bulletin is Academic and reviewed journal, in chemistry area, i.e. Rusian Academy of Sci., Moscow. Please, explain more if possible.--Tim32 (talk) 21:45, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I was referring to this. Looie496 (talk) 22:39, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

But I referring to WP:SOURCES Am I right? ;)--Tim32 (talk) 22:49, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

This appears to be a content dispute, not requiring administrator intervention at this time—both Tim32 and Mikkalai need to stop the edit warring and get to the talk page, however. Setting aside my admin hat, from a content perspective I find the sentence in question to be less comprehensible that normal for content in our graph theory articles. Digging a bit deeper, I wonder if the information is important enough for discussion in graph isomorphism, even if accurate. (Per Looie496, minutiae supported by a single reference in a low-impact journal is less likely to be encyclopedic than information drawn from peer-reviewed review articles.) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:50, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Dear TenOfAllTrades!

Sincerely thanks for you attempt to stop this edit war, but, sorry, I did not understand you exactly. So, please, answer my questions (Yes or No):

1) Is Russian Chemical Bulletin reprinted by Springer-Verlag is not "a reputable ref."?

2) Is it "dubious reference"?

3) Is User:Mikkalai is expert for such statements?

4) Is it personal attack (Ad hominem) to me?

Thanks again--Tim32 (talk) 23:07, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

PS. Please, note this is Revision of 14:14, 24 January 2008 and User:Mikkalai saw it! Today he disliked my comment in discussion page, and just the moment he deleted this Revision of 14:14, 24 January 2008! --Tim32 (talk) 23:20, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

• I need to add this: the complainant raised both a WQA complaint and this within a short time, that appears as Forum-shopping. I responded to and closed his WQA around 0700 Eastern time before noting this entry. BMW(drive) 13:22, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Greg Horne

Would an admin mind looking into Greghorne.wiki (talk · contribs)? He is apparently an artist named Greg Horne who does nothing but insert his own bio onto the already existing Greg Horne page, which is about a football player. Rather than create another page, he hijacks the existing page. This has been done numerous times [26] [27] [28]. He previous did the same edit as an IP [29] [30].

I have tried to discuss this with him numerous times on his talk page to explain WP:COI, WP:N, and a whole slew of other wikipedia principles that would prevent the situation, but he refuses to listen. Would an admin mind taking a look, please? Thanks in advance. Dayewalker (talk) 22:14, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, I've left an offer of assistance on his talk page with some more general advice. If he won't play ball, I'll take the ball away. WP:AGF is not without its limits. --Rodhullandemu 22:27, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Or rig the ball with explosives, if he doesn't stop. Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 22:33, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

AGK has blocked for five hours. A little short for my taste but hopefully the guy will stop when he comes back. Oren0 (talk) 22:35, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Are you sure you didn't make a typo? AGK is a trusted admin... am I missing something? Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 22:38, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

• Yes, I have blocked Greg for 5 hours, as a preventative measure against further disruption from him. To address Oren's concerns: I do not view my block as being overly lenient. Indeed, I am hoping that this will spur Greg into changing his ways; I would view an extension of the 5 hour block as being a purely penal measure. If this editor continues to disrupt after the block expires, a longer block will be warranted at that juncture; that, of course, is a hurdle we'll cross when we reach it. Anthøny ✉ 22:42, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

• Addendum: And, of course, should he indeed disrupt immediately after the block expires, a block of a sizeable length would be justified; I am simply leaning towards the AGF side here, and hoping this user will respond with a little bit of maturity. Anthøny ✉ 22:43, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

God, do I need reading glasses! I thought it said, AGK has been blocked. Oops. Good block. Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 22:54, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

The two interpretations are slightly different. :-) Fear not; I misread all the time. I just need to double-check if something doesn't add up! Anthøny ✉ 23:00, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

UPDATE: It seems as if Non-Notable Greg has returned as an IP again. IP 24.18.251.179 (talk · contribs) just showed up to make the same edits. Dayewalker (talk) 06:54, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

• I checked his blog, linked in the edits, and it's pretty plain that he's engaged in an amateurish SEO campaign. I blocked the account with no expiry date, he can be unblocked if he can persuade any passing admin that his vanity spamming campaign is over. Guy (Help!) 08:26, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Suicide threat - cross posted from WP:AIV

Suicide announcement?

I don't know if this is serious or just a hoax: [31]. But you never know. The IP is registered to St. John's Memorial University, St. John's, NFL, Canada. De728631 (talk) 13:09, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I think we have some framework in place to deal with these things but I can't remember what it is. Perhaps someone in the area should phone the uni, just in case. — ^.^ ^{[citation needed]} 13:16, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

In most cases WP:RBI. D.M.N. (talk) 13:17, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I suggest the possibly less harmful and lifesaving Wikipedia:Responding to threats of harm. — ^.^ ^{[citation needed]} 13:20, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I found that too, sent an email to the NFL Constabulary, maybe that helps. De728631 (talk) 13:30, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

That likely wraps it up. Nothing more we can do here except move on. Cheers, guys, and good work. lifebaka++ 14:31, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

We probably want the edit deleted from non admin viewable history, but we'll probably need an oversighter to do it.--Tznkai (talk) 15:51, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Sent an email to stewards AT wikimedia.org, so it'll either get taken care of or not. Cheers. lifebaka++ 16:10, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely to NOT WP:RBI this. There has been a specific threat of violence made and pursuant to WP:TOV this should be taken seriously and reported to the authorities. I am currently on a bus from Boston to New York so cannot do this. Can someone please take point on this? Bstone (talk) 16:03, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Give me a moment to set up a subpage, with two active threads this is getting to damned confusing.

FYI, action has already been taken - Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Suicide_threat_-_cross_posted_from_WP:AIV. Cirt (talk) 16:08, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I would not suggest to use RBI, instead contacting local users so effective measures can be taken. Caulde 16:09, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

This may be helfpul: Wikipedia:Responding to suicidal individuals --Flewis^(talk) 03:46, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Suicide threat - cross posted from WP:AIV

Resolved

 – authorities notified Toddst1 (talk) 15:36, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

134.153.184.17 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) has threatened to commit suicide. The Whois look up indicates the address is registered to a university in Newfoundland. I've emailed the university and the Wikimedia foundation, however I'm not based in North America, and would be grateful if someone could phone the Canadian emergency services. PhilKnight (talk) 13:48, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Per WP:TOV, if anyone finds these threats of suicide credible, please feel free to contact the relevant authorities. I have blocked the IP for the vandalism, but have not taken any additional action myself. -- Ed (Edgar181) 13:49, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I reported this one level above on this noticeboard. An email was sent to the Newfoundland Constabulary and to the Wikimedia foundation (who just replied that they're going to monitor this). De728631 (talk) 13:55, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

The AN thread resulted in the local government being emailed, so there's nothing else we can do here. Cheers. lifebaka++ 14:33, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I also followed up via email with the IT department at that university. Toddst1 (talk) 15:36, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

See dup thread: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Suicide_announcement.3F. Cirt (talk) 16:09, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Unified

This is now a transcluded so both pages are up to date simulatiniously--Tznkai (talk) 16:10, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Oversight

I have been asked to oversight the revision concerned here. I have declined to do so, with the advice of some other Oversighters, on the grounds that it may be helpful for ISP/authorities to see the revision. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 16:24, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Should we have it deleted/oversighted sometime in the future? --Tznkai (talk) 16:50, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

No point, I think. Stifle (talk) 18:27, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I cannot see why this should ever be oversighted. If blatant vandalism is not oversighted or deleted than things which the authorities may need access to should certainly not be oversighted. Bstone (talk) 22:38, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

To clarify, the Threats of harm essay above suggests deleting, not oversighting the offending edit. Usually to avoid people doing something really stupid misguided with a potentially suicidal person.--Tznkai (talk) 04:06, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Proposed change of confusing jargon

Why do we call it oversight? Oversight usually means some sort of independent review or process, often to try to keep people honest. Wikipedia usage of oversight really means "Removal", "Content deletion" or "Censor" (censorship doesn't need to be bad; some countries have a censorship board). Propose making Wikipedia more user friendly and less jargon by renaming the term "oversight" to "content removal" or "remove". So the first sentence of this section would read "I have been asked to do content removal of the revision concerned here" or "I have been asked to remove the revision concerned here". 903M (talk) 03:56, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Not meaning to seem like I'm muting discussion here or anything, but you probably should head over to WP:VPP for things like this. You'll get a much wider group of editors there. Cheers. lifebaka++ 03:59, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I forget where I read this, but IIRC, the name came from the fact that all members can hide revisions and also see those hidden revisions, thereby providing oversight of each other to ensure that no one is hiding revisions that don't need to be hidden or hiding them for ulterior motives. Or it may have been that a narrow group had that oversight role and more could hide revisions, but now the groups are congruent and inseparable.--chaser - t 05:00, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

The way I've always looked at it is since the GFDL requires attribution of all edits, exercising this tool is sort of "overlooking" that license, as we're deleting part of the history. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 19:04, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

That doesn't have anything to do with it (admins can do that with deletion and selective diff restoraton).--chaser - t 06:04, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

The GFDL also only requires us to have the major contributors. Almost universally when we oversight whatever is left has little to no contribution from the edits in question. JoshuaZ (talk) 22:10, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

user:sponsorations

I'm having a problem with this user, who is edit-warring to insert into the axon article a reference to a non-notable Hungarian musician named Robert Lalkovits ("Axone"). I've tried to explain why this is not acceptable, but it doesn't seem to be taking. (His English is not very good.) Since this is not exactly vandalism, I don't think I can just keep reverting, so an admin-assist would be appreciated. Looie496 (talk) 20:57, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the note; article watchlisted. I agree that this seems to be a misunderstanding, and communication looks to be a major problem (as does the notability of the musician in question). A Hungarian-speaking editor might be useful here... EyeSerene^talk 14:54, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Not sure how to deal with this query about links to 'private servers' in a game's article

I've had the following request for help:

Hi, just wondering if you could deal with a vandalizing user: User_talk:67.79.54.130, who recently added an illegal private server to the Rose Online article. Thanks! --Resplendent (talk) 03:48, 1 October 2008 (UTC).

These servers are being discussed on the talk page here: [32] -- this is an area where I have to plead ignorance -- can we have links to/discussions about private servers for games such as this? Thanks. Doug Weller (talk) 13:40, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

• Why on earth would we want to link to any servers? It's not as if they are sources for encyclopaedic content, and Wikipedia is not a link farm. I think a more productive discussion for the talk page would be: why does this article have not one single reliable independent source? Guy (Help!) 14:17, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

• As I said on the talk page, links to such servers can be removed because they are being added without any third party sources. If you (or others) find third party sources that discuss a certain private server or private servers in general, there is nothing illegal about linking to one. I agree w/ guy that it is hard to envision a reason one would link directly to a web page for a private server unless that specific server has been discussed in a RS before. But they aren't "illegal" in the united states (I don't know about Korea). Protonk (talk) 14:55, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
• Private servers are nothing new and don't warrant mentioning any more than a game being copied, unless something in particular is covered in reliable sources, but even then it may be a 'general' look rather than pointing to a particular server. Even if that's the case, the server itself doesn't require a link. Someoneanother 17:29, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Bad faith edits from user

Resolved

Andrew Nutter (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) The user has a long history of making uncited POV changes, despite many warnings about it (note how often his talk page has been blanked). I posted this on the Admin Intervention page, and they recommended I post here.--Rsl12 (talk) 14:38, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Is he trying to use us as a webhost? I'm not sure what is 'Drewpedia', which he seems to view as his personal version if Wikipedia, is meant to be User:Andrew Nutter/Drewpedia but I'm pretty dubious about it. Doug Weller (talk) 14:54, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I do not see anything requiring administrator intervention here. See my reply on my talk page. Equendil Talk 14:57, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

He's only made 3 mainspace edits in the last week...and 2 were essentially the same edit...and one is still there. Seems good faith...maybe a wee misguided in his understanding of POV, but he does not seem to repost the material if it is reverted. --Smashville^talk 17:25, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough--I saw all the template exclamation marks in the user talk, many of which were repeats, and I probably should have looked a little closer as to the content of those. I'll assume 'a little misguided' for now.--Rsl12 (talk) 18:26, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism and COI on Lurgan

I'm afraid I've potentially stepped over 3RR in reverting vandalism on the Lurgan article (I'll leave it up to someone to slap my wrists if you decide it's not obvious vandalism). User:Kilwilkie, who appears to be a sock puppet of User:Dell1300, has been removing notable people from the article and changing the description of one person from "Died when he threw himself on a box of primed grenades prior to the Battle of the Somme." to "Died when he dropped a live grenade into a box of primed grenades prior to the Battle of the Somme." with no proof or citations. I'm at the stage now where more reverts worry me immensely and would like someone else to take a look. Thanks. --Blowdart | ^talk 15:48, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Seems like the user's been doing some vandalism at other pages too, so blocked for 12 hours. The vandalism isn't terribly obvious, but it's still vandalism, so I wouldn't worry about the 3RR violation too much. Cheers. lifebaka++ 17:22, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for blocking this user Lifebaka. Based on the spurious accusation that Kilwilkie made against the longtime and reliable editor User:Epbr123 here [33] I think that this user may warrent a longer block. At the very least this editor will need close scrutiny when the current block expires. MarnetteD | Talk 18:23, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

This page

...reliably crashes Firefox 3.0.2 and shuts down my Linux session. Never had that before with a wikipedia page. Is there some funny javascript on it or something? 130.88.24.189 (talk) 16:28, 1 October 2008 (UTC) Added using Konqueror, since you ask 130.88.24.189 (talk) 16:30, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

• Confirm: this page currently reliably crashes Firefox 3.0.2 and X server on Linux; does not crash Firefox 2 under Windows, nor Konqueror under Linux... 131.111.17.247 (talk) 16:53, 1 October 2008 (UTC) PS. probably not JavaScript: switching JavaScript off in Firefox 3.0.2 does not solve the problem, still crashes the same. 131.111.17.247 (talk) 17:03, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

No idea. You might thy heading over to WP:VPT, where more technical-minded people hang out. Cheers. lifebaka++ 17:14, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

User:MBoarSidwell

Tried to block for this user's contributions of moving pages to nonsense destinations, see contribs: MBoarSidwell (talk · contribs) but someone already blocked him. Would have been my first. Guess I should have been quicker. User:The Fat Man Who Never Came Back's page has been protected from non-admin moving for 48 hours. --Moni3 (talk) 18:04, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

John Reaves

I'm having a major issue right now with John Reaves harassing another editor...which began on ANI it seems...(See WP:ANI#Questionable Username)

• Here is the first thread where he accuses everyone with "fucking around" and getting the user blocked.
• Then he changes the name in his signature to "I received mail"...equating mail with death threats.
• Here he calls the user (and users) who participated in the ANI "trolls" and "worthless" and accuses the participants of "ruining other people".
• Here he changes his signature to "I received change", equating change with death threats.
• Here he follows the ANI starter to my talk page and accuses them of leading the person to a block with "incessant nagging".
• Here he accuses me of harassing a user leading to their block...a user with whom my first interaction wasadding the missing block template to their secondary account.
• Here he goes to Grsz's talk page and tells him that the reason the user behaved the way he did is because his username was reported (again, the username was deemed inappropriate by unanimous consensus and blocked).
• So I think I'm a fireman and try to get him to delete or refactor the ANI comments to which he replies, "No".
• So I ask why he is singling out one editor...because he is singling out one editor, following them to my talkpage even...I get this answer. Which, now that I realize I was reading somethings out of order, was true partially...but didn't explain why he took it off ANI to my talk page and the user's talk page.
• I again asked him why he singled out Grsz (again admittedly getting my chronology a little out of whack) to which he responded "See previous answer".
• Here I express my concerns about an administrator calling an editor worthless for following procedure to which he responds saying it is still everyone else's fault.
• After informing him that I will be taking this to a more official forum, he pretty much brushes me off.

Obviously I find it more than disturbing that an administrator can behave like this...it goes beyond mere incivility and almost becomes trollish...anyway...need some help here, obviously --Smashville^talk 20:45, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I can see you are upset, and there is quite a lot to discuss here, so forgive me for pointing out one thing: going to someone's talk page and leaving a section bluntly titled "Civility", and listing diffs and asking someone to refactor the posts, might not work at putting out the "fires". It may end up escalating things instead. See here for the full context. As far as I can tell, John Reaves got rather upset about this (and I have some sympathy with some of his views) but seems to have moved on from this. At this stage, maybe it would be best if you did so as well, rather than prolonging things? At the end of the day, trying to establish who was "right" and who took the "worse" approach to this is going to generate more heat than light. If you want a more detailed response, let me know. Carcharoth (talk) 21:27, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I've gotta agree; I don't think you approached this in the best manner. While John's comments might have been a tad stronger than you or I might use, he clearly feels strongly about the situation. Going to his talk page and demanding he retract his statements comes off as a demand that he shut up and go away. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 21:36, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Okay - just forget it then. Didn't mean to fan the flames...If someone wants to archive this? --Smashville^talk 21:42, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism and Wikipedia

I have serious doubt on the claim that vandalism in wikipedia lasts only a few seconds after reviewing these two edits [34][35] I would have reverted these edits myself, but I want to bring this matter to admin attention because I believe it is a serious issue. I have seen several edits like this which are not reverted for some mysterious reasons for months. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 13:38, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Old, but you may be interested in this. And there's been worse - several months worse, in fact. x42bn6 Talk Mess 13:42, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Also, there is nothing admins can do about that. Vandalism lasts until it is reverted by an user and if noone notices it, it might last. Admins can protect an article if it becomes overhelming, but someone needs to see the vandalism for that as well. So I wonder what you expect from the admins here? They just fight when they notice it, either when editing themselves or when reported. But they cannot notice everything everywhere. SoWhy 13:47, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

There's about 1,000 admins and about 5,000,000 articles. Not feasible to watchlist more than a handful of article per admin. RCPatrol cannot see every edit. The only solution is for all users to watchlist articles in which they have an interest and to revert vandalism as it occurs. One need not be an admin to revert vandalism. If a particular article is heavily vandalized, protection can be requested. If an editor persists in vandalism past appropriate warnings, then they can be blocked. Otherwise, admin attention is not required. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 13:59, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism is certainly not usually reverted within seconds - one study found the median time to revert to be 14 minutes. You may be interested in Wikipedia:WikiProject Vandalism studies. Haukur (talk) 14:38, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to guess the mean time to revert vandalism is significantly less now than in 2006. Protonk (talk) 15:02, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

This more or less means half of all vandalism in the sample was reverted within about 15 minutes and following the numbers given in the sample, 3/4s of the vandalism had been reverted after about 7 hours, keeping in mind the straggling pages are likely to be very low traffic anyway. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:11, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Having a lot of bots running around likely helps. I'm not sure about anyone else, but I rarely see vandalism on my watchlist that lasts more than a few seconds, but vandalism that does usually lasts an hour or two (or however long it took me to see it). Generally User:ClueBot or one of his friends get the stuff all quick-like. We've certainly got better tools to handle finding and reverting vandalism now, with the use of rollback and automated editors. I can feel myself starting to ramble even in this little text, so cheers, everybody. lifebaka++ 15:19, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I suspect that the distribution of revert delays may indeed be multimodal, or at least "staircase" shaped. Bots catch some vandalism in seconds or a few minutes at most, human RC patrollers follow slightly behind on average, and watchlisters tend to catch most of the rest within a few hours or days at most. But whatever gets past all these filters can linger for months or even years before some random reader spots it. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 16:02, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Do you have any idea how many edits go through here in just a five minute period sometimes? HalfShadow 15:58, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes? And? What's your point, Otolemur? Corvus cornix_talk 18:23, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I've done a survey of 40 vandalism edits from Special:Recentchanges. Since some of the edits haven't been reverted yet I can't give you an average but 25 of the 40 were reverted in under 3 minutes. Hut 8.5 19:24, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

it would be useful to keep a list of the vandalisms that don't get caught in a reasonable time-frame. that might help to recode the bots, or to focus patrollers on neglected areas. can someone make a page for that so that we have a centralized list? --Ludwigs2 20:45, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

m:Flagged Revisions -- when will we get these??? (/me sighs) howcheng {chat} 21:43, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

