Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive574

Something wierd at the article Mullazai

I came to this article via the recent changes page. A new user, AurangzebMarwat (talk · contribs) has been making large amounts of edits to the article Mullazai. There is also an IP, complaining and opposing AurangzedMarwat's edits, 119.153.78.131 (talk · contribs) When I reverted one of their edits based on an incorrect blanking tag here, they asked me to intervene and stop the other user. There is something wrong with these edits, but I can't quite put my finger on it and I don't want to become any more involved. So what's going on and what should be done about it? Logging off now- A little insignificant ^{Help, it's almost Halloween! AAH!} 13:55, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Probably some kind of spillover from Marwat. There's a few eyes on the article now. --NeilN ^{talk ♦ contribs} 17:30, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Legal threat at List of online dating websites

Resolved

 – Blocked Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 15:35, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

See the edit summary of this diff. - MrOllie (talk) 14:47, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Radiopathy avoiding sanctions

Resolved. See you all in six months, then. Master of Puppets 14:06, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

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

After reviewing a 3RR report filed by Radiopathy against me, it was discussed between two admins that RP should be sanctioned to 1RR, in that he had previously been blocked for 3RR, and had agreed to avoid edit warring on contentious articles, only to begin doing so again once he was unblocked on different articles. See the 3RR report(it ended as no vio, btw). Following the alert of this sanction, the user retired, stating that they plan on returning when the sanction is over. This, to me, entirely defeats the purpose of the sanction. Radiopathy does not seem to understand why he was blocked(re: edit warring). This is troublesome to me. I do not think that users who have been blocked for edit warring, are unblocked with a promise not edit war, and then edit war again should be given the ability to evade sanctions intended to prevent damage to the encyclopedia. Given the lack of alternatives, I propose that this sanction be either extended to indef until the user shows he will not edit war. If any of you have any better ideas, please, state them.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 06:49, 30 October 2009 (UTC) User notified.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 06:52, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I'd suggest just leaving him be. The conclusion he's arrived at is only going to be reinforced by any further sanctions, and given that he appears to be abandoning Wikipedia, there's no damage to prevent. If he does return in six months, and edit wars to the same extent, we can deal with it then. But I don't see that he's evading anything, except the project itself, which he is free to do. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