We don't need flagged revisions to be better equipped to spot edits like these. Some wikis have a feature where you can mark an edit as "patrolled". This doesn't affect whether or not the edit is displayed, but it does signal to RC patrollers that the edit might still be vandalism in a way similar to new pages. Hut 8.5 19:34, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

You know, having looked over the edits given above, I'm not sure they really qualify as 'vandalism' per se. they are highly opinionated, unsourced, and dyspeptic, but that being said they are basically on topic. certainly there's no way a bot could be expected to recognize the difference between edits like this and appropriate content edits (unless these edits are being spammed into various articles, and the bot could pick up on the repetition...). what we are really talking about here is not vandalism, but rather extremely unencyclopedic content, and I don't know any way to get rid of that except through the attention of living human editors. well, I suppose we could write a bot that looks for obvious partisan or conspiracy theory keywords or phrases,and have the bot flag other editors on the page to check it out, but that would be a hell of a bot... --Ludwigs2 00:29, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I believe very few people will say this edit is not vandalism. So what we are really talking about here is vandalism. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 08:59, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

FWIW, I have a low threshold for semi-protecting, generally one edit/day or more on large articles, GAs or FAs, as trawling through a 60kb article for mischief can be quite frustrating. I consider GA and FA points as a fairly handy substitute for flagged revisions. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:06, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism patrol (RCP) is not an efficient use of administrator time, because the bulk of the work doesn't involve tools. RCP'ers can request page protection easily, I'm using Twinkle, and usually I see the requests granted (or sometimes, alternatively, the admin blocks the IP. It's been said above that RCP can't catch all vandalism. "All" is a big word, but if it were actually organization, and possibly with a few enhancements to our tools, we could catch and fix, quickly, nearly all IP vandalism. The problem is that we duplicate labor, massively, yet we miss a lot. WP:Flagged revisions could fix this, if we granted permission to set a reviewed-for-vandalism flag to a class of users. Right now, I patrol IP edits, and most of the vandalism I pick up has been reverted, either by a bot or by another editor, usually using Huggle, which is faster than Twinkle. But once I've looked at the most recent edit, I often look down the list and look at articles that strike my fancy in some way, and check them. Many of them have vandalism almost as blatant, or as blatant, as what is caught quickly. But, of course, it wasn't in the edit summary, and it wasn't a large-chunk removal for bots to catch. What if I could see just a list of unreviewed edits? My guess is that we could catch nearly all the vandalism, because I, for one, wouldn't be wasting my time looking at vandalism that has already been caught by someone else. Something that isn't caught quickly, will be caught later. Later being, possibly, within a few minutes, or possibly within a day (due to editing cycles).

(short of using flagged revisions, an alternate method of logging vandalism reviews could be set up. But there is a lot of data involved, flags would be the most efficient way of dealing with it.) --Abd (talk) 14:43, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I have one data point that suggests the problem Otolemur crassicaudatus is concerned about is due more to lack of editor attention than traffic. Yesterday I fixed this typo that had remained uncorrected for almost three years, despite that 8 different people modified this article & at least one of them knows "Pnitifical" is not a word. (I'm not attempting to shame anyone here, especially since I was the one who made the original mistake. Just pointing out that editors tend to read only a small part of an article before they edit it.) And I believe this is not the oldest typo that I have fixed. -- llywrch (talk) 22:30, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

User:Xasha

Resolved

 – Xasha blocked by LessHeard vanU for 1 week for violating topic ban.

This user is causing serious disruption and harm to the project. I believe meaningful action should be taken against him.

First, a bit of background on Xasha. He's from Moldova, and his raison d'être here seems to be to prove that Moldovans are different from Romanians, that the Moldovan language is different from the Romanian language, etc. It's a position I and others firmly disagree with, but one he is entitled to hold. He is, however, not entitled to use the encyclopedia to advance this hypothesis, something he has relentlessly been doing for months on end. He's never written an article, and hardly contributed content; he's the prototypical Eastern European nationalist POV-pusher who trawls about articles in his field, "correcting" "biases" that only he perceives there.

• Xasha has also been blocked seven times in the last four months.
• He is under a topic ban regarding "all edits touching on the historical and ethnic relation between Moldova and Romania".

After his latest block (3 days for revert-warring), Xasha has returned with a vengeance, targeting four articles (Dialect continuum, Vasile Stati, and, in particular, History of the Moldovan language and Moldovan language). He's being incivil ([36], [37], [38]). He's revert-warring ([39], [40], [41] and especially [42]). He's tenaciously editing against consensus by established users Plinul cel tanar, AdiJapan (an admin on ro.wiki), myself, and administrators Gutza and Bogdangiusca (example here). He's pushing to use 17th and 18th century chronicles to advance his POV (without the filer of modern scholarship) - indeed he's doing it.

Xasha has had many months and many blocks to reform his conduct. Instead, he's steadily worsening, spreading his particular POV over a wide array of articles, paying no heed to consensus or 3RR, probably violating his topic ban with impunity, and being incivil in the process. It is clear he is not here to build an encyclopedia but rather to advance an agenda. I for one have had my patience exhausted - what about the rest of the community? Biruitorul ^Talk 17:39, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I've only recently come head to head with Xasha, but I soon learned he's adamant about his position even in the face of evidence (i.e. sources), and has no problem pretending not to understand the source properly -- and thus simply reverting/removing properly sourced data. Right now he's trying to replicate a fringe theory by Vasile Stati, unrecognized by the scientific community; since Stati is infamously unreliable, Xasha can't cite him, so he's simply pushing for that theory in his own name. Irrespective of all sources, logic and historical truth, that alone is a flagrant breach of all policies related to verifiability and original research -- yet Xasha chooses to see no problem with that. These things have been discussed to death in Talk:History of the Moldovan language, and Xasha has received virtually no support at all; again, not a problem, he storms in, pretends not to understand what's being said and reverts anyone who still has the nerves to touch the article. If left to his own devices, Xasha will most certainly exhaust everybody's patience and will default to a consensus with himself -- that can't be the right outcome. --Gutza ^{T T+} 17:53, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

This is nothing but a content dispute. Is not surprising that all the editors enumerated above are self-declared Romanians, thus educated in a country whose govenment denies the right of Moldovans the right to self-identification and refuses to recognize the Moldovan language. The only outside editor who tried to intervene was rapidly sent away by the above Romanian admins. (Sorry for ruining the surprise you prepared for me, guys).Xasha (talk) 18:21, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Since having been given amply opportunity to adjust your editing behavior to adhere to Wikipedia policy and guidelines, you continue to exhibit the same pattern of disruptive editing, then you obviously did not take the time the block allowed to familiarize yourself with how to participate on this project. I would support an extensive block or an outright ban. Repeated ignoring of procedures in light of such overwhelming attempts by the community to educate you otherwise, is not a sign of not understanding, it's a sign of not wanting to understand.--JavierMC 18:32, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I adhered to all Wikipedia policies, and when I broke 3RR I was the only one blocker, even if another admin broke it too. So please look at the talk page Gutza point to, to see that this group of Romanians want to impose their POV, even if one of them (Gutza) has admited that they have no source to support it, nor have they sources to disprove my view. Consensus is not acquired by canvassing co-nationals to support your original opinion, unsupported by secondary sources, so I have no consensus to adhere to. As for the other articles pointed out by Biruitorul, please note that in Dialect continuum I was just enforcing WP:Verifiability by preventing the use of a source that didn't support the text of the article, as for Vasile Stati that's a sterile request. Of course someone who finished the Institute of Linguistics and then worked for one can be considered a linguist. But again, this is just a content dispute, so I don't see the need of admin intervention (i.e. with his admin tools, cause an outside view is needed in the articles). As for me being "the prototypical Eastern European nationalist POV-pusher ", I consider that a grave personal attack.Xasha (talk) 19:41, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Here's what I have "admitted" to exactly, maybe other people understand it a bit differently: "you're replicating (not even citing) Vasile Stati's fringe theories on Wikipedia, and your argumentation is based on the lack of sources to contradict it -- that is, your fringe theory stands until proven wrong". Oh, and I only said that within the context of an abundance of sources, all of which you rejected based on various dubious technicalities. --Gutza ^{T T+} 19:44, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

You were more explicite: "I'm not sure there are any reliable sources discussing the matter explicitly -- scientific works everywhere simply use the chronicles to discuss Romanian, without any mention of the original wording"Xasha (talk) 20:12, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I questioned no clear source (and 1 dubious source is nothing close to "an abundance of sources", so please moderate your language), I just questioned whether a dubious passage existed where you claim it is. And I wasn't proved wrong until now! Moreover, it's strange how you suddenly care about primary sources, beacause just days ago you rejected several of them that didn't support your POV.Xasha (talk) 20:21, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure wiki-lawyering will do you any good, but if you really enjoy quoting from me I can only feel flattered. Here's how I clarified that one in the same conversation: "I linked this to Vasile Stati because he was the only one to come up with this original theory which brings controversy around this matter -- without his theory there's no controversy, so you need to find a reliable source who cares enough to go into the issue; given Stati's reputation and his theory's scientific merit, I doubt any serious scientist has wasted time disproving it." It has always been about Stati's fringe theory, and about you not acknowledging serious sources because they don't lower themselves to addressing the issue point blank (i.e. "Stati's theory is BS") -- and anything short of that can be "misunderstood" as not qualifying. --Gutza ^{T T+} 20:27, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

That theory is not invented by Stati, and it existed for more than 50 years. Just that nobody but Romanians decided to contest it. Anyway, considering the primary source we have for the matter, it is pretty hard for a neutral scholar to try to deny the evidence without compromising himself.Xasha (talk) 20:39, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not going to get any more deeper into this exchange -- I'm tired arguing with you, nobody reading this benefits from "you too!" statements, and they can make up their own minds reading the talk page (long as it may be, this conversation will end up just as long if nobody stops -- so I will). --Gutza ^{T T+} 20:30, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I also invite everyone to read that talk page and see this is nothing but a content dispute some editors want to win by silencing the opposition.Xasha (talk) 20:35, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

• Xasha blocked for 1 week for violating topic ban. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:07, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Disruption

Could someone have a look at KingsOfHearts (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and see if any administrator attention is needed? He was blocked about a month ago for disruptive edit summaries. After his return, he used a summary to declare the use of the BCE/CE era style at History of antisemitism to be "very very very very very gay". He's been edit-warring since to keep his preferred style in the article in spite of my explicit explanation to him about why he's wrong to do so. I've been trying to turn up even one productive edit from him, but have been unsuccessful so far. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 18:18, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

(Username corrected). I think the "explanation" link you meant to post was not WP:SEASON but WP:ERA, which suggests that we choose either the BC/AD or the BCE/CE system, but not both in the same article — implying that this is a content dispute to be resolved through the normal means. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 18:58, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I've warned him about the edit summary and made it clear that's his only warning, he knows that is unacceptable, and to do that after being blocked for similar edit summaries suggests he doesn't care. Doug Weller (talk) 19:03, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

You're right, Sheffield, WP:ERA would have been a better shortcut. I think it's new and didn't know about it. However you're wrong about the clearly erroneous nature of his changes per this quote from that section of the MOS: "It is inappropriate for a Wikipedia editor to change from one style to another unless there is a substantive reason", unless, of course, "very very very very very gay" sounds like it might be a substantive reason to you. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 19:30, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

User-page copyvios

Resolved

 – Hmngr blocked for 24h, by Sandstein. Anthøny ✉ 20:50, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Hmngr06 (talk · contribs) has been copy/pasting swathes of material from other Web sites onto his user page, in violation of copyright. I've removed the stuff a couple of times, even though I feel very uncomfortable about messing with other users' pages, but the user just keeps readding it. What is the best way to handle this? Perhaps a warning from an admin would attract his attention. Deor (talk) 19:45, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

This user's contributions consist only of adding quasi-nonsensical Atlantis-related and/or copyvio content, even after a warning. A block of 24 h, which I have now issued, may get his attention.  Sandstein  20:02, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

User:GabrielVelasquez's conduct at Talk:Gliese 581 c and other articles.

User:GabrielVelasquez is persistently attacking other editors at Talk:Gliese 581 c who disagree with his viewpoint that there is no possible way the planet can be anything other than a runaway greenhouse Venus-analogue. He has accused editors (principally myself=Icalanise, Cyclopia and J. Langton) of sockpuppetry [43] [44], or of being "damage control" for various teams of scientists (who he seems to believe want to fool the public into thinking this planet is habitable for their own nefarious purposes) [45]. Furthermore when users attempt to confront him about this he proceeds to accuse them of harassment [46]. His belligerent/paranoid attitude towards scientifically-literate editors is making the editing process on the article in question, and other articles about planets located close to the habitable zone (e.g. [47]) needlessly unpleasant. Icalanise (talk) 21:00, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I can confirm the GabrielVelazquez behaviour has been difficult and often bordering with plain harassment. He in particular accused me of being a sockpuppet of J. Langton [48] . He also has a pattern of deleting/ignoring discussions that question his behaviour on his talk page -something which he is probably entitled to do but surely not collaborative [49] [50][51]. He went as far as considering my requests for apologies of accusing me of being a sockpuppet as personal attacks... but adding violently personal attacks himself [52]. As for his behaviour on the Talk:Gliese 581 c page and others, I think other editors are more entitled than me to describe it -however the talk page itself is a bit of a smoking gun. --Cyclopia (talk) 22:07, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

User:Aignacio09 e-mail spam

Resolved

 – Reblocked with email disabled.

Aignacio09 (talk · contribs) has been blocked for leaving spam messages on user talk pages. They are up to it again via Wikipedia e-mail, so that probably needs to be blocked as well. Cheers. -- Ned Scott 21:20, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

 Done. —kurykh 21:24, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Non-admin protecting pages?

Take a look at the protection log for User:Phuntsok2000. They aren't an admin according to Special:Listusers. They committed pagemove vandalism (moving SpongeBob SquarePants (character) to Whobob Whatpants (character)), according to the log, PROTECTED the moved page. It doesn't say what level or anything, just "protected" - though clicking edit brings up the "Only registered users can edit" message. What is going on here? Xenon54 22:47, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

The protection log doesn't say the level of protection. Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 22:52, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

What? I'm not an established user? Since when? I think a good whack over the head with the ol' banhammer is in order for the user, but the technical aspect definitely needs to be looked into. I can't protect pages... Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 22:50, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Weird. I'm guessing that the page was protected by User:Bill and for some reason, the way the page moves took place the logs are attributing it to User:Phuntsok2000 - I don't think they actually did any protecting. Either way, a bug of some sort that should be checked out. Shereth 22:52, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I've let the devs know - it's probably a one time mistake with the software but I'm sure they'll look into it. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 22:55, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Apparently it's a known issue with the naming of some log entries - he didn't actually protect anything, the name of the logs was wrong that's all. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 22:55, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Moving a semi-protected page automatically semiprotects the new page, and any autoconfirmed editor can move semiprotected pages. Nothing to see here. – iridescent 22:56, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Iridescent is right. My sock just "protected" a page here: [53]. --barneca (talk) 23:02, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Hopefully this doesn't come up on RFA. "Not enough page protections, needs more experience." :) bibliomaniac15 02:18, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Something Awful has a contest for vandalism

An anonymous IP vandalized my page with a pretty familiar catchphrase, so I checked the forum it came from and discovered they've organized a contest to subtlety vandalize Wikipedia. Here is the thread with all the information. I don't know how these situations are typically approached, or even if it's worth looking into, but I thought it could be useful to somebody here. Thanks, Cumulus Clouds (talk) 03:23, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

There is really not much that we can do here, I recommend that if you really want something done about it you contact the site admin of the external site. Tiptoety ^talk 04:02, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

• Yea right. In the mean time I hope everyone keeps a sharp eye out. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 04:10, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Yawn, WP:RBI when it's noticed, but thanks for the heads up. No need to give them anymore reason to act like they've pwned Wikipedia. Wildthing61476 (talk) 04:14, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

• Well I'm not so sure that this form of vandalism will be very easy to detect, so I'm hoping people will review the link and head over to recent changes and be sure that any statistics, population figures or noncontroversial information changes are sourced reliably and anything that isn't is reverted back. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 21:36, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

So no one else has to, I've gone through all the contributions of 75.62.177.116 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), the one on SA who announced the "contest", and verified that none of his garbage remains. (They'd already been completely undone by others; good work.) Antandrus (talk) 21:47, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

The IP should probably be blocked if they are a persistent vandal. Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 23:18, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

The last time we had an external forum having a vandalism game, I managed to straighten it out with them. However, as SA requires paid registration, I can't do it here. Someone else might want to try taking it to that forum and explain our case. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Kacheek!)} 23:21, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

You obviously don't understand goons very well. Jtrainor (talk) 00:32, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Erik, the IP only vandalized for a 24-hour run a year and a half ago. There's no evidence it is static, or a recurring problem; look at the contributions. I see no point in blocking an anonymous IP a year and a half after the fact. It would be different if it were a logged-in user. Antandrus (talk) 00:36, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I was just saying that if the IP did start committing a massive vandalism spree, it should be blocked. Kind of stating the obvious, but... Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 00:42, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Disruptive edits and other abuse by Rhodescholar2, Fumblingfoe and 69.143.57.71

Resolved

 – Vandal dealt with, other issues are content disputes and do not require admin intervention. Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 00:44, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Several issues, which is why I posted here rather on a specific board, dealing with two accounts and one IP, sock-puppetry issue reported here.

Vandalism:

• Numerous acocunts, resulting in warnings: final warning to User:Fumblingfoe and final warning to 69.143.57.71.

Threat of legal action

• this edit by User:Rhodesscholar2.

Personal attacks

• This edit and this edit by 69.143.57.71.

Babakathy (talk) 10:38, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I will block Rhodesscholar2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who has no useful contributions, indef for legal threats and as someone's sock. I haven't time to address the IP issue, sorry.  Sandstein  10:50, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Whatever's left appears to be more of a content dispute and does not appear to need immediate admin intervention.  Sandstein  20:06, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Edit war issue with List of all-female bands

I had requested Mod assistance here:User:Duffbeerforme_reported_by_Soundvisions1 however the result was "No violation" and a suggestion to start a thread here.

The main revisions/revert as I posted yesterday follow

Diffs are listed from oldest to newest, dates are in UTC

1. 09:26, 24 September 2008 (edit summary: "remove some non notable")
2. 09:41, 24 September 2008 (edit summary: "B")
3. 11:19, 25 September 2008 (edit summary: "remove nn, fix links")
4. 08:56, 29 September 2008 (edit summary: "Undid revision 241217003 by Soundvisions1 (talk)")
5. 09:46, 30 September 2008 (edit summary: "remove readded")

• Diff of warning: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Duffbeerforme#Please_discuss_before_delete.

Despite the above warning to "discuss before delete" I awoke to find the list had been reverted again and discussion consisted of, in my opinion, Duffbeerforme essentially saying Wikipedia guidelines have no importance unless they suit his or her needs.

Comparison of yesterdays (30 September 2008) revision to "original state" and todays edits (1 October 2008), which Duffbeerforme has called "minor": (Difference between revisions)

I redirected Duffbeerforme to a larger discussion on the "Wikipedia:Notability/RFC:compromise" to which Duffbeerforme responded "The discussion at the RFC has no bearing on the contents of this list." When citing the main articles GNG and the spin off list as it relates to current Wikipedia guidelines (Such as where a list without reliable third-party sources can inherit notability from another notable article as long as their are specific notability guidelines set forth) the response was: "Your statement about this list being a spin off article from the All-female band article addresses the notability of the list itself, not all of it's contents". I have cited that the spin-off list in question does have an SNG (Wikipedia guidelines say that Lists should begin with a lead section that presents unambiguous statements of membership criteria) that states how an act might be included on the list. Duffbeerforme replies to this: "The lists lead section you quoted is not a notability guideline".

Duffbeerforme is making his repeated deletions based on what seems to be his personal opinion of any artist not having a Wikipedia page is not notable. I have raised this issue before, including on this lists talk page, because there is no mention of it at Wikipedia:Notability, List Guidelines or Notability (music). It is also an accepted Wikipedia policy that "I never heard of them" is not a valid reason for deletion on it's own. In looking at another spin off list, List of guitarists, as an example it follows the main articles GNG but adds the SNG of "This list of guitarists includes guitarists for whom there is an article in Wikipedia. Only add names here if the person has their own article on Wikipedia, please. Anything else will be removed." The list that Duffbeerforme is, at this point, vandalizing, does not have that requirement. The requirements for List of all-female bands are that, to be included on this list, a band must consist of all females and play their own instruments and can not be a solo artist. Furthermore to be included on the list a band must be "notable" examples of an all female band or a "canonical example" of an all female band. The debatable issue currently is the word "or" because by definition it means 1 or 2, not both, however could include both. Based on the parent article and the spin off list "notable" could mean a few things, including, but not limited to, the simple fact the band is all female. But "canonical" as it relates to the parent article and the spin off list means: "conforming to a general rule or acceptable procedure" which in this case is being an all female band.

The other issue that Duffbeerforme uses to defend their repeated deletions is that none of the deleted source have citations attached to them. (The verifiability policy states that if material is challenged or likely to be challenged, it is the responsibility of the editor who adds or restores the material to an article to cite sources for that material) In looking over other lists that are also spin off lists I do not see citations included. This would make sense as these are spin off articles/lists where the citations come from the main article. As an example take a look at List of Academy Award-winning films. According to Duffbeerforme's current personal opinion many of the films on the lists would not be "notable" enough to be included because they have no Wikipedia page. He or she would delete them with no discussion and if someone were to restore them the argument would be they are non notable films.

Duffbeerforme makes reference to "Two other editors" who have made edits that I have restored. What he or she does not care to acknowledge is that one of them (I am not aware of the other) took an active part in the discussion and has not made daily deletions or started an Edit War. Per the warning given to Duffbeerforme of Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors that has not been followed I look to find a resolution. I think looking at the users log might lead to a thought that there is a possibility that Duffbeerforme is a Deletionist, while this is not a reason for action on it's own the methods they are using are. Please note that I am not undoing Duffbeerforme's current edits but would ask another person, preferably a mod, do it along with issuing another warning provided you feel what I am saying is valid. Soundvisions1 (talk) 15:21, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Lists_(stand-alone_lists)#Lead_and_selection_criteria, which states: "Each entry on a list should have its own non-redirect article in English Wikipedia, but this is not required if the entry is verifiably a member of the listed group, and it is reasonable to expect an article could be forthcoming in the future." - MrOllie (talk) 15:29, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Aside from what I mention above then this would also be another reason for Duffbeerforme to not delete the entries correct? Unless I am misreading it. EDIT: But is a "stand alone list" the same as a "Spin off article/list"? Soundvisions1 (talk) 15:36, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

If they did not have articles, unless it is obvious that they ought to, the practice has long been that they do not get included on a list of this sort--this is exactly the kind of list which is intended by the criteria quoted. Many of us, including myself, watchlist a few lists from which we consistently remove content like this. The solution if you think the bands notable, is to try to make sustainable articles. DGG (talk) 15:52, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Just to be anal for a moment - I did spend some time laying out the issues involved but perhaps I was not clear. The name of the parent article is All-female band. There are some spin off lists including List of all-female bands. In order to be on that list an act has to be, first and foremost, all female. The bands being deleted over and over again are all-female and, even if they do not have a Wikipedia article at the moment, are verifiably a member of the listed group. Beyond that some of the acts being deleted contain members who have Wikipedia articles or are members of other acts who are contained on the list. Add that to the fact that I did state, pre Duffbeerforme involvement, that when I had the time I would gladly make articles for some of these acts. So how are the facts in the bigger picture not valid? As an example I gave the List of Academy Award-winning films. Based on only one guideline I could go in there and remove any listed film because they do not have a Wikipedia page, even if they have won an Academy Award? That does not make logical sense - ok, it does make "sense" if you only base it on "Each entry on a list should have its own non-redirect article in English Wikipedia..." but in the larger picture it does not. I need to anal here because I try to be NPOV and part of my quest is to gather information that relates to each individual topic as well as the overall guidelines and policies. Soundvisions1 (talk) 16:26, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Academy Award-winning films are guaranteed to be notable. All female bands aren't, although they may be so. That should be reasonably obvious. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:51, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I think DGG's suggested solution ought to work well: First create the article(s) on the band(s) in question, ensuring that they satisfy Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Verifiability, and then you will be able to add them to the list without difficulty. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 18:35, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

So thus far the consensus is that, irregardless of a main articles subject matter or a spin-off lists SNG, the only consideration for being included on any list on Wikipedia is that the subject has a non-redirect article in English Wikipedia. If a subject on a list does not have a non-redirect article it is considered non-notable and should not appear on the list. Soundvisions1 (talk) 02:14, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Administative abuse of process of FAR

There was an excuse of an FAR review held here: Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/Macedonia_(terminology)/archive1

FARs are supposed to run for 2-3 weeks; this one was closed in just a few hours, and for completely invalid reasons.

Not only was there only 3 votes (and they were not disinterested 3rd parties), but the review was closed in hours due to a spurious claim that the article followed the FAR standard when the purpose of the review was to establish that (it self-evidently fails both the letter and spirit of WP:Wikipedia is not a dictionary policy).

Articles have to meet all policies to reach and stay at FA.

That he was closing it on invalid grounds was independently pointed out by another user in the review but User:Marskell closed it anyway.

3 votes is simply not enough to establish snowball.

Apparently, admins get to decide that for us.

I contacted Marskell on his talk page, but there has been no correction of the situation.

This is simply an abuse of administrative powers. Is Marskell allowed to be judge, jury and executioner on all the FAR reviews to decide when to close all and any reviews early???

What am I supposed to do about this crock?- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 21:45, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Is Marskell allowed to be judge, jury and executioner on all the FAR reviews to decide when to close all and any reviews early??? This is not "admin action"; Marskell is Raul's delegate at FAR. To challenge Wiki policy, you can take the article to AFD; it is not a WP:WIAFA matter. FAR is not dispute resolution and is not where Wiki policy is decided. You can find a history of the Featured article process at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-07-21/Dispatches. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:07, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Which is it? That was not the reason given for closing the review either. This is purely about me not considering that this article is suitable for FA status and facing multiple administrative abuses of process while trying to get it reviewed. You do not get to invent arbitrary rules on the spur of the moment about which articles can be FARd when and when the process can be cut short unreasonably early.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 22:17, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

FAR is not an administrative function, Raul654 (talk · contribs) has been selected by the community to oversee the process. He has delegated the FAR aspect of the process to Marskell. I suggest you take this complaint up with Marskell and Raul because this is not something an administrator can act on. MBisanz ^talk 22:31, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree that this is the wrong forum to discuss this. However to address briefly Wolfkeeper's issue, the article was already determined by the FA community to meet the relevant standards. Wolfkeeper is not alleging that the article has deteriorated, only that it never met the standards to begin with. Since that was addressed in the original FAC, it is not a valid objection. No one agreed with the objection so a quick closure was the appropriate action. But the project talk page or the user pages of the concerned editors are the places to discuss this. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:29, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

There is no rule that says that the criteria for FA review is only changes in policy since the article was originally passed, nor would such a rule be sensible; the rules simply say it can't be rereviewed within 6 months, but this was reviewed 2 years ago. This article was not tested against this policy in the original review. The review had only had 3 comments, and it did not snowball in any sense. The article was closed irregularly and for self-evidently fallacious reasons that were independently contested prior to closure by another person. In short, I'm sorry but none of your comments are in keeping with the rules that govern this process, nor would they be useful for the wikipedia to adopt. This is self evidently an abuse of powers contrary to the spirit of the wikipedia.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 23:53, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Not that it matters, but on a technical note, no, it wasn't independently contested by another person prior to closure; that person added the comment after closure, but before the bot processed the closed tag. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:22, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

The nomination of this article for FAR was to make a point in an ongoing dispute, here and here. - Francis Tyers · 08:30, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Hey, ever thought of assuming good faith? I simply do not consider this article to be FA quality, and I raised it for review. Apparently, you're only allowed to do that if an administrator doesn't disagree with you. Where's that written exactly? Oh wait, no it isn't.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 15:03, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

As others have noted, this was not an administrative action. It's about as notable as a speedy keep at AfD. Nothing got deleted, nothing changed, nothing much to see. I felt the nom was pointy, that the article was still in reasonable shape, and that the review would become heated if left open. Further, I think Wolfkeeper needs to take up his novel interpretation of NOTDICT in a forum other than FAR.

Mountain out of a molehill. Marskell (talk) 11:02, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

You're not supposed to close reviews just because you think they might be acrimonius. You're not supposed to assume bad faith judgements about my reasons for doing something and close the review based on that. You're not supposed to make your own judgement about the state of the article and close it based on that. You're not supposed to decide that the letter of one of the five pillars is 'novel' and close reviews based on that. You didn't follow any of the written rules on the FAR. You are an admin, and are supposed to be an example to others. This is a total joke.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 15:03, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

We should be willing to reconsider FAs, and in fact we do. Many FARs are of articles that have not deteriorated since 2005, but nevertheless do not meet our present criteria. Other FAs have been promoted after cursory FACs, and I would be surprised if all of them were good choices - the reviewers didn't look deep enough to find the problems.

But Wolfkeeper's complaint is that Macedonia (terminology) is a dictionary definition, not an encyclopedia article. I think he's wrong, and there was a snowball against him; but if it were an excellent dicdef, his remedy is to go to AfD and propose to transwiki - I oppose. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:18, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

You're claiming that it snowballed, but it fails Wikipedia:SNOWBALL#The snowball test because of Taemyr comments as it was being closed. Your opposition is irrelevant in this forum, your right to express that in any meaningful way was removed by Marskell.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 18:54, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

That article is certainly more than a dictionary definition, but it seems like some sort of content fork from the various Macedonias discussed on the list of places called Macedonia. Maybe the problem is the title. Couldn't it be "History of Macedonia", or some such? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:01, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

The proper place for that sort of discussion is in the review. The review was improperly terminated. Your views don't get to be heard. You see how this works?- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 05:47, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism and personal attacks and racist commentary

I am posting here to report persistent vandalism and personal attacks by the User:Nick Finnsbury. The case goes a long way back, to a template he created called {{Infobox Arab villages depopulated}}, a duplicate of an existing infobox. Following a deletion discussion, where clear consensus was reached to delete the template, I have started restoring the old infobox by User:Al Ameer son to the relevant articles in order to orphan Nick's template for deletion. Nick apparently took personal offense to this, even though when the TfD was opened, he was told that it wasn't personal. In any case, this isn't important at the moment, as many of my edits have been reverted so the template is again not orphaned and impossible to delete. I left messages on Nick's talk page asking not to restore the deleted template, but apparently he chose not to listen.

After a short time, I got this message from Nick, saying, among other things: I know all those tricks and I know your peoples tricks., and: But to start delting my template, without any consensus have been reached is so outrageous, that you sjhould really worry, if you can stay here on Wikipedia, editing freely, the way you do. I would be VERY worried if I were you.

The first is clearly racist, while the second seems to be a personal threat. However, the above is less important than orphaning the template, and to that end I also left a message on the closing admin's talk page asking to oversee the process, and only came here to WP:ANI after the personal attacks. Please help me orphan this template so that it can be properly deleted. Thanks, Ynhockey ^(Talk) 13:30, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

My rule is: I block IPs on sight for racist, sexist, and homophobic vandalism. Bearian (talk) 14:29, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I endorse Ynhockey's point. I am not sure if Nick's suggestions about varying the template are completely wrong, but he has personalised his disagreements with Ynhockey, and herestabbed at identifying his place of residence, and used language that is racist. He needs an immediate suspension for the racism. Since he is a newbie, the sanction should have a sharp, brief monitory function, to make him cut the conspiracy chat, and ethnic sniping. As a first time offender, perhaps a few days.Nishidani (talk) 15:37, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I've removed all links to the template and deleted it. I think a block is more than warranted even if he hasn't been warned - the comments (particularly those Nishidani linked to) are beyond the limit of acceptability. A read of his talkpage (comments like "I make them [the Israelites] regret, that they are born into this world at the same time as I") suggest that he has no concept of NPOV. пﮟოьεԻ 57 16:01, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

There are lots of worries with this user's contribs. I would not have blocked for the racist but not utterly hateful remarks about "pale Russians" but rather, would've left a very stern warning. However, taken altogether, the contributions are disruptive and I have blocked for 48 hours, given the user has not been blocked before. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:26, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

The user has made two unblock requests which show utterly no understanding of Wikipedia policies. I have reset the block to indefinite, pending the outcome of discussions with the user about the need to understand and follow them. Gwen Gale (talk) 10:13, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

User:Pigsonthewing

After the recent debates in which Pigsonthewing (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was told, in no uncertain terms, to leave Docu, and particularly his signature, alone, Pigsonthewing made two blatantly trollish edits to posts signed by Docu: [54] and [55]. The second, in particular, is simply harassment. Docu had signed, but not timestamped, as is his wont - [56] - and there was absolutely no need whatsoever for Pigsonthewing to amend Docu's signature. It is impossible not to see this as deliberate trolling, and Pigsonthewing has been asked numerous times to desist, but is still doing it. Enough, I think. I have blocked Pigsonthewing for 24 hours. Guy (Help!) 14:26, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Oppose block. Having followed the Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Mcumpston thread above, which resulted in Mcumpston withdrawing, in particular this diff, I don't think User:JzG should be blocking Andy a few days later. It looks like revenge rather than the impartial wielding of the sword of justice (and Docu should pay some attention to the dozens of people who find his sig irritating). I would ask User:JzG to unblock asap and let someone else consider the matter. Occuli (talk) 14:45, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

• [fault, edit conflict, fault, fault, edit conflict - bah!] I warned Pigsonthewing for this exact behaviour towards this exact editor [57], prior to which I do not recall having any previous involvement with Pigsonthewing; if you're going to discount every admin who's commented on Andy's behaviour as being somehow involved then you are going to run out of admins very fast - his history is long and controversial and includes ArbCom sanctions for edit-warring over trivia, which is basically what he's doing here. Guy (Help!) 14:55, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

• All this is true but Docu is also to blame for today's exchanges. Has Docu been asked to 'keep away from Andy'? (Difficult as they both work, in disharmony, on Coordinates.) Occuli (talk) 15:02, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

• Not really relevant; Pigsonthewing knows full well that Docu does not want to change his sig, and has been warned for doing so once before, this is an act of deliberate provocation of an editor with whom he is in dispute. Andy has a very long history of provocation, on and off Wikipedia; he seems to be playing Wikipedia-the-MMORPG. Guy (Help!) 15:06, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I've looked at this. There are two issues, Pigsonthewing doing what he was explicitly told not to and Guy's involvement. Pigsonthewing definitely is doing what he was told not to, so I totally support the block. In fact, I'd have made it 31 hours vice 24. Guy maybe should have asked someone else to look at this but the bottom line is the block is solid, Pigsonthewing simply needs to cease and desist doing this and leave Docu alone. No editor should me messing another's sigs and comments like this, especially not after they were emphatically told to stop. — Rlevse • Talk • 14:50, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Pigsonthewing has posted an unblock request, which I've declined on essentially the grounds you've just stated. -- ChrisO (talk) 14:52, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Endorse. Moreschi (talk) 14:53, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Endorse. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:07, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Endorse. Jennavecia ^(Talk) 15:09, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Another unblock request on the basis of WP:BUTIAMRIGHT. Guy (Help!) 15:08, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Declined on the basis of WP:NOYOURENOT. -- ChrisO (talk) 15:11, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

And a third, on the basis that [58] apparently didn't specifically tell him to stop. Guy (Help!) 15:13, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, we shouldn't be getting any more - his user talk page is now protected. -- ChrisO (talk) 15:21, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Good decisions. — Rlevse • Talk • 16:22, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Admins gone Wild, Wikipedia Edition. You're a janitor with a mop, you're not the police. You don't make up the rules as you go. How was this block supported by community (or foundation) adopted policy? —Locke Cole • t • c 19:43, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to pitch in again after this was marked resolved, but I am a bit concerned here. Per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pigsonthewing 2 Andy was banned for a year, and the ban expired on August 19. That's just over a month ago, and since then he's been blocked twice for disruption. Given that the last one-year ban was also for disruption, how much longer do we go before our patience wears out? Guy (Help!) 16:49, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

There could, maybe, possibly, be a trend here. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 16:54, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

This particular transgression is trivial. No-one would be paying any attention if it were not Andy (for whom I am beginning to have some sympathy). His behaviour in 2006 and 2007 was much worse than this. I would also like to see Guy withdraw from this for the time being as he does not seem sufficiently detached – there are plenty of eyes on AM. Occuli (talk) 17:11, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

When an admin tells you not to do something that's a rule violation, and you do it anyway, it's not trivial. Especially for a user who has been blocked many times, sometimes at great length, and is still defiant. It's kind of like a paroled felon who steals a pack of chewing gum. Stealing the chewing gum, by itself, might be considered trivial. But it's still a violation of the law, and given the parolee's background, it's not at all trivial, and he goes back to the slammer. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:19, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Also, calling Guy "involved" is misleading. If Guy were involved in a content dispute with the editor in question, that would be one thing. But that does not appear to be the case here. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:27, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Admins enforce community (or foundation) adopted policy, they do not make up the "rules". So unless you have a policy (or even a guideline) which says modifying another editors sig in a harmless way is a blockable offense, I can understand why Andy wouldn't heed such "warnings". —Locke Cole • t • c 19:43, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Your buddy has been here long enough to know that you're not supposed to mess with other people's talk page comments, even with good intentions. And when it's to prove a point of some kind, that's a rules violation. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 21:11, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

• Now here's a funny thing. In the second arbitration case, one of the disruptive edits cited in evidence was this one: [59]. Compare that with this edit: [60]. Banned for a year, comes back and immediately makes one of the edits that got him banned? In what way is that not a violation of WP:POINT? Guy (Help!) 17:30, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

In no way at all. But for today this looks resolved to me. Jd2718 (talk) 17:49, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

The second of those diffs is broken, I guess you meant [61] --82.7.39.174 (talk) 18:33, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

You're a little late there JzG: that matter was dealt with over a week ago IIRC. —Locke Cole • t • c 21:00, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Sure, the problem (for me) is that while I was happy to AGF and let Andy have another go, aleit sceptical given his off-wiki reputation, here we seem to have two incidents, close together, of the same type of problem - in one case the same problem - as got him banned. Can we come up with a way of forestalling what looks painfully like the inevitable here? Perhaps invent a "disengagement parole" or something? Guy (Help!) 21:25, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Or, perhaps since this incident is silly and trivial, Andy should be asked not to do what he did again and unblocked so he can continue contributing in a productive manner? Unless there's something more serious here, I don't see how a block helps things... —Locke Cole • t • c 22:46, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

At what point will he promise not to do something and really mean it? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 05:27, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Or to put it a better way - before unblocking him, try to get a commitment from him. Unblocking in the hope that he'll commit is not likely to work, given his past (and recent) performance. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 11:54, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't much matter now, since his block will expire in an hour - then we'll see how well he lives up to the promises Locke Cole is making for him - that is, whether he behaves himself, or whether he makes Locke Cole look like a fool for standing up for him. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:22, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

• In view of Guy's diffs I suggest we archive this discussion now, and get prepared for the seemingly inevitable "ban or block for another year?" discussion in a few days time. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:51, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
• I seem to recall Tony Sidaway used to modify signatures all the time, removing special formatting and so forth. I don't recall him ever being blocked, much less banned, for that behavior. What makes this so different? *** Crotalus *** 00:30, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
  • He got blocked for other things, none of them lasting anywhere close to a year. [62] Maybe nobody thought to complain about the signature deal. (Assuming it's true. Do you have any diffs?) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 03:10, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

• He was warned for amending Docu's signature, and he then did it again. It's quite unambiguous. And edit-warring over trivia is precisely the problem identified in past arbitration cases. He seems to be obsessive about some things, well beyond their actual significance. Guy (Help!) 09:20, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

• Another way of looking at this - if user:Docu, an admin, were to amend his signature, as requested repeatedly by a multplicity of editors, some of them admins, then the present incident would not have arisen. Some of the evidence for this is in user:Docu's talk page history (as Docu seems to like making things difficult, by declining to archive his talk). For instance 2 editors, 2 more editors, 2 threads, 3 more editors, one being AM, 2 more, another, another, all in 2008. And there is ANI, Sept 08, with several more expressions of disquiet. Occuli (talk) 13:32, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

• Begorrah, another "look what you made me do" game. It's Docu's fault that Pigs-whatever got himself blocked? Wrong. If there's a rule that Docu has to sign his posts properly, and if there's a penalty for not doing so, then take him to the authorities for it. If not, then leave him alone. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:55, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

• It doesn't matter anyway, since his block will end in half an hour or so. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:57, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

• And there is a peaceful alternative. There's a bot program which goes around and tags untagged IP address comments in talk pages. That's one bot program on here that actually does something useful. Maybe it could be programmed to look for all incomplete signatures, and complete them. Shazam! What an idea. Ya know, sometimes I'm so smart, it actually frightens me. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:04, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

• An even more peaceful alternative is to ask him nicely to fix it himself. I suspect he will not do that before Andy is banned, as Andy apparently cannot resist changing it. Guy (Help!) 14:38, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

• Well, that user's departure would make things more peaceful, yes... but what I'm saying is that there are plenty of instances where users don't sign their posts "properly". Sometimes I forget to sign, and the bot program fixes it. So if the bot can do that, why can't it fix incomplete signatures? Not just Docu's, but anyone's? Is there a technical reason that can't be done? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:55, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

• God no, there is nothing more annoying then bots updating signatures. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:51, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

• There are lots of things more annoying - such as individual editors singling out other editors and messing with their content just to prove a point. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 07:51, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Andy Mabbett

I have never amended Docu's sig - not one character of it. I have sometimes placed a note after it, in the manner of {[unsigned}}, with links, for the benefit of other editors, worded to make clear that the addition is not Docu's. I have done this a good few times, and neither he (and he has replied below such edits several times) nor any other editor has previously complained, nor even asked me not to do so.

A while ago, on 20 September, I did so at the same time as I refactored one of Docu's comments. JzG (who signs himself "Guy") threatened me over that edit calling it "trolling". His supposed warning made no reference to placing links after Docu's sig. The compete wording was:

This [63] is blatant trolling. Drop it, please, or you are very very likely to end up blocked. If you are not capable of discerning that you are skating on thin ice right now then you are far less astute than I give you credit for. The time to pull back from the edge is about now.

I pointed out that not only was it not trolling, but that I had been thanked by Docu for that very edit. JzG did not reply.

JzG was later advised by more than one editor that his behaviour towards me on WP:ANI was inappropriate, after labelling me a "dick" for making a valid copyvio report in precisely the manner prescribed.

On 22 September, refactored one of Docu's TfD comments, to remove risk of double-counting. He reverted and asked me not to refactor his comments again and I have never done so since. However, another editor refactored that same comment, albeit differently, and Docu did not revert, nor complain about that. Once again, Docu made no objection to me placing a note after his sig.

Only after I raised the matter of what appears to be WP:POINT editing by Docu did Docu complain about the later refactoring; not on my talk page, not on the pages concerned, not on WP:ANI or WP:WQA, but to an admin who had already made inappropriate, derogatory comments about me, and who has previously made a grossly misleading statement about my user name.

JzG blocked me, and claimed on WP:ANI that "After ... recent debates [I] was told, in no uncertain terms, to leave Docu, and particularly his signature, alone". I dispute this: evidence, please.

On the bass of such false claims by JzG, other editors refused to unblock me.

If the purpose of blocks is "preventative not punitive", why was I blocked for edits which were five or more days old? Why did nobody discuss those edits with me first? What has been achieved, other than to stop me from carrying out useful work to develop Wikipedia? Why was my talk page blocked, with no warning?

Baseball Bugs refers to Locke Cole as "my buddy". What is that supposed to mean? Is he accusing Locke Cole of behaving improperly?

JzG also makes unsubstantiated references to my supposed activities off-Wikipedia and makes vague comments about my "off-wiki reputation". How is that relevant to the issue at hand? Why is that ad hominem personal attack allowed?

He also says that I am 'edit-warring over trivia" - where is this edit-warring? Diffs, please.

The block was listed as being for "disruptive editing" - what was "disrupted"?

Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 17:07, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

• This is one long example of a distraction fallacy. Fact: you amended posts made by another user, specifically you amended the signature portion of said posts, but also the content, after you had been warned to stop making exactly those edits to the signature section of posts by exactly that editor. That's why the uninvolved admins who reviewed your block, at your talk page and here, all agreed that what you were doing was a calculated act of disruption. You have a long history of acts of disruption, often over the most trivial things. This is just one more data point. You were clearly and unambiguously in the wrong, and that's and end to it. Guy (Help!) 14:30, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Can you show us where Andy was warned not to make those edits? He helpfully provided links to back up his statements. Thank you. --NE2 14:35, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

• I already did, once on his talk page, at least once in this thread, and someone else linked it on his talk page, and last time I looked the warning itself was still there as well. He's the only one who disputes it, as far as I can tell. Here it is again: [64]. Do you honestly think he was in any doubt whatsoever that continuing to faff with Docu's signature would not be appreciated? It's not just me, three separate admins reviewed the block on his talk, and Black Kite posted a link to the warning. Andy's response was an absolutely classic WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT - see [65]. He has a loooooooong history of edit-warring over trivia, he knows that his obsessive behaviour over trivia is a problem, he's been banned for it for twelve months, and he's started right back in on the same pattern of disruption and denial. I wash my hands of the guy, but am prepared to run a small sweepstake on how long it takes for him to be banninated again. Guy (Help!) 19:08, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. However, it doesn't look to me like a warning "to stop making exactly those edits to the signature section of posts by exactly that editor". I also disagree that that edit is "blatant trolling"; this appears to be a minor dispute that you are blowing out of proportion. --NE2 20:04, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

The WP:LAWYER's office is second on the left down the hall; it should not be necessary to tell people to stick beans up either the left or the right nostril, nor insert them in their ears. It was posted for review at the time and three separate admins reviewed the unblock requests. And Andy has been around for a long time, although to be fair he seems to have spent a fair bit of that time either blocked or banned, usually for lame edit wars. Like this one, in fact. Guy (Help!) 22:56, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not saying he's blameless. I am saying that you are blowing what is essentially application of {{unsigned}} out of proportion. --NE2 23:24, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

That's fine and good when done impersonally by a bot, but following another editor round doing it manually to them in a way that they and others have asked you not to is disruptive. Hence the block, and hence its endorsement by numerous other admins. Andy should leave it to someone else, especially since every single time he does this he makes it harder for Docu to do the right thing without losing face. It's a stupid bit of trolling and absolutely does not help at all - in fact, quite the opposite. Guy (Help!) 11:45, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

It also amounts to stalking or harassment. Of the endless tasks needed to be done in wikipedia, correcting someone else's signature is several miles down the list. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 15:48, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Luckily, taking people to task for doing that sort of thing comes slightly higher up the list. Anyway, I thought the corrections were only being done when replying to Docu or taking part in a thread where Docu had posted? That sort of correcting as an 'aside' (in addition to replying to someone else) would seem to be OK, as opposed to making a single edit to correct Docu's signature. Personally, I try only to add "unsigned" when contributing to a thread, but sometimes it just needs to be added anyway to make the flow of a thread clearer. Carcharoth (talk) 00:22, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Guy, you said above: "I wash my hands of the guy, but am prepared to run a small sweepstake on how long it takes for him to be banninated again." That doesn't sound like you are washing your hands of anything. It sounds like you are encouraging people to watch him until such time as you can say "I told you so". How would you feel if I said the following about you? "I wash my hands of the guy, but am prepared to run a small sweepstake on how long it takes for him to get into trouble again." Does that make my point? Self-fulfilling prophecies are never a good thing. Maybe we should have WP:NO SWEEPSTAKE JOKES? Yes, I know I started Wikipedia:Requests for rollback/Sweepstake... :-) Carcharoth (talk) 00:31, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Amongst his other ad hominem personal attacks, GUy/JzG says "doing it manually to them in a way that they and others have asked you not to is disruptive" (my emphasis). He has yet to provide any evidence of anyone asking me not to (his oft-cited, vague and false allegation of trolling notwithstanding); much less Docu, who actually thanked me for making an edit in which I did so. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 10:40, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

@Carcharoth, what I mean is that I will not be the one monitoring Andy for further issues. He seems to me to have a fundamental problem accepting that he could ever be in the wrong, and this seems to me to be the root of all his problems on Wikipedia; the wikilawyering over the last block is a perfect example. How many people have to agree with a block before Andy accepts that the fault was his? Me, I don't really care, people who are absolutely certain that they are always in the right in every single dispute, however many people tell them otherwise, tend to end up being shown the door. Documented fact: one of the issues leading to his previous block was edit warring over an attack on his user page, which attack he restored shortly after his ban expired, and of course it was removed again. Documented fact: he was warned to stop provoking Docu by faffing with his signature, following which he faffed with Docu's signature and was blocked, and that block was endorsed by several admins independently. If this looks to you like someone who is repeating past problems and therefore likely to experience a repeat of the previous consequences, then I'd have to agree. If it doesn't, I don't care overmuch.

@Andy: here's the diff [66]. Still can't hear me? Perhaps you have your fingers in yoru ears and are chanting "laa laa I'm not listening". I'm guessing that the fact of your having replied defiantly to said warning was taken as evidence of your having seen it by those admins who reviewed the block. And now I think I will walk away before you make me angry. Guy (Help!) 13:17, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Meanwhile, I wonder where the diff is supporting the claim that Docu "thanked" Pigs-etc. for messing with his signature? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:21, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Up above, para 4 of this sub-section - "I pointed out that not only was it not trolling, but that I had been thanked by Docu for that very edit. JzG did not reply." Occuli (talk) 16:03, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

That seems to have to do with numbering of things in lists. I don't see anything where Docu is thanking him for messing around with his signature. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 18:19, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

The edit in question was this one. I'd guess that Docu's subsequent 'thank you' note was likely in reference to correcting 'artices' to 'coordinates' rather than the signature, but Pigsonthewing is correct that Docu thanked him for the exact same edit which JzG described as "blatant trolling" of Docu. --CBD 11:36, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Disruptive edits from Eleland, discussion of block length

I believe that recently user Eleland (talk · contribs) violated WP:CIV and WP:NPA by making incivil speculations and personal attacks. Best I'm aware, he claims to have been provoked into doing such a thing, but being noted by three separate editors that this activity was offensive ([67], [68], [69]), he appears to have continued in personally attacking other editors and suggesting he has no intention on curtailing his offensive style.

I was only lightly involved in the discussion on Eleland's talk page, but feeling that the issue affected me directly (as an editor who often reviews discussions on said article), I chimed in with what I believe to have been a constructive comment about Eleland's behavior. Instead of getting a constructive reply, or even being ignored, I was blasted back with a revert and an incivil edit summary. I was deeply insulted by his commentary, and am concerned about the fact that no action was taken so far, as this does not appear to be Eleland's first or even second time making personal attacks on Wikipedia.

Nishidani (talk · contribs)'s complete support of Eleland, especially regarding racist and antisemitic comments, and his extremely long commentary which buries all other discussion, does not help the matter any.

Another relevant diff and quote showing that Eleland intends to continue with this behavior:

• [70] - Eleland - "I still think Saxophonem is a cunt. I mean it. He's a huuuuge douchebag. He can go fuck himself."

--Eternalsleeper (talk) 00:44, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Unless he suffers from Tourette's, he's got some 'splainin' to do. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 03:04, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

[71]. Toddst1 blocked and then unblocked this user. He seems to be tweeking the block currently. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:12, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I think we're done here folks. Nothing to see. Please move along. Toddst1 (talk) 03:19, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

There appears to be a much deeper issue here than one editors lashing out and using profane language at wits end. Eleland clearly needs to calm down and reminded that this type of language is not appropriated but its pretty clear that what provoked him isn't anywhere near appropriate either. I hope that whoever looks into this does it thoroughly.PelleSmith (talk) 03:26, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I guess that's not going to happen ... PelleSmith (talk) 03:28, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

His informal request for unblock is missing the obvious question: "Was it something I said?" Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 03:34, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Larry Miller (actor) did a standup act on HBO back in the 1980s in which he described a pub crawl. At one of the taverns, he said, "We decided to leave, right after they threw us out." Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 03:59, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

indef blocked for deliberate abuse and declarations not to abide by wikipedia policy Toddst1 (talk) 03:19, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

While the word "cunt" is offense, and does warrant a block, the provocation by Saxophonemn (talk · contribs) was far, far worse! I have changed this from resolved to unresolved as an indef block is not appropriate given that the user is aware that they stepped over the line, self-reverted their unsavoury comment, and explained that they lost their head on their talk page. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 08:57, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

The block was warranted, although it should have been of a definite duration. I can't see how Saxophonemn's provocation was worse, or indeed how it was a provocation. A convincing unblock request with a credible promise not to do it again should be granted, I think, but eleland currently seems to be disinclined to make it.  Sandstein  09:07, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Saxophonemn quotes Mark Twains Concerning the Jews, but adds "[The Palestinians too.]". Saxophonemn is in effect writing the future history books to say that the Palestinians will be extinguished. For context, the full text can be found on Wikisource at s:Concerning the Jews#Point No. 6., however that isnt a high quality page:- resembles most online editions in that it is roughly correct but isnt very accurate about the typography.

eleland is doing a sensible thing by not requesting an unblock at the moment, in order to cool off. But the indef block is unreasonable for a long standing editor who has let a vile comment get to them. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 09:41, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I did ask Eleland to knock it off earlier, as noted above, but it's a pity that he seems to have persisted, notwithstanding the provocation that he perceives. I also think that an indefinite block is excessive, especially considering Eleland's relatively clean block log. I've reduced it to three months - which is still a substantial period - and suggested to Eleland that he consider Sandstein's suggestion above. -- ChrisO (talk) 10:06, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I see what you mean, John, but in that text, Twain mentions peoples that were once glorious but have now passed the height of their glory. I'm not sure how adding the Palestinians to that list is tantamount to asking for their extinction. Comparing them to the ancient Greeks and Romans is even a (probably unintended) token of respect. Saxophonemn's comments seem to reflect not much more than the narrow-minded ethno-religious supremacism that is unfortunately common on talk pages related to the Arab-Israeli conflict. It's best ignored and certainly does not warrant Eleland's reaction.  Sandstein  10:20, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Eleland called that comment for what it is: supremacism, or at best it is an intentional jibe intended to infuriate the opposition. I agree that he over-reacted, but that was quite probably the intended reaction. I dont think Eleland is any harm to our community if he occasionally gets very pissed off at comments like these. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 10:58, 28 September 2008 (UTC) Mark Twain is rolling in his grave right now!

Hi,
The diff of Eleland are not given in this discussion.
Is all this discussion [just] about this that was reverted by Eleland himself 15 minutes later ? (48 hours ago...)
If so, I think undefinite is not acceptable and 3 months far too long. 24 h more than enough and just not talking about them, the wiser...
But there may be something else I missed... ???
Ceedjee (talk) 10:36, 28 September 2008 (UTC) (edit) Eleland deleted a comment later (and was uncivil in the edit summary : [72] but it is not false he was accused to be antisemite [73] (!) in the comment he deleted... user:Eternalsleeper was uselessly provocative. Ceedjee (talk) 10:40, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

• I think 3 months is still far too long given the provocation as mentioned above. If Eleland was to post an unblock request with a promise to cut that abuse out, I'd be tempted to grant it. The conduct of some of the other editors in the episode shouldn't be ignored, too. Black Kite 10:41, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

• I would have no objection to anyone granting an unblock request in the circumstances you describe. -- ChrisO (talk) 10:50, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

There is not a shadow of doubt that Eleland violated policy. Eleland can't stand racist cant, and varying the vowel, called the cant-ranter a 'cunt'. There is not a shadow of a doubt either that, within 15 minutes of his outburst, he reverted. The punishment now in place deals with his reactions to an admin warning to be civil. The admin, well-meaning, did not check the provocation, which was racist. In a similar situation, another well-established editor revertede a profoundly racist remark against Palestinians within 3 minutes. I don’t think much was made of this. To revert a slip is itself an acknowledgement of wrong-doing, and a form of apology to the encyclopedia.

Comment by Jaakobou: Despite my quick retraction, Nishidani was among the people making a huge fuss over my angry response to his provocation and the end result, despite my taking all but 3 minutes to recant and apologize, was a topic ban of one week.[74] I take pride that -- despite his repeated suggestions that it's extremely moral to attack Jews if they happen to be Zionists (i.e. support Israel) -- I not once called him a "goose-stepping loon" and/or "enthusiastic Nazi" like Eleland did in response to his block.[75] Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 11:20, 28 September 2008 (UTC) clarify 11:22, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I used the diff illustratively, Jaakobou. It is not intended to reflect on your present editorial status, but simply to underline that Eleland copped a lifetime, then a three-month ban for opposing a racist, while your unfortunate remark was met with a one-week topic ban. These sorts of disparities in judgement are what disconcert many. I would also note that Eternalsleeper mischievously, and in tone with his earlier provocations, has given as the header of this incident 'Racism' as though Eleland had engaged in racist comments. This is pure and vulgar misrepresentation. Both Eternalsleeper and Saxophonemn indulged in racist comments, and Eleland's response consisted of an objection to racism.Nishidani (talk) 11:36, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, discussions of a master race and comparisons between Jews and Nazis are considered antisemitic. Eleland should have known better really to apologize rather than insist on "his prerogative" to attack other editors. Three months seems like a fine way to note other editors that comparing Jews with Nazis and calling them "cunt" is a very poor way to request an unblock. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 11:44, 28 September 2008 (UTC) milder 07:25, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Again, I can only insist that this speed-reading damages Wikipedia. What you say reflects nothing in what was said. Eleland responded to an offensive remark about Palestinians by someone who boasts of his Torah-based nationalism. His response occasioned a further attack. Mark Shabazz, one of the coolest heads in this area, called Saxophonemn's use of Twain, an example of 'national supremicism', a euphemism for what was, contextually, Saxophonemn's ethnic supremicist use of Twain. Ethnic supremicists think of themselves as 'Herrenvolk', and the undercaste here consisted of 'Palestinians'. It is useless to engage in a dispute unless one has the good-will and patience to master what Nietzsche called 'the art of slow reading', which is the only way to read. Eleland did not speak of 'Jews'. He addressed specific individuals, and called them for their contemptuous attitudes, and this habit of taking a criticism of a fellow in one's group, clan or tribe as a criticism of the group, is extremely archaic, and injurious to intelligent discussion. An American might take offense were I to call GWB what Eleland called Saxophonemn. That happens to be what I think, but it has nothing to do with Americans. Is that clear?Nishidani (talk) 11:53, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

JOKE: I can't believe you just called all Americans the "C" word. --Einsteindonut (talk) 10:39, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

An admin, without checking what Eleland was upset about apparently, made a civility caution on Eleland’s page. I, like Eleland, noted that, once more, the agent provocateur goes unexamined, and those who respond, if intemperately, are cautioned. In comes, curiously out of nowhere, for I have never crossed paths with the editor on the many I/P pages I work on, Eternalsleeper, informing both of us he tracks our editing, and considers us ‘anti-semitic’. It is one of the absurdities of Wikipedia, that this smearing, devoid of diffs, is never punished, while those who get pissed off about racism, and being labelled antisemites, get banned for telling the smearers to rack off. The irony is what Saxophonemn did not complain about here (I don’t complain when Einsteindonut told me to ‘get fucked’ on my page) is now the object of a complaint by Eternalsleeper, who played a key role in supporting Saxophonemn’s racist remark by chipping in to remark that (a) Eleland embraces the violently racist tripe of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, (b) I apparently mock the shofar for having called a Saxophone-player a hornblower (= someone who ‘blows their own trumpet’) (c) both of us are accused of anti-Semitism.

’many edits both make tries to portray Jewish Zionists as the crux of the world's problems. As no one makes a big hoopla of the Islamic occupiers of Eretz Israel, I find your commentaries offensive and racist.’

There are no diffs in this to document the outrageous assertion. It is patently false, since neither I nor Eleland have ever identified ‘Jewish Zionists’ as the crux of the world’s problems.. It is coded language for insinuating our editing is inspired by the conspiracy-mongering of the Protocols of Zion. Eternalsleeper calls this remark ‘chiming in’. (d) it describes the Palestinians as ‘Islamic occupiers of Eretz Israel’, and thus delivers up the chiming kibitzer as someone with a pronounced ideological and historically completely unfocused knowledge of the area.

Outcome? Sandstein’s suggestion (I hold that admin in high regard) that Saxophonemn’s use of Twain was innocuous, is patently wrong. To place the Palestinians with the Egyptians, Babylonians, Greeks and Romans is not to honour them by association (such subtleties are not in Saxophonemn’s style). It is to associate them with peoples whom Twain said oppressed the Jews, and were beaten by them. The tampering delivers the message: Palestinians oppress the Jews, they are ‘history’, and are ‘beaten’. That this is what Saxophonemn meant, were there a shadow of a doubt, is shown by several other remarks he made about both blacks, and his Torah-based nationalism.

The two people who provoked this flare-up get off scot-free. One of them, Saxophonemn has yet to make one useful edit, Eleland has made thousands. The other, Eternalsleeper has had the hide first to insult Eleland by calling his outrage at a racist put-down ‘antisemitic’, and Eleland a true-believer in the Jewish conspiracy, and then step in here to make a formal complaint about a violation of Wiki proprieties. Eleland deserves a ban. Perhaps I do too. But is there no such thing as cause and effect. Is calling an accomplished and valuable editor an anti-Semite okay round here? Is reacting violently to such cheap insinuations a crime, instead of a robust defence of one’s integrity as a humanist? It would be comical were it not ridiculous in its puerile bureaucratic superficiality.Nishidani (talk) 11:03, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Lost in all this is that invoking the C-word in the manner he did also expresses extreme hatred of women. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 11:47, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Rubbish. Now Shakespeare and Chaucer are misogynists because they wrote of queyntes. Nishidani (talk) 11:56, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

No, it's not the word, it's the way it's used - equating female genitals to inferiority and uncleanliness. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 12:17, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Rubbish, and you're giving yourself away, associating female genitals with uncleanliness. Eleland did not say S. was 'unclean' or 'inferior'. It's you who are associating the organ in the metaphor with uncleanliness and inferiority. The best you make make of this is that E called S a female, by the figure of speech called synecdoche, i.e. calling a part for a (w)hole:). In any case, this is off-topic, and disturbing one's view of F1 at Singapore.Nishidani (talk) 12:27, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

His use of language is precisely on topic. He's playing the "look what you made me do" game. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:19, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

And contrary to your statement about "giving myself away", that word can be sweet and beautiful in the right context. This ain't it. The editor uses it in an ugly way. It's not the word, it's the thought behind it. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:29, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I have changed the malice in the header, which is question-begging. The complaint is about Eleland's abusive language. The racism is what Saxophonemn brandished, and the plaintiff Eternalsleeper used in wantonly attributing without any diffs to prove it, racist sentiments to Eleland. I still am waiting for some administrator to check both Eternalsleeper's unprovoked smear of Eleland (forget me) as an anti-semite, and Saxophonemn's use of what Malik Shabazz called 'nationalist supremicism'. There is no more place in wiki for wildly smearing editors with insinuations about racism, than there is for abusive language.Nishidani (talk) 12:34, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

One's integrity as a humanist? Please read the article on baptismal rite. Ottre 12:31, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

And please read the O.E.D. on 'the price of fish'.Nishidani (talk) 12:47, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Nishidani seems right to me.

If we take care to read all the edits in chronological order, trying to understand the chain of causes - consequencess, I think that if it is Eleland who wrote the uncivil comments, they were not as terrible as it could seem out of their context, and that he is not really responsible of the whole mess.

Nevertheless, taking some distance (a short wikibreak) cannot be bad for him so that he cool down and he is an editor with an experience long enough to know when he can come back (and ask to be unblocked)

I suggest we let him decide when it is ok and consider the issue as resolved...

Regards, Ceedjee (talk) 13:20, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

"Not responsible"? No, he is fully responsible. He chose the words, not someone else. He's playing the old "look what you made me do" game. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:27, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Baseball Bugs, are you saying that if he said "dick" instead of "cunt" he would have been expressing misandry? The literal referent of those words hardly plays a role in their use as swear words, and while they are unfortunate terms I find it a bit of a stretch to claim misogyny or misandry in these types of contexts.PelleSmith (talk) 13:42, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

And I do not agree. In any case, he chose his words, no one else did. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:50, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes but you chose to interpret them in the manner that you did (as did I). Just out of curiosity, do you think "dick" displays misandry in the way that "cunt" displays misogyny?PelleSmith (talk) 14:00, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Yep. In this context, it does. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:04, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. I guess we just disagree about this.PelleSmith (talk) 15:19, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not contesting the technically serious nature of Eleland's policy violation. I am shocked once more by the insouciance of administrators failing to look into the context before making rapid judgements, which will cost Wiki the three months disappearance of a fine editor, while several useless ***** in good part responsible for his banning stick around. If Eleland is to wear a ban, then those who provoked him to an exasperated outburst in defence of a national dignity, and his own integrity, should be called to short order, and be subjected to some attention to see if their own execrable behaviour in this smutty little hitman campaign bears scrutiny.

Especially now that Eternalsleeper persists in his assertion, as per the header he has now reverted back, after I corrected it to 'Abusive language', that Eleland's offense was one of racism, I would ask the administrators who have participated on this thread to examine his conduct for smearing and insulting language, specifically here.

Sure, and there's nothing wrong with an established editor who calls Jews "master race" or another calling them "horn-blowers" when many edits both make tries to portray Jewish Zionists as the crux of the world's problems. As no one makes a big hoopla of the Islamic occupiers of Eretz Israel, I find your commentaries offensive and racist. Eternalsleeper (talk) 20:32, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

The offense, grievous in my view, is that Eternalsleeper:

(a) asserts, without evidence, without diffs, that Eleland called a whole people, the Jews, the 'master race', when the record shows he simply called Saxophonemn for touting a master race concept, or what Malik Shabazz called Saxophonemn’s 'theories of national supremacy' which Malik asked Saxophoneymn to refactor, and in doing so, gave indirect support to Eleland's own original assertion that the remark was racist. Eternalsleeper maliciously twisted this, a challenge to Saxophonemn’s theory of Jewish ethnic supremacy, in order to make it appear as if Eleland embraced the ideas of the antisemitic smear The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. This understandably outraged Eleland, who promptly elided it here and was reproved for deleting the smear In turn, Eleland remonstrated with the administrator for denying him a natural right to kept smear material off his page. The administrator was mistaken, no malice, just haste, and Eleland was fully in his rights to remove Eternalsleeper's smear from his talk page. It was the flagrantly patent injustice of being reproved for removing smear material, and for telling an ethnic supremacist to shove off from wiki, that is the germinal spur to the outburst that has now be sanctioned.

At a minimum, Eternalsleeper should be obliged to provide the diffs from Eleland's record which support his judgement. If they are not forthcoming, then Eternalsleeper will have in fact smeared a fellow editor as an antisemitic racist. It's about time behaviour characterized by frivolous baiting and denigrating of people as antisemites, when they are simply defending Wiki neutrality, gets as vigorously an administrative riposte as the reprehensible behaviour of antisemitism does.

(b)He should be asked to provide diffs for the assertion that both Eleland and I abuse Wikipedia by endeavouring in our editorial practice to portray Jewish Zionists as the crux of the world's problems.

(c)He designates Palestinians as ''the Islamic occupiers of Eretz Israel', ultra-Zionist cant. I don't know if nescience is sanctionable. Probably not. The comment about a fellahin indigenous community gradually converted from paganism and Christianity to Islam after the 6th.century CE being, by retroactive paradox, 'illegal occupiers’ of Eretz Israel, is so outlandish, the said editor should be warned to stay clear of articles dealing with historical events in the I/P area. We have no use for purblind ideologists here. He should clarify why the indigenous population of Palestine is both 'Islamic' and 'occupiers' of their native land, as Maoris are occupiers of New Zealand, Indians of the United States and Aboriogines of Australia, all having stolen title from the English immigrants.Nishidani (talk) 14:16, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

And while I'm at it, another of the crowd who suddenly drifted in here after the Camera contretemps, and militates on the Islamic threat and wiki's woefully anti-semitic POV, asked me to Get fucked, when I turned down his fishing expedition last night. I don't ask for punishment, since I don't complain about these outbursts. But the fact that I've been called an antisemite now, six times or so, and been told to get fucked for refusing to talk to ultra-Zionist flag-wavers who don't edit much, gives you some idea of the kind of atmosphere people like Eleland find exasperating. We've lost the invaluable Eleland on formal quibbles, and are now stuck with vapid ranters like these, as once more, formalism's etiquette provisions, which I think was intended for naive high-school geeks, trumps mature substance editors. Nishidani (talk) 14:44, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Before coming here, and aside from arguing with the other user, what dispute resolution channels have you followed in this case? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:52, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't get into dispute resolutions. I dislike whingeing to administrators. I try to ignore idiots, and not get distracted by their drifting in to waste our time. I have no intention of taking the Onestonedonut to the knackery. I cite the instance to document what those unfamiliar with the absurd shenanigans of some I/P actors may not know. I don't even read the rule books, which I think are necessary but mainly for many who haven't had a tertiary and post-tertiary background, and that is why etiquette is everywhere, and substance struggles to get past cunctatorial finagling by the astute. What worries me about the present case is that it is an old pattern: an intruder jumps at an exchange, in which neither of the two involved give administration reason to arbitrate, and uses it to wipe out one of the two, in a stupid game of scalp-hunting that mars the creation of a liberal and informed collegial editorial spirit, tolerant of lapses.Nishidani (talk) 15:23, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

What form of dispute resolution did Eternalsleeper attempt before coming here? Let me answer: none. This board is for incidents, and fellows ... I think we have one. Baseball Bugs and Nishidani, your respective points have been made by now; please wait for others to chime in before continuing this batter banter between the two of you. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 15:17, 28 September 2008 (UTC) batter->banter correctionJohn Vandenberg ^(chat) 17:53, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

There is no "batter" going on. However, I admit I should have asked the dispute resolution question much sooner. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 16:05, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

An indefinite block is an overreaction, and 3 months is still too long, if he posts a conciliatory unblock request that should be granted, otherwise the block should be reduced to 48 hours. PhilKnight (talk) 16:14, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

48 Hours? That would be letting him off way too easy. This is an editor who has already been blocked twice before for incivility and edit warring, and has declared that he is deliberately flaunting wikipedia policy in order to cause disruption. A one month block, possibly coupled with a longer topic-ban seems to be in order. NoCal100 (talk) 16:54, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Eleland's last block was over 6 months ago. Also, I don't share your interpretation of his comments. PhilKnight (talk) 17:11, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

His exact words were "not only did I knowingly violate Wikipedia's various "civility" and "personal attacks" and "play nice in the sandbox, kids," policies, I did it with the very deliberate intention that it cause what we euphemistically call "disruption" here". There is no need for "interpretation" here, just basic reading comprehension skills. NoCal100 (talk) 17:43, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

He was upset and these comments and his message were second degree... Ceedjee (talk) 20:30, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I get upset sometime, too, but I don't go around intentionally disrupting the project when that happens, nor do I vent my frustrations by calling other editors 'cunts' or 'huuuuge douchebag's or telling them to go fuck themselves. If Eleland can't act in mature way when he's upset, then he needs a time-out. NoCal100 (talk) 21:33, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

PhilNight's suggestion of a drastic reduction may be too lenient, but it was conditional on a conciliatory unblock request. As to your remark, NoCal100, that in the diff you cite, Eleland admitted to 'deliberately flaunting wikipedia policy in order to cause disruption', this is incorrect on two grounds. The first is, petty: you confuse 'flaunt' with 'flout'. The second is that, even so, he did not deliberately 'flout' wikipedia policy to cause disruption, pure et simple, but to a purpose. His words are:-

'Let me confess; not only did I knowingly violate Wikipedia's various "civility" and "personal attacks" and "play nice in the sandbox, kids," policies, I did it with the very deliberate intention that it cause what we euphemistically call "disruption" here. Quite simply, I was, and am, at wits end, and I have neither the patience nor the passive-aggressiveness to work through the normal WikiPolitical methods that EternalSleeper has so evidently mastered.

He was warned by one admin for incivility, and the judgement was correct. The admin did not warn the other two who provoked his incivility, and this was incorrect. He was insulted by the second with a vile accusation (these things if unchallenged stick in the record), and further offended when, in removing a patent and vicious smear on his own talk page, was notified that this quite perfectly just action was a matter of concern, in the same administrator's view. Since, as an experienced editor Eleland knows what cranking up the huge creaky machinery of administrative appeal means, (endless wasting of many editors' time, administrators harassed by pettifogging etc.,), he spoke his mind in a way that was, yes, deliberately disruptive, attention catching. It caught attention, all right. Instead of his original grievance being reviewed and some measures taken out on both Saxophonemn and Eternalsleeper, Eleland was further punished. The refusal by administrators to examine his original complaint roundly and neutrally, means effectively that Eleland is correct. Antisemitism is subject to immediate sanctions, rightly so. A blind eye is turned to people who flay other editors with smears insinuating they are antisemitic, when they are simply trying to cope with dogmatic intruders who barge about without significant contributions and make editing in the I/P area difficult. This intolerable inequivalence is the 'purpose' behind his outburst, a 'disruption' to protest systemic bias in the use of administrative sanctions. Both Eleland and I have a good deal of collegial esteem and respect for many colleagues who are Jewish, and play impeccably by the rules. We dislike newbies or shysters with an ideological chip on their shoulders, pro-Zionist or pro-Palestinian as the case may be, fooling around provocatively with articles that require immense patience, hardwork, and a nose for facts. Eleland's remark is a call for more speed in administrative oversight, less bureaucratic longueurs, in handling real 'disruption', which is what we wish to draw attention to. Had this simple incident been dealt with swiftly and equablyand the administrator posted an incivility remark to my page, and those of both Saxophonemn, and Eternalsleeper, we should not be here, wasting our time. It was a simple, and forgiveable oversight, but that is what caused the frustrated outburst. The Japanese even have a technical word for what Eleland did, funshi (憤死) remonstrative suicide to draw an authority's attention to an ignored grievance, in the finest samurai tradition.Nishidani (talk) 17:36, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Fine, then let's have a proper funshi - Eleland should be perma-banned, the Wiki equivalent of death , so that enough attention be drawn to this cause . Nothing less would achieve the desired result, it appears, nor be appropriate for this Samurai. NoCal100 (talk) 17:49, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I think this thread has drawn enough attention to this matter that all the involved parties here will be carefully watched from now on, including Eleland if/when he returns. Black Kite 18:17, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Attention drawn to Eleland, not to those who used racist language or smeared him. Zilch. The message is, you can call innocent people antisemites, or a living people 'history' extinct, with impunity, but can't be told you're a **** when the offended party calls you on these racist and smearing cracks. I don't se much attention paid. I see a good deal of silence standing to attention. Nishidani (talk) 19:09, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Let's please remember that we're engaged in a particular enterprise here, an encyclopedia. If Eleland has transgressed the rules, fine -- but the rules are meant to advance a particular type of goal here, and if in applying those rules we lose sight of that goal then we've lost something significant. Without disputing the claim that a temporary block on Eleland is appropriate, I'm disappointed by the apparent fact that other editors/admins apparently fail to perceive other aspects of what has happened here and are allowing a highly inflammatory action by another editor to go unnoticed. This is what I mean by drawing attention to the intellectual nature of the enterprise here. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:07, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

That particular talkpage is full of unnoticed, unnecessary and inflamatory statements that have little to do, if none at all, with the content of the article. -- fayssal - wiki up^® 20:56, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Before this is filed, as done, could some administrator look at the header, and change it, with authority to simply 'Abusive Language'. As it stands, it will remain as an indecently mischievous slur on Eleland, who used abusive language, but did so attacking racist language, which he has a zero-grade tolerance of. As it stands, the smearer, who then accused Eleland of being a racist antisemite, and made this complaint, will get away with part of his defamation, which I have shown to be untrue. Thank you, and good evening, and perhaps goodbye if the warning now on my page, for my having done what I believe was essentially a civil defense of someone who erred for a just cause, is acted on. Nishidani (talk) 21:21, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, I don't see any evidence of racism (by Eleland) here. Refactored accordingly. I've also started a discussion re the block warning with Toddst1. Black Kite 21:30, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Disagree. Calling other editors Nazis just because they have a national perspective rooted in the history of the Jewish people is racism. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 21:48, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

That's not what he meant, and I think you know it as well. Racism would be implying that all people with a certain ethnicity were "Nazis", and he was talking about the politics of an individual editor. He was certainly abusive, but I don't see racism. As you are not uninvolved here, I'd ask you to alter that back. Black Kite 21:53, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Edit: User:Jaakobou has changed the title back, and I am disinclined to edit war over it, though I believe the header is misleading. I am more concerned about other issues that are raised here, to be honest. Black Kite 22:13, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, I have reverted back, and elided 'Racism'. This is an extremely serious thing to assert of another person. Eleland at least had some evidence of 'national supremicism'. The header reflects Eternalsleeper's original accusation against both Eleland and myself, an accusation which, when called to document it (and he spoke of a consistent mode of editing by both myself and Eleland which he considered antisemitic), Eternalsleeper slept off, i.e. refused to back up. All illationary hunches, obscure deductions, are at this point irrelevant. Either Eternalsleeper provides us with several diffs documenting our respective antisemitic racism, or the header should stick to what has been proven, i.e. 'abusive language'. This should not be a matter of revert-warring, but administrative propriety.Nishidani (talk) 10:08, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

• First: let me note that User:Jaakobou is anything but an uninvolved editor here; he was nearly censored earlier this year for pulling a stunt exactly like the one Saxophonem pulled on Eleland, that is: saying something which is extremely offensive to "insiders", and then afterwards pleading total innocence; see here. Jaakobou has also been out gunning for Eleland for ages, indeed he was earlier this year given a "final warning" for block-shopping against Eleland. After which he continues with just that; more block-shopping.

• Comment by Jaakobou:
• (A) My history with Eleland includes him suggesting I'm a war criminal, claims that I worship people he views as extremists and repeated incivilities (Recent samples: [76], [77], [78]). Still, my "invovlement" here is no more than almost everyone who came to his defense suggesting he should be unblocked despite his clear over-reaction to a mere warning. (See: "I still think Saxophonem is a cunt. ..." above)
• (B) Not sure I should act defensively for an offense from March which I've learned from and have not repeated. The thread you linked to was a prime example btw of the drama legitimate complaints against Eleland cause - which is a reason I usually stop discussions with Eleland once he makes comments like these.
  • Mr. "hate-speech" above me 15:22, 20 May 2008
  • I don't need to deal with this crap. let jaakobou have every isr-pal article for his playground 18:28, 20 May 2008
• With respect, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 12:17, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

• It seems to have become a favourite sport for certain pro-Israeli editors: try to do some "subtle" mockery of Palestinians....."subtle" enough to fool an average uninvolved admin, but quite clear enough to hit home at Palestinians, or to anybody with a knowledge in the ME -field. And sometimes it succeeds wonderfully. Because the more pro-Palestinian editors swallow the bait. And the admins are clueless about ME-issues, so the "baiter" walks scott free.
• Having said this, I must say that I find it totally unacceptable to use all these four-letter words in public discourse. Both the c-word, and the d-word, and a lot of other swear-words, especially those with sexual under-tones. No matter how much one is provoked. However, I must remind people that, eg in a recent arb.com case there was an admin who had used the c-word in an edit-summary. Was he blocked for that? Certainly not. Not even for 5 minutes. That we then indef. block/or block for 3 months another editor using the same language...? Could we have some consistency here, please?
• Finally, and most important: There has the last couple of months been an influx of new editors, many/most of them with a great interest in the Jewish Internet Defense Force‎ article. They also dive straight into some of the most controversial articles in the ME-area, like Palestinian territories. I find many of them extremely aggressive, scaring away the more "regular" editors and causing great disruption. I have a suggestion: for cases like that, can we ask that editors do their, say, 500-1000 first edits outside articles that are included in WP:Palestine? In that way they could show that they are genuinely interested in participating in building an encyclopaedia, and that they are not on WP primarily to "win wars".
• (Oh, I was going to add that many of the new editors sounded exactly the same to me, but then I saw this: Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Einsteindonut. I guess that explains a bit.) Regards, Huldra (talk) 10:52, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah-- because I did SO much editing with all those different accounts. (sarcasm.) Trust me, many Admins already know about me, as does ArbCom and the Ombudspeople. Last time I checked, anyone can edit on WP and can edit what they want so long as they stay within the rules. Yes, I was aggressive in the beginning for various reasons, but have calmed down. If people wish to rile me up again, that's their choice. --Einsteindonut (talk) 11:00, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Well point 4 is the subtext. Experienced editors from both sides in the I/P area, despite fundamental disagreements, mostly manage to work together on a large number of articles, particularly after the review earlier this year. The newbies worry many of us, because they tend to play at rehearsing games most of us have learnt to avoid, and the obvious desire to challenge wikipedia's neutrality by some of them, after the publicized CAMERA episode, looks shady. The present case is a good example, and Eleland got tired off it, esp. when he copped the antisemitic smear. We've lost him, a very productive wikipedian, for, apparently, three months, while a non-productive newby presumably smirks, and the agent in the complaint whose offensive smear provoked Eleland sits silently on his laurels, for the scalp taken. He still hasn't, as requested, given diffs to justify his extremist language in jabbing at Eleland. That is why I think wiser heads should review the sanction imposed, not to get Eleland off the rap, but simply to mitigate what looks like a certain technical injustice in the severity meted out to Eleland for defending himself with very strong language, and the lack of action on the violation of WP:Civil by his accuser, Eternalsleeper, whose vulgar and unwonted assertion provoked his turpiloquy. It's not as if Eleland has spent two years on this work being repeatedly disruptive. Check his contributions. They are substantial.Nishidani (talk) 11:28, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

On newbies -- I found myself wondering recently what new incarnation was going to be offered by User:Zeq. It seems long past time. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:20, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Removed edit. Misread someone removing an incendiary comment by several, Saxophonemn included, from the talk page, dated back to early September. My apologies.Nishidani (talk) 15:06, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

A three-month block seems reasonable, if not lenient, for Eleland's conduct, especially given his past history of incivility (of which I have been a victim on occasion.) I am amused at the identity of the admin who reduced the block to three months, and the extremely apologetic tone taken in doing so (on Eleland's talk page), but I will leave it at that. 6SJ7 (talk) 15:59, 29 September 2008 (UTC) (After reading some of the subsequent comments, I have changed my mind and now believe the three months is way too lenient, see further comments under "Duration".)

The block is reasonable. Eleland's tone towards me (as an uninvolved admin making a commment on sourcing) on the Talk:Battle of Jenin page was aggressive and irrational, so it seems that his aggressions aren't necessarily inclined to stay solely related to any provocations. Good block, lets carry on, etc. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 16:35, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

With all due respect, you are not quite an uninvolved administrator, at least on I/P articles, in regard to a classic error of incorrect use of discretionary powers in which you were privately contacted by Jaakobou to get his 3RR violation cancelled (it wasn't thereafter even registered as having occurred), and in your explanation to Penwhale as to why you overturned an administrative sanction, you simply repeated what Jaakobou told you on the phone about me (a complete misrepresentation you apparently never checked against the record), who had not been sanctioned. And then you went after me, in a decision that appalled many, and was rapidly overturned (See Nishidani, Archives Dec 2007. I can't make the appropriate diffs, but the evidence for my contention is there, and you never replied to my documentation). I add this only because 6SJ7 expresses his amusement at the identity of ChrisO for reducing to three months a permaban. Nishidani (talk) 17:29, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure how what I said has anything to do with the previous comment, but whatever... 6SJ7 (talk) 20:19, 29 September 2008 (UTC) (Added comment: If you are saying that the only reason for your attack on Swatjester is the very mild comment I made about another admin (without even mentioning his name), I don't appreciate my comments being used as an excuse to make comments about someone else on a separate issue.)

Comment - it looks as if User:Eleland is a victim of his own attempt to AGF despite all the evidence. He rejected and ignored the evidence of really serious racism/supremacism amongst some quite prolific "editors" until it suddenly got to him over a somewhat obscure historical reference equating the Palestinians to the Greeks and the Romans (this in the context of the latter having vanished 1000s of years ago). I think it likely that, as stated above, Saxophonemn has yet to make a single useful edit, whereas Eleland has made thousands.

How have we got to this ridiculous situation? Why, by making CIVIL the only significant policy operating in the I-P conflict area and tolerating reckless breaches of RS, V, UNDUE etc with very disruptive editing. Scholarly editors are driven from the project - Eleland is most certainly not the first, and I doubt if he'll be the last. PR^talk 20:49, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Horrifying and inappropriate as Eleland's remarks were, they almost (almost) pale in comparison to the warm, giggly tone used by some of his enablers on his talk page. Eleland basically reiterates his "cunt" comment here, saying that the still thinks the user in question is a cunt, I guess. Leaving aside the icky antisemitic comparison of Jews to Nazis, the fact that this user has demonstrated no desire to reform makes the block reduction more than puzzling. IronDuke 23:45, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely right. What was the big rush to reduce the length of the block? 6SJ7 (talk) 00:16, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I was interested to see this discussion, from which it appears that refering to Israelis as "Nazis" is commonplace - amongst Israelis themselves. Reading more of this page should remind people that serious scholars are constantly having their time-wasted by people who regularly demonstrate what great difficulties they have with the written word. PR^talk 09:40, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I would hardly call that "commonplace" amongst Israelis themselves. "Counterpunch" is a seriously biased source of information. While I'm sure some Jews irresponsibly have flung the term around in a joking way (ie. "Soup Nazi) or in extremely heated areas of conflict, I can tell you with 100% certainly that its usage is not "commonplace." Nice try though. --Einsteindonut (talk) 12:20, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I wonder if we're talking about the same place. A "senior writer" in the National Catholic Reporter says "Among many of the settlers, “Nazi” is a casual term of abuse."

So it's a two-way street, as other readers will be interested to discover for themselves - that particular Holocaust Survivor, IDF veteran and ex-MK even speaks of: ""pogroms" in the classical sense of the term: riots by an armed mob intoxicated with hatred against helpless people, while the police and the army look on". I wonder how we'd treat a "pro-Palestinian" editor who engaged in this kind of badly informed denial. PR^talk 17:33, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your two sources, known for magnifying tiny issues to make them appear bigger than they actually are. There's quite a bit which is noticeably absent from those sources. I'll let objective people decide if they wish the majority of Jews and Israelis throw around the term "Nazi" lightly. It's rare, though certain sources and individuals do not wish to believe it (so that they can rationalize their own use of the term and criticize those who criticize others who use it.)--Einsteindonut (talk) 22:51, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

We've had yet another attempt to smear editors in the project as anti-semitic, this time for saying "mirror-image of a Nazi antisemite". It turns out that this association is perfectly acceptable even in Israel, where both "sides" use it to describe each other. Either you need to make the case that the settlers, Holocaust Survivors, IDF veterans and ex-MKs are indeed anti-semitic, or we need administrative action against those who smear other editors. PR^talk 16:51, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

No, contrary to your 2 biased sources claims, this association is not perfectly acceptable in Israel. --Einsteindonut (talk) 21:29, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Nor would it matter if it were. Black people may use the N-word to each other; a white editor who used it on a black editor here would be permabanned before he'd had a chance to make another edit. Minority groups get to use these terms without being accused of hating their own ethnicities. People outside those groups may not. This is a mind-meltingly simple point, I can't believe there are people here who aren't getting it. IronDuke 21:43, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I get it just fine. Just because some Jews might irresponsibly fling around the word "Nazi" and some biased sources wish to focus on it, that is not a proper rationalization for its use by non-Jews to define Jews under any means. An no, Zionism does not equal Nazism and the IDF are not Nazis either. And there is no "Holocaust" in Gaza. These common comparisons and associations are highly inaccurate, insensitive, offensive and border upon anti-semitic, depending upon intent.--Einsteindonut (talk) 21:56, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Right. I wasn't trying to imply you didn't get it, I was speaking of others. Sorry if there was confusion. IronDuke 21:59, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Duration

It appears that 3 months is manifestly excessive and possibly punitive, whilst some feel 48 hours is insufficient. Could I propose that we shorten the block to either 72 hours or a week? Orderinchaos 23:55, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

To the contrary, three months is not enough. IronDuke makes a very good point about the lack of real remorse and a commitment to reform on Eleland's part. I suggest the block be extended to six months. If that does not happen, the length of the block certainly should not be reduced further. 6SJ7 (talk) 00:14, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Please don't chip away at this block any further. I would agree with 6SJ7 about a block extension at this point if and only if Eleland refuses to make a full and frank retraction/apology/promise never to do it again. I very much hope he won't refuse. IronDuke 01:19, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I spent a couple hours looking through all this, since it's in the WP:ARBPIA topic area. I'll freely admit that I find Eleland's writing style entertaining at times, when he can stay away from the profanity. But the bottom line is that when it comes to blatant personal attacks, he still hasn't said, "Sorry, won't do it again." If he does, I'd support reducing the block. If not, I say leave it in place until he cools down. --Elonka 01:43, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

A week is more than sufficient unless someone can produce diffs to show that Eleland engages in this type of behaviour often. A discretionary sanction could be crafted to ensure that Eleland knows he must ignore any future baiting in this topical area. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 03:30, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't think a "sanction" that effectively pats him on the back will be likely to change his behavior. Even the suggestion of it is, in fact, profoundly unhelpful. Though, since you mention it, perhaps a 6 month topic ban would be in order once the 3 month block expires. See if he can play nicely in areas that are less emotional for him. IronDuke 03:36, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Quick question - what would a 3 month block *prevent* from occurring? I'm in broad agreement with John here. Orderinchaos 03:40, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Also a quick question. How about reducing it to 24 hours? Might be some folks around I'd really loove to call "Nazi cunts" and tell them to shove it, etc...but don't want a three month ban for the privilege. 24 hours would really be tempting, however. Or better yet, no block at all...I have put this on my watchlist. I do so want to know how this turns out. This could be really FUN! Tundrabuggy (talk) 04:02, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

For anyone who is keeping score here, I think you need to make sure that your Sarcasmometer^TM is switched on and set to Auto-detect mode when reading Tundrabuggy's post. 6SJ7 (talk) 05:50, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Orderinchaos: One thing that comes to mind is that it might help prevent someone who is about to unleash a gratuitous stream of really nasty words at another editor from thinking it is ok to do so, because the worst that will happen is they will get just a few days off from Wikipedia. 6SJ7 (talk) 05:54, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

It's editors like this which seriously damage the WP project. There's far too many of them who, while don't speak directly like this, certainly empathize with his point of view. I'm still relatively new here and I'm surprised to see so many people in support of him, despite his repugnant edits and commentary. I support an indef. ban from WP and I seriously question these people who are trying to minimize what he has written and the light "sentence" he received for writing it. He does not seem to be much of a true asset to this project nor do those who support him or the shortening of the punishment. --Einsteindonut (talk) 04:01, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

It would be a lot easier to stomach that suggestion if you didn't basically say that everyone who doesn't share your POV on I-P related entries are a detriment to the project. Eleland clearly deserves a block of some length for crossing the line and then some, but make no mistake the less obvious baiting that triggered his reaction is no better for this encyclopedia. The fact that it continues to slip under the admin radar despite vociferous commentary by another editor may make it worse for the project, in the end, than blatantly uncivil behavior like Eleland's which is easily dealt with.PelleSmith (talk) 04:48, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I did not say that regarding people who do not share my POV. It's one thing to have a different POV and quite another to have an irresponsible one which is then used to turn WP into a propaganda-pushing machine. Having had the opposite POV on the I-P conflict, it is clear to me what many editors/activists try to do. It is evident through their choice of sources and focus on one perspective at the expense of the other. So hopefully you will be able to stomach my suggestion a bit better. --Einsteindonut (talk) 05:41, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Three months looks very much like punishment (and Einsteindonut calls it punishment) and when did we start doing punishment? I join with the others here who are calling for a reduced duration - a week should be more than enough. Clearly if he continued to use such language after a week we can take further action. I also disagree with the idea of a topic ban. And the baiting needs to stop as well. Doug Weller (talk) 05:37, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

C'mon enough mixing words. You make a mistake on WP, and you get warned a lot about all your mistakes and if you continue to screw up, you get punished. The "punishment" comes in the form of blocks and bans with the hopes that the editor's behavior will change. You said it yourself, "if he continues" (making mistakes) "we can take further action" (ie. "punishment") Sorry, I'm not hip to all the Wiki lingo, so I just stick with my own. What is the Wikipedia word for these actions intended to make people think about their behavior here? --Einsteindonut (talk) 05:47, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I think perhaps you need to go take another look at WP:NPOV. Your conversation on your talk page here leaves me a bit concerned about your intentions on Wikipedia and the viability of your continued editing of I-P related articles. Wikipedia is not a "encyclopedia game" and I believe most of us who are serious about contributing to make this encyclopedia better, take exception to such a view.--JavierMC 07:09, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

You are certainly within your rights to take exception to my view of it. How this has any bearing on my editing of I-P related articles is beyond me. I suppose people with only a particular POV on the conflict should be welcome to edit them? I make and have made my bias known and still strive for accuracy and fairness in Wikipedia despite the fact that I (and many others) view the whole thing as a game and do not treat it as seriously as others. Here's a prime example of what I'm talking about. --Einsteindonut (talk) 08:32, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I've reduced the block to a week based on the comments here. PhilKnight (talk) 07:00, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm in agreement with this. A week by most scales is actually quite serious, and certainly would be interpreted as such by a future blocking admin, so it is more than sufficient deterrent. I tend to believe some element of proportionality should apply, as we have trolls and vandals we don't even block for that long, and yet at the start of this conversation this generally useful user (and by useful, I mean able and willing to improve content, independently of any particular behaviour) was indefinitely blocked for basically swearing at and abusing someone in a single incident. I would also be concerned that some editors might see the perfectly reasonable ability to block a user to prevent damage to the encyclopaedia as a handy way to dispense of ideologically incompatible editors - we've certainly seen a fair bit of that on a range of controversial topics and it should never be encouraged, especially on Arbcom-sanctioned topics where the end of the line has already been reached. Orderinchaos 07:40, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

A week sounds fine to me. Now, what about the other editors involved in this, against whom Eleland was apparently reacting? Is there evidence that they've violated Wikipedia's standards of conduct? Leave aside the objectionable political claims they are making - have they been incivil, edited disruptively or whatever? -- ChrisO (talk) 08:19, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I think it inadvisable to take this further. It is quite true that Eleland was maliciously defamed, and punished for his intemperate language in defending himself from a slur. This fact, I think now recognized, and on record, has led to a reduction in the original sanction. We don't live in a perfect world. One should turn the other cheek at times. Not to do so here would be to feed a potential atmosphere of recrimination, bore admins even more than they have been (particularly by myself) here, and lead to suspicions of a witch-hunt, even if, technically the two people here who provoked Eleland's outburst get off scot free. Their behaviour is known. That is surely enough. People have good memories here. Of course, this is my private view, and Eleland, on the expiry of the sanction, would be perfectly within his rights to pursue the matter, as a matter of securing his name and equitable justice, through the proper channels.Nishidani (talk) 08:45, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

On a related issue, maybe WP should impose sanctions on editors who make false accusations of antisemitism?; false accusations can be as bad as the uncivil words that Eleland has been blocked for. Imad marie (talk) 08:49, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

"Islamic occupiers of Eretz Israel"? (quoted directly from the diff presented immediately above) That is *really* testing the boundaries of a number of policies and guidelines, WP:NOT#SOAP comes to mind - we all have political beliefs and opinions but Wikipedia talk pages are not really the place to declare them. I can't see any valid argument that use of loaded hyperbole like this fosters a collaborative atmosphere. Orderinchaos 11:16, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I have suggested that, esp. in I/P articles, this kind of provocative suspicion-seeding, abusing the extremely serious charge of anti-semitism, for partisan ends, should be addressed eventually by some regulation that warns anyone reporting abuses, that their own records will be examined, in assessing the complaint. Such a rule doesn't exist, it appears, but it would save a lot of gaming and whingeing, and make those who resort to this kind of denunciation rather more wary. The effect would be to relieve administrators of many futile cases that involve puerile bickering. But it is not for this board, but rather for an eventual refinement on the rules now in place in I/P articles, that the appropriate arbitration authorities would do well to consider. Nishidani (talk) 09:10, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I fail to see how the diff that Imad Marie provided is an accusation of anti-semitism? General comment: Sadly certain views have become so infused in many cultures, that people oftentimes can make anti-semitic comments and may not even be aware of it. Having been the victim of antisemitism both in real life and on Wikipedia in both overt and more subtle forms, I can tell you it can be a tricky issue. I believe it would help if people chose to focus on more of the positive aspects of Israel and Jews. Unfortunately it seems many wish to obsess over the perceived negatives. If that shifted, I'm sure suspicions would as well. --Einsteindonut (talk) 10:13, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Donut, what's up with the youtube-video? You wouldn't be using it to insinuate anything like Jewish/Israeli superiority or supremacy, now, would you? I'll WP:AGF since you seem to be somewhat new here, but please do read WP:SOAP and re-consider what you've just posted.

Cheers, pedrito - talk - 30.09.2008 11:35

Are you kidding me? I've seen many editors here who are using sources which promote the boycott of Israel. As I stated, I posted it as an example of something which focuses on the positive aspects of Israel and the Jewish people (versus the many negative aspects I have seen editors obsess over here on WP.) In a place where people focus on so much negativity toward a country and a people, I hardly see how posting a little positivity would lead anyone to believe that I am insinuating Jewish/Israeli superiority. It was posted to get people to think twice about things differently, but I should have known that people hate the positive things too. Next time I'll be sure to post something which highlights Arab suffering and I'm sure my motives will not be questioned. --Einsteindonut (talk) 12:13, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

No, I'm not kidding you. I'm guessing your misunderstanding of the problem lies in a lack of perspective. If I were to show you the same video with "Jewish" or "Israeli" replaced with "the white man's", then you -- and many others -- would probably accuse me of racism. What may sound like "a little positivity" to you may be grossly offending to others. This lack of perspective -- on your behalf -- is a subtler version of what pushed User:Eleland over the edge.

I assume, you will learn from this and mend your ways, i.e. apologizing to User:Eleland and removing the youtube-link above.

Cheers, pedrito - talk - 30.09.2008 12:42

Wow, that's twisted. Who is calling for the boycott of the white man? Guess you missed the point 100% about the video. That is hardly racist video. It's a video which makes a mockery of people calling for the boycott of Israel. Not quite sure why you think I need to apologize to Eleland, but I've been talking about general issues here and haven't brought him up at all. --Einsteindonut (talk) 13:15, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

No, Donut, you seem to be missing the point. To you it's a "mockery", to others it's a video extoling the relative virtues of Israel and the Jews over other peoples, and hence racist. Your failure to see how others might interpret your words and actions is what started this in the first place (and don't give me that hock about you not having anything to do with this).

Cheers, pedrito - talk - 30.09.2008 13:53

Actually I think you're confused, I did not "start this in the first place." Perhaps you can explain to me just how you think I do and how I started this. I think you have me confused with someone else. --Einsteindonut (talk) 13:57, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

No, Donut/Sax, I'm not.

Cheers, pedrito - talk - 30.09.2008 14:48

Uh, yes, you are. In the Wikipedia sense, I am not Sax and Sax is not me. That's why ArbCom removed his indef ban after I was in much correspondence with them, Fayysall and the Ombudspeople. Sax and I are two separate people. Two separate accounts. Rarely (if ever) do we communicate or have we communicated. So yes, actually, you're confused. Bring it up with ArbCom if you are alleging more sockpuppetry. It was worked out after they realized their mistake. The "checkuser" page on me is not 100% accurate. I take an interest in anti-semitism on Wikipedia, so that is why I'm following what is happening here. Again, I do not appreciate you not AGF (three times now?) First, you accused me of being a racist, secondly, you blamed this entire episode on me (despite the fact that I have nothing to do with it.) Lastly, you are accusing me of sockpuppetry, apparently not fully comprehending the case as per ArbCom's private decisions. So, again, you are confused. Please do your homework before you make any more false allegations and if you could apologize, I'd appreciate it. --Einsteindonut (talk) 22:26, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

A good admin will, in fact, look at the bigger picture. There have been numerous cases where the complaining editor ended up with an indef-block for having been judged to be the real culprit. "Never sue; they might prove it!" And the target of the complaint is free to state his side of the case and provide diff's. However, the "look what you made me do" game, which the target of the complaint used here, doesn't cut it. A week off is a good start to letting the editor cool off and come back with a calmer demeanor. And then he's free to file a complaint of his own, OR to use some appropriate method of dispute resolution, rather than getting into wars of vulgar words, which accomplishes nothing except ill will. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 09:27, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

What really concerns me is the summary of the edit: "Antisemitism ain't cool"; this editor came out of nowhere accusing Eleland of antisemitism. And even if Eleland complained about this remark, I doubt he would have accomplished anything since there is no WP policy or guideline to discourage antisemitism accusations. Imad marie (talk) 11:33, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad there isn't that policy. I had enough trouble making a complaint about the Flag of Jihad and Swastikas posted on my profile and calling THAT "antisemitism" - so if WP actually had a policy in place discouraging that, it would just be more telling about the problems. Antisemitism is incivility. If it's a false accusation, so be it. It will get sorted out by admins. People make false accusations on WP left and right. So much of it seems to be all about pointing fingers and telling on each other. If someone posts a swastika on my profile though, I'm going to make a lot of noise about it. It someone is antisemitic at all toward me, I'm going to make a huge deal about it. If it is questionable, then that can be determined by ArbCom or whomever decides these things. --Einsteindonut (talk) 12:13, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Eleland has in fact provided a few diffs of problematic behavior on his own talk page. Lets not forget that he is unable to edit this page. Also, if an admin is capable of seeing problematic behavior they should act on it, no matter if an official complaint has been made. If Baseball Bugs is suggesting that the behavior of the other editors isn't visible and asks Eleland to clarify it, then I understand, but if the point is simply to force people to file a complaint before admins do their job that's ridiculous. From the perspective of protecting this encyclopedia from problematic behavior we ought also not harp on Eleland's vulgar language. What on earth does that have to do with admins recognizing and dealing with problems in others? Eleland could have reacted in an even more extreme fashion, to an extent that got him permanently banned from this place, but that doesn't change what others may have done to provoke him. Likewise he could have reacted calmly, but again it changes nothing about what others may have done.PelleSmith (talk) 11:53, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Which came first, the chicken or the egg? One really needs to consider the entire context. I didn't follow their whole exchange, so I'm not sure who provoked whom first. --Einsteindonut (talk) 12:13, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Horrible logic. The point isn't who provoked who first. The point is that bad behavior is bad behavior. I have not suggested to ease up on Eleland because he was provoked but suggested that the provoking party also be reprimanded. I do think the original block excessive but my real issue is with the nonsense that went unacknowledged.PelleSmith (talk) 05:01, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

My logic is horrible? You say "bad behavior is bad behavior" in one instance, and just above it you say we "ought not harp on Eleland's language?" --Einsteindonut (talk) 11:53, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Mincing words and quoting out of context. Lovely. We ought not harp on Eleland's language when we're talking about the possible problems caused by others. We judge Eleland by what he did ... we don't look away from those who baited him simply because of the extent to which he reacted. That's the point, and I'm sure you understood it. Please refrain from these types of misstatements regarding what I write.PelleSmith (talk) 20:40, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

It is a normal courtesy to others here to read the whole thread before making judgements. By all means skip mine, which are unconscionably verbose. You will find, checking diffs supplied, that the person who started the provocation, and the ally popping out once from the corridor (two older hands, this is a familiar gambit) to kibitz, and who translated it into a diffamation, edited prior to the comment for which Eleland has been duly sanctioned. The metaphorical egg he had to wear came from a game of chicken, which also means 'cowardly', and the result was a lamed duck, who'd tired of ducking. Can't we archive this now?Nishidani (talk) 12:56, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

If Eleland was having problems with other editors, what was stopping him from coming here and raising the issue? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:02, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

• Seven days sounds about right. The block message should be "See you next Tuesday." Jehochman ^Talk 13:30, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Seven days is ridiculously short for this. The block message should be "Please feel free to spew all the foul invective that you want, because all you'll get is a slap on the wrist, and you won't even have to promise not to do it again." 6SJ7 (talk) 16:03, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I think seven days might be enough time for the editor to regain their senses and do better when they return. If not, the next block can escalate. Also, a one week block produces a block message especially appropriate for the infraction. Jehochman ^Talk 18:42, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Horrible unblock

Cross-posted from Eleland's talk page

Phil, if you want to send the message that you support Eleland's comments, why not just give him a barnstar? I quote from you in the AN/I thread linked above "if he posts a conciliatory unblock request that should be granted". Where is that statement? In fact, he reiterates that he continues to think the person he called a cunt is a cunt, and that the person he called a Nazi has a Nazi style. He wrote, right above that charming cartoon above, "IronDuke knows, full well, that I have snarkily, rhetorically, and indirectly likened the comments of one single Jewish editor to Nazi-style rhetoric - an analogy which was, given the circumstances, not a great stretch." You aren't even pretending to get a commitment to change of behavior, Phil. It's profundly depressing. IronDuke 12:39, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree that I was surprised to see the block decreased in length, considering that Eleland never acknowledged that he was going to change his behavior. Instead, I see a new long rant by Eleland on his talkpage,[79] followed by PhilKnight decreasing the length of the block "per rough consensus at ANI".[80][81] Sorry, but I'm not seeing that consensus. --Elonka 13:15, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Reading down the above, I note that such a rough consensus does exist amongst the editors who are uninvolved in this particular editing area (even though that's not many...) Black Kite 13:37, 30 September 2008 (UTC

I've been reviewing things as well and it does seem that the block was quickly decreased in length based upon practically nothing except the "rough consensus" of people who don't seem entirely uninvolved. --Einsteindonut (talk) 13:47, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

For assistance in reviewing this, which editors are being regarded as "involved" and which are uninvolved? --Elonka 15:03, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

As obviously uninvolved, apart from the blocking and unblocking admins I can see myself, User:Orderinchaos, User:Jayvdb ... any more? Black Kite 17:45, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, let's make a list. Correct it if I am mistaken. The following 5 uninvolved administrators thought the original sanctions excessive, and thought a week sufficient.

User:Orderinchaos

User:Jehochman

User:Jayvdb

User:Dougweller

User:Black Kite

One definitely uninvolved administrator confirmed 3 months.

User:Sandstein confirmed Toddst's sanction

User:Swatjester idem. I have argued he is involved, and predictable on these matters.

User:fayssal did not express an opinion

User:Jayron32 remarked neutrally on Toddst's tweaking

ChrisO is involved

Of 12 admins, one imposed 3 months, the other, after discussion, reduced it to a week. Of the remaining 10, 5 uninvolved admins agreed a week was sufficient. 1 uninvolved admin supported the 3 months. 2 involved admins in I/P area split, Swatjester supporting 3 months ChrisO in favour of a week. Two observed and reserved their comments. On my reading, this means that PhilKnight's 'rough consensus' tallies with the facts, 5 uninvolved in favour of a week versus one uninvolved in support of three months.

Nishidani (talk) 19:08, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm uninvolved, for one. I'd have to dig around to check histories on the others. Perhaps a better question would be, "Which editors are clearly involved?" --Elonka 18:37, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Going on the basis that involved means "regularly involved with I/P articles", then pretty much everyone else is involved, I think. There's a few editors I don't really know, though. Black Kite 19:55, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

If I've slipped up, please correct me. In the list of five, I noted down people here whom I, as a fairly frequently I/P editor, don't recognize on sight. Perhaps this just reflects my relatively limited knowledge of wiki.Nishidani (talk) 20:44, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I think my only edit on anything Middle Eastern was rewriting an article and uploading a photo of a touristy ghost town in Turkey I once visited (ref: Kayaköy). In a religious sense, I mediated a conflict for a while involving editors at the Brahma Kumaris World Spiritual University article, as it'd gotten nasty at one of the ArbCom discussion boards (editors of opposite ideological positions trying to get each other blocked basically) and, despite knowing absolutely nothing about the topic, I figured I could help informally to try and stop it blowing over. I think in general in ideological or polarised conflicts on Wikipedia, emphasising the difference or polarity rather than working towards content and ignoring difference is what gets things unstuck. This should be a place where we put the real world away from us, and maybe even learn about the other side - I've actually learned a lot in my time on Wiki (about 2½ years) about all sorts of things. Orderinchaos 21:51, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Ah, for clarity on the context of my question, "uninvolved" means "editors who are neutral on the matter", as opposed to editors who might be leaning one way or the other in terms of article content. For the term as we use it in regards to administrators, see WP:UNINVOLVED, and Wikipedia:Administrator#Misuse of tools (which doesn't mean that tools were misused here, I'm just pointing at the definition). In any case, it's probably fairly moot at this point. I'll go on record as saying that though I disagreed with the block reduction (absent a conciliatory note from Eleland), now that it's done, I don't have a strong enough opinion on it to want to see it changed again. If Eleland takes advantage of his reprieve and keeps his tongue on a leash (there's a visual metaphor, eh?) then it's not a problem. If he does lose his temper again, then he'll just be blocked again. --Elonka 21:05, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

PhilKnight gave a one-week topic ban to Jaakobou for saying (retracted) that the 'Islamic-inspired cultural structure of the Arab world' was the main cause for what he then called the Arab-Palestinian 91 year racist terror campaign against the Jewish-Palestinians'. Eleland, who unlike Jaakobou was provoked,^{[82]-note by Jaakobou} like him retracted, and then got upset at the failure to look at the behaviour of the person who defamed him, copped a perma-ban. I think PhilKnight's judgement therefore has been very consistent. In both instances, he's listened round, and given out the same level of sanction. I say that as someone who has been warned by PhilKnight in the past, and his way of doing that earned, at least, my respect. He's as impartial as they come, as far as my knowledge of his record around 1/P articles goes.Nishidani (talk) 13:26, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Nishidani, can you please stop reiterating my reaction to ^ your provocative "Israeli occupation/violent racist settlers" soapboxing? I take pride that instead of insisting that my point was correct (couple samples: Blaming the Jews, The forgotten refugees) and calling you names, I immediately retracted adding an apology. Still, you pushed for a ban, quickly implemented by PhilKnight who insisted that my comment disrupts him even when retracted - has Eleland retracted any of his abusive comments? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 13:36, 30 September 2008 (UTC) clarify 13:41, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Eleland's posting of this cartoon on his talk page does not suggest that he has learned anything useful from this discussion. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:41, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Jaak, as earlier, my point in using that quote was to put some comparative focus on this, nothing personal. I know how hard you've worked in the intervening period. I've said that on your page. This new thread, which expresses disgruntlement with the reduction of the suspension, is now shifting the goalposts. There is absolutely nothing wrong with Eleland's putting that cartoon on his page, if copyright is okay. It is satire that reflects a viewpoint widely held in Israel, see Zeev Sternhell and Gershom Gorenberg and several other senior staff writers on Haaretz over the past few days, and has nothing to do with being offensive to 'Jews', 'Israelis'. To the contrary the vignette accurately reflects how some here interpret the accusations made by Elelandìs accusers. By all means press on with a review of the review, but one should stick exactly to the claims made by Eternalsleeper, the sequence that lead to Eleland's outburst, and, in reviewing sanctions, a regard for the comparative record. Secondly, there is some suggestion of administrative bias, that is the only reason why I made the analogy, since it suggests otherwise. Thirdly, Jaak, if you can give me a diff showing that after Phil Knight administered the week's suspension, I came back complaining, and called for more, or protested his administrative judgement, I will apologize. I know almost nothing of wiki rules, I confess, but, just as Cassius Clay mostly held his punches if his antagonist was falling down, or exhausted on the ropes, gentlemen do not put the boot in when people (perhaps justly) are on the ground. To do so is to betray a punitive and vindictive attitude.Nishidani (talk) 15:49, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

If I may be permitted a small comment, El. In his retraction edit summary Eleland admitted yeah, yeah... i guess i can't say that... i have to put up with this guy, even though he's obviously unfit to edit here.... The outburst for which he was sanctioned was subsequent to an ugly piece of defamation, which failed to trouble the administrative process. We’re watching a very odd process, where the original plaintiff describes as 'constructive’ his own description of Eleland as an anti-semite of the most vicious kind (i.e., a believer in the Protocols of the Elders of Zion trash). Eleland is asked to undertake not to repeat his offense, while of the person who defamed him, nothing has been asked. Get Eternalsleeper to retract this defamation with an apology (it has been shown to seriously misread Eleland's remarks), and perhaps there would be point in asking Eleland to undertake not to repeat his outburst. Without the one, as far as I understand questions of honour, a request to Eleland that fails to address the defamer who provoked him simultaneously, would simply confirm his original disgruntlement with the lack of balanced administrative oversight, and justly so.Nishidani (talk) 13:42, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I shall repeat myself from my talk page here - I think Wikipedia would be far better off if everyone didn't treat this like a replay of the real war. I have seen some fantastic examples on this place where people one would normally expect to be implacably opposed for outside geopolitical reasons can work together soundly on articles about the very topic on which they are divided right here - perhaps even come to an understanding of rival points of view, seeing where they come from even while maybe still entirely disagreeing with them or thinking them misguided. Sadly, they are in the minority, and hence why I-P, Azerbaijan-Armenia, Northern Ireland and India-Pakistan are perceived as "no go" zones on Wikipedia by many well meaning editors who just don't need the stress. Thinking of Wikipedia as an academic endeavour (I speak as someone with one degree and well on the way to my second, and being well aware that others here are similarly or more qualified), it is not entirely unreasonable to suggest people with entirely opposed personal views can in fact collaborate and produce a common work of which they can both be proud.

Relevant texts: WP:NPOV, WP:GAME, WP:NOT#SOAP, WP:AGF, WP:MASTODON and perhaps WP:SPIDER. Orderinchaos 13:47, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with IronDuke, "horrible" about sums it up. This is a very bad decision[. I have never understood why one person gets to decide things like this anyway, and even more puzzling, why one person gets to undo the decision of another person. There was no consensus here. It is just one person selecting some peoples' opinions over others. It's a bad system, and bad decisions are an inevitable result. 6SJ7 (talk) 16:13, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, there must be several admins who have followed the evidence and argument among the names above. If an argumentum ex silentio (they have not contested PK's decision) is not enough, the proper thing would be to post a note on the respective pages of all admins listed in the thread, and ask them to note if they agree to, or oppose, PK's decision. Nishidani (talk) 16:43, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Let's see now. I got a 3-month ban in I/P for using the word "reported" in an article. But if I use the word "cunt" and "nazi" and "douchebag" when talking about other people, after a warning and without remorse, I can expect a mere week off? All this talk about provocation, but my understanding of wiki policy is that we are not supposed to react to provocation with further provocation, and an editor who has been here as long as Eleland should know that better than some others. Since he is familiar with wiki policy, why did he not bring the issue up in a dispute resolution? Then the issue of the 'provocation' could be properly explored and perhaps decided. The question of "calling someone antisemitic is racist" would be something that could be brought up and properly discussed at IP collaboration group, along with the question of what actually counts as "antisemitism" or what counts as "anti-Palestinianism" for that matter. But again, provocation is no excuse for obscene attacks on other people. Supposedly there are other ways of handling such things. Eleland deserves a nice vacation to cool off in, imho. Tundrabuggy (talk) 20:56, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Welcome to wiki "justice." They still haven't officially cleared names of people they falsely accused of being my sock or fixed checkuser pages, only adding to the confusion of many editors apparently. Many pro-Israel editors merely throw in the towel on Wikipedia after being so heavily outnumbered and after dealing with so many false allegations of racism, provocation, POV pushing, etc. Sadly, it's quite an obvious blight on the project unfortunately. --Einsteindonut (talk) 22:36, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

As the original blocker, and the target of unfavorable comments by this editor, I stand in strong opposition of the radical reduction of this block to 1 week with the rationale of "he was provoked". That is the worst argument for disruption I have heard in my time on wikipedia. I expect much better of my fellow admins. Toddst1 (talk) 23:41, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

It's called the "Look What He Made Me Do" game, and letting someone get away with it sets a very bad precedent. A good parent won't fall for that line. Apparently a poor admin will. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:49, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

The way to deal with it is to thoroughly look into the situation and to deal with both sides of this mess. This does not require that both sides whine about it emphatically, but simply that you admit what is obvious. If you keep on rejecting the notion that this isn't simply about Eleland then its no surprise other admins will react in terms of his block. I'm still stupefied by the attitude that unless one whines to AN/I admins are supposed to turn a blind eye to problematic behavior.PelleSmith (talk) 05:06, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Bringing issues to WP:ANI isn't "whining", it's following the appropriate procedure. Getting into wars of words is not the appropriate procedure. And since this is not "big brother", admins don't necessarily go looking for trouble; it needs to be raised here. The blocking of this one editor is certainly appropriate, but by no means precludes the blocking of others with whom he is having the war of words. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 06:16, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Unjustifiable or unsupported actions taken at one time neither justify nor oblige unjustifiable or unsupported actions in the future. It's a sad reality that overreactions or underreactions are common in a community environment - we're not a court of law, we are a bunch of volunteers from around the world trying to make this thing work. As an aside, one of the major factors is the level of sheer drama and hostility in venues such as this. I only occasionally have time to dip in here and see what's going on, and after a few previous incidents I'm always wary of acting (it's a great way to rapidly increase the size of one's own talk page, though.) Many admins whom I hold in great respect and who are extremely fair people never come here because they see it as a haven of drama. Orderinchaos 23:40, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Aye, on that much, I am in complete agreement with Orderinchaos. --Elonka 14:37, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Found: Some evidence from the recent past

I've been trying to research more on this Eleland situation and found this which was interesting. Seems to me that there is a pattern of abuse in which he was already warned? I'm not sure if perhaps a block on I-P related articles should be in order? I'm not sure what happened as a result of this. Seems like just a warning?

The "background notes" from Jaakobou were as follows:

Editor was already noted multiple times about civility issues and even once, a long time ago, apologized (in a fashion which looked more like a mockery) for his user directed commentaries. Part of my personal unpleasant interactions with him included repeated insinuations that I might be a war criminal rewriting history on a battle/massacre I supposedly participated in, and despite numerous requests - sample - the issue persists.

The following diffs are from early 2008:

1. "a number of editors... allowing their own ethnic identity and national affiliation" - [83]
2. ("apology/rephrase":) "political leaders of a faction you identify with" - [84]
3. "I realize it's a [[User:Jayjg|time honoured tradition]] around here, but could you avoid punctuating... with obnoxious straw-man arguments... It makes you look rather desperate." - [85]
4. "your personal crackpot interpretation of the RSes" - [86]
5. "the writer still adheres to "there are no Palestinians" viewpoint" - [87]
6. "rm unsourced propaganda; please do not regurgitate content" - [88]
7. "stop with the puffery and WP:FRINGE theory pushing" - [89]
8. "cleanup a really ugly piece of historical fabrication" - [90]
9. "You can't recast... because you don't like them." - [91]
10. "trim uncited conspiracism" - [92]
11. "rv WP:FRINGE theory pushing" - [93]
12. "An IP editor is campaigning... [he's] an Internet kook." - [94]
13. "The guy is still a fringe pov-pusher" - [95]
14. "looks a lot like just shouting "antisemite!" because something personally troubles you." - [96]
15. "umm, yeah, "resifix" = "i made this up for wikipedia"" - [97]
16. "I'm not sure why Leifern is so determined to portray this as vandalism or censorship." - [98]
17. "One of the chief POV-pushers" - [99]
18. "You're exhausting everyone's patience with this constant theory-pushing." - [100]
19. "Bible Land is the name of the website you're spamming, not anything that exists in the real world" - [101]
20. "When are you going to acknowledge the distinction between "which I personally like" and... You just keep making the same assertions." - [102]
21. "your aggressive hounding of Huldra" - [103]
22. "rv; ... stick to scholarly understanding... rather than imaginative" - [104]
23. "sneak in the "prefers hype to facts" quote that you're so very, very fond of." - [105]
24. "Anything else is... achieved via serial POV-pushing" - [106]
25. "you seem to have gone back to... mass POV editing across multiple articles, accompanied by manipulation of the talk page discussion" - [107]

Thanks. --Einsteindonut (talk) 03:01, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

What's the point here? All of a sudden identifying POV pushers is a sin? No thanks.PelleSmith (talk) 05:11, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I just thought it would help add more context to the situation. I don't think he was just identifying POV pushers. His remarks are sharp and are personal attacks. --Einsteindonut (talk) 05:41, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Everyone bar 1, a jab at Jayjg, was found by all reviewing admins to be unproblematical. I have independently re-examined them all. 95% of those remarks are calls to a variety of editors to stick to Wiki policies on reliable sources, no original research, and avoiding fringe theories. All those 25 diffs are evidence for, in the original and as recycled, is that two editors scrap the barrel to try and get Eleland sanctioned on what, objectively, is pretextual material than strains all credibility. I thought we had learned the lesson not to trouble administration with bickering pettifoggery.Nishidani (talk) 10:47, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not bickering. I thought it could help the situation. I don't even know Eleland so I don't care if he gets sanctioned or not. I just felt from indef. to 3 months, to 1 week wasn't right, especially when it appears that he is not remorseful and hasn't changed his ways much. It just looks like a pattern of abuse to me, but then again, I am somewhat new here. I figured no harm in providing context. If what he did at one point warranted an indef. ban and then a 3 month ban, then I thought contextual info. would be helpful in fairly assessing the situation, which seems to have only intensified over time, due to Eleland's own actions. --Einsteindonut (talk) 10:54, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Several people, who clash with Eleland in the I/P area on grounds that reveal a clash in political perspectives, found an administrative consensus 'horrible'. Accept it. One can often question one administrator's judgement (I've always said, that errors made are often the understandable result of looking too quickly at diffs on formal grounds, and not context for substantial grounds. They don't have the time to do this, the sheer weight of material they are called to glance over militates against this). One should not question a majority judgement by them. These guys have a level of informed experience neither you nor I have. I'd say that even if the case went the other way (at most, I'd murmur to myself in private perhaps, but I've never had grounds to). Nishidani (talk) 11:03, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Was a majority judgment by the admins really made? Looked like one made an indef. block, another lessoned it to three months, and then another to a week. They each appeared to be individual decisions, not collective. --Einsteindonut (talk) 11:14, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Each of the two revisions was done after some level of disquiet at the initial reaction. Neither was individual, although it required some courage to implement the change given the noise level on here. As I keep saying (but it's straight from WP:BLOCK anyway) blocks are intended to be preventative, not punitive. Noone has actually made a case for any ongoing damage actually being done by this user, who does seem to be productive if a bit hot-headed, and he has been, in my view, shown, even if he does not entirely accept, that his actions on this occasion fell short of community expectations - so he is in no doubt. On the other hand, I am not seeing a great deal of useful content contribution coming from you (approx 20% of your 930 edits to date, and many of them are reverts or minor edits), but a hell of a lot of drama - and that has been the case since not long after you signed up an account here. If you want to be front and centre in a campaign against an editor, I would suggest ensuring first that your own Wikihouse is in order. Orderinchaos 14:31, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

One can kibitz endlessly, esp. if one does not trouble oneself to read the thread comprehensively. You evidently haven't. See the statistical analysis above.Nishidani (talk) 11:19, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually I have.--Einsteindonut (talk) 11:53, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

From Eleland's talk page

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

William Connelly deleted an ongoing discussion from Eleland's talk page, and was backed up by PhilKnight (who perhaps did not realize he was excising criticism of his admin actions when he did so). I'm not going to edit war over it, as I'm surprised Eleland allowed it on his page as long as he did. But I do feel the discussion was productive (I was actually edit-conflicted in the midst of a reply to Nishidani with another blanking of the section), so per William Connelly's suggestion, I'm pasting it here. IronDuke 20:16, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I've reduced the block to a week based on the AN/I discussion. PhilKnight (talk) 06:56, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Phil, if you want to send the message that you support Eleland's comments, why not just give him a barnstar? I quote from you in the AN/I thread linked above "if he posts a conciliatory unblock request that should be granted". Where is that statement? In fact, he reiterates that he continues to think the person he called a cunt is a cunt, and that the person he called a Nazi has a Nazi style. He wrote, right above that charming cartoon above, "IronDuke knows, full well, that I have snarkily, rhetorically, and indirectly likened the comments of one single Jewish editor to Nazi-style rhetoric - an analogy which was, given the circumstances, not a great stretch." You aren't even pretending to get a commitment to change of behavior, Phil. It's profundly depressing. IronDuke 12:39, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with the cartoon. It reflects, indeed, a considerable amount of serious academic interpretations of West Bank behaviour. It more or less translates into a vignette the substance of what Idith Zertal wrote, the relevant passage about which can be found on my talk page. Satire, by its very nature, upsets some political constituency, Khomeini once day, settlers another, Putin a third, Berlusconi another. It's when people start to apply political correctness on these issues that one is, really and truly, in more s... than Biggles. Nishidani (talk) 13:05, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

See my comment above for a short explanation on why there is something wrong with posting this cartoon when trying to illustrate a point.[108] You can be sure that other members here have a "great" sense of satire as well, but I doubt you'd appreciate such satire when Mark Twain is used to illustrate it - if you know what I'm saying. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 09:00, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

To tell you the truth, I'm a great admirer of all of Twain's work, and my objection was also to a hackhanded attempt to manipulate it for purposes Twain would have found repulsive. He was a great civil libertarian, that is why he found the cause of 'blacks' and the 'Jewish people' a century ago very much a common cause. Were he here today to cast his eye on civil liberties, it is not improbable that he would have added a third people to the list. Nishidani (talk) 10:55, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Black Sudanese Christians?--Einsteindonut (talk) 11:06, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Satire can use material of other people even if that person has a differnt perspective. I'm sure you're aware that the best satire takes a known situation and transforms it - Like Chaplin's "Hinkel" speeches, which I'm sure the original speech giver would not have approved of. The satirical comment made using Twain's writing offended you yes? I can't understand where you insist that what offends others is "not offensive" in your world while you, Eleland, Tiamut, PalestineRememebred, and the likes are the only people on wikipedia who are allowed to be offended. The cartoon should be retracted. Period. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 11:01, 1 October 2008 (UTC) clarify 11:04, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree, Jaakobou. Last I checked, we're not supposed to be using our user pages as soap boxes. I got reprimanded for it when I was blocked, and then I was blocked from editing my own pages. Apparently this is OK though. --Einsteindonut (talk) 11:10, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Not a soapbox at all. It's a vignette that perfectly captures what happened to Eleland, who was accused of anti-semitism for challenging a racist remark by a Torah-based nationalist who appears to sympathize with the kind of settler depicted. As for putting Saxophonemn's 'satire' on a par with Chaplin's, this was indeed a masterstroke of what one might called comical hyperbole of misplaced analogy. It made my day! esp. since so far I've had to waste time cleaning communal road-grates over sewers in a neighbourhood where the rest are too busy preening themselves on their rise in the world to lower themselves to 'albanian' labour.Nishidani (talk) 11:16, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

You make for an inspirational work environment. Please don't cry out "injustice" next time someone accuses you of antisemitism and/or bigotry towards Jews. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 11:24, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Advice taken. I'll take it from here on in as a compliment to myself for being on the right track re sensitive facts political interests wish to censure, and a self-referential remark reflecting on the mind and nature of whoever dares make it.Nishidani (talk) 11:34, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

It seems as though you choose to ascribe political interests to anyone who asks you to tone it down a notch. Satire can go either way and I'm sure you would not appreciate anyone saying "There is nothing wrong with the cartoon"(Nishidani above) regarding usage of Cox & Forkum or possibly real stories from Jihad Watch. Eleland's use of controversial propagandist Carlos Latuff to make the false claim that he's been accused of antisemitism (he was accused of making offensive racist/bigoted comments, not of being antisemitic) is a very much improper way to show he plans on working with fellow Wikipedians. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 12:42, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I suggest you calm down. You're posting everywhere on this, and you have forgotten the essential detail. In saying Eleland makes 'the false claim that he's been accused of antisemitism' you are forgetting Eternalsleeper's one remark here (note how these kibitzers strike and then disappear, exactly as a complete outsider, Karl Meyer or someone of that handle from Denmark, denounced PR at ANI with a few weird diffs, and then disappeared, as everybody jumped in to get at PR). That remark ran:-

Sure, and there's nothing wrong with an established editor who calls Jews "master race" or

I'll construe this if you don't get it. 'There is nothing wrong with Eleland calling Jews 'the master race' and thereby underwriting the doctrine put forth in the classical antisemitic tract 'The Protocols of Zion'.'

This means unequivocably that Eternal Sleeper (I made a 'slip' here and wrote Eternalshlepper, FYI) thought Eleland's remonstrance of one person for a racist edit was tantamount to accusing all Jews of being a master race as that idea is paraded in antisemitic literature. If you understand the concept of entailment, this entails the conclusion that Eleland is antisemitic.

99% of this useless commentary stems from the fact people can't read, can't remember, can't construe words, can't reason on sentences to capture their logical and implicit meanings, and invest their time in elaborating on blatant misprisions of an editor they just disagree with politically or 'ideologically'. I suggest this stop here, and we return to editing wiki.Nishidani (talk) 13:19, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I've read that thread but what eludes you is that Eleland (and you as well) were being offensive by using antisemitic rhetoric towards a Jewish person[109] who's mortal sin was of using the same type of sarcasm by Eleland you are justifying here. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 15:51, 1 October 2008 (UTC) fix 15:54, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

The problem really, is that editors here are degrading the work environment to sarcastic usage of Carlos Latuff (Eleland) and Mark Twain (another editor). What I can't seem to understand is why you justify one form of provocative conduct while denouncing the other. It makes for an impossible working environment wherever Eleland, Tiamut, PalestineRememebered and you get involved. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 15:58, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Eleland knew exactly what he was doing when he made the remarks. Perhaps "antisemitic" is not as good a term here as "Jew-baiting." He meant for his remarks to be insulting, and has not apologized or agreed not to do it again in a clear, meaningful way. I'll also add, to the apologists who rushed here to provide comfort to him, admins and otherwise, that you are now on record as backing Eleland's disgraceful remarks. IronDuke 16:17, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

In Western civilisation argument is based on logic and law. Nothing you both say has any relation to either. It is accusation by misprision and innuendo. And like some children, won't wash.Nishidani (talk) 16:23, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Okay, you guys, enough's enough. I have just noted another administrator badgered to warn Eleland about 'Jew-baiting'. No diff or evidence of Jew-baiting or antisemitism has been provided, all we have is a thick record of suspicion, misprisions, and misreadings. Notwithstanding this, several people are trawling about spreading the slur, defaming the defamed, and pressuring admin. Unless this whispering campaign stops immediately, my advice to Eleland would be to go through what happened and identify every editor who has accused him of antisemitism or Jew-baiting, make diffs, and keep it in reserve for a formal report to administration of defamation, and a request that the several editors who have repeated this innuendo be suspended. Nishidani (talk) 16:41, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Hm, your first point was... odd. Not sure what you meant, and not sure I want to know. Your second bit of "advice" for Eleland is not going to be very useful, unless you secretly are hoping for a stronger remedy against him. You know what the diffs are, but I'll repeat them: Eleland makes a sneering, mocking reference to a Jewish editor as being a member of the "master race" here, and refers to him as a "Nazi" and "goose-steeping loon" here. If you don't understand why this is antisemitic, please, please stop editing in I/P areas until you do. IronDuke 16:54, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

None of those diffs support an accusation of Jew-baiting or anti-semitism. All you document is your unfamiliarity with the literature on both. If one sees a racist comment (in the context of a series of edits aimed to eliminate Palestinians from the cognitive map) maliciously asserting they are an extinct people, and immediately calls the person a **** or a goose-stepping loon, one violates wiki rules on civility, for which Eleland was duly punished, while ignoring he said what any civil libertarian would say in the face of a racist, be he American, Japanese, ET, a Yeti, Jewish or Arab or whoever. If anything, Eleland's outburst is proof of a visceral inability to hold his tongue when racist remarks or innuendoes are dropped. I happen to share that instinctive intemperant outlook. That you are, severally, endeavouring to recast a civil libertarian's contempt for racial put-downs as an exhibition of antisemitism is a worn strategy, highly popular in low brow rags that stir hysteria. This is serious defamation. You are all assuming no non-Jewish person can pull any Jewish person to heel if the latter makes a racist crack, which means your premise is that a state of exemption exists for anything anyone in the latter ethnic group may say, because of the Holocaust. For the record, see my page and the lengthy citation from Idith Zertal, an Israeli historian of rank.Nishidani (talk) 17:08, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

You don't get this at all, do you? Let me see if an analogy will help. I see a group of hooligans. I say, "Those white kids are acting like a pack of monkeys." No big deal. But if I say, "Those black kids are acting like a pack of monkeys," it suddenly becomes a big deal. Why? Is that fair? Well, I don't know if it's fair, but it's reality. And thus, if someone said of a white editor, "You're acting like a total monkey on this talk page," that might well violate CIV, but wouldn't otherwise be a big deal. If it were a black editor you were referring to, you'd likely get a block, without warning. Referring to Jews as Nazis, or comparing them to Nazis, is a classic modern antisemtic motif (if you'll pardon the oxymoron). Eleland actually repeats this several times, even calling Saxophonemn "an absolute mirror-image of a Nazi antisemite" (emphasis in original). I'm sorry if it offends your sense of justice that Jews may not be equated with Nazis without the person doing the equating running the risk of being tagged as an antisemite, but that's the way things are. That you aren't grasping this doesn't really matter. What matters is that Eleland grasps it quite well. He knew that the statements he was making (is still making) are widely construed as antisemitic, but makes them anyway. That is regrettable, but less so than the editors who, either not understanding the histor of AS or not caring about it, leap to his defense. (And no, the fact that a Jew might refer to another as a Nazi doesn't make it okay for you to do it, any more than black people using the N-word makes it okay for you to do it.) Addendum: if you're really still wondering how it is that such statements are considered antisemitic, have a look at what the Anti-Defamation League, surely an authority on such matters, has to say. IronDuke 17:49, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Well said. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 18:03, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Well said².--Goodmorningworld (talk) 19:01, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

'Referring to Jews as Nazis, or comparing them to Nazis, is a classic modern antisemtic motif

This means, given what Idith Zertal's analysis of settler language suggests, as quoted on my page, that many Jewish settlers are anti-semitic, since it has been thoroughly documented for twenty years by numerous Israeli scholars that they constantly charge Israelis, even members of the IDF, who attempt to restrain them, or apply the law, with being 'Nazis'. Your remark may well be 'well said'. In football, [[User:IronDuke|IronDuke], it is called a 'self-goal', and shows a lamentable ignorance of the scholarship, something of which Eleland is fully au courant. Have the last word, by all means, but since no one seems to listen to the other, further haggling is pointless.Nishidani (talk) 19:26, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

(ec)I already addressed your point about Zertal above... I am less interested in having the last word than in hearing your response. IronDuke 20:16, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

response hereNishidani (talk) 20:59, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

That's not a response. IronDuke 21:32, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I think I get it. Because some Jews have referred to themselves as "Nazis" and the point has been emphasized by some biased sources who wish to make a point of it, it is then OK for anti-semites to use that as rationalization for labeling any Jews with whom they disagree, "Nazis". Hmm. Idith Zertel is hardly an unbiased source on this issue, despite being Jewish and Israeli. Her POV is that "Israel has used the memory of the Holocaust to legitimize its politics." Her views are on the fringe left. --Einsteindonut (talk) 01:50, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

This is an ideological debate, not a request for admin action, and is clogging our noticeboard and wasting our time. Please read the top of this noticeboard for what should and should not be here, and take this elsewhere. Orderinchaos 03:20, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel that way. I think if you read over what's been written, it is indeed a request for admin action/review. If you feel it is a waste of your time, that is regrettable; however, you are free to stop reading it. I'm also a little dismayed that you unilaterally closed the thread with an insulting top post, but I'm happy to let this particular thread stay closed, if no one else has anything to add. IronDuke 13:27, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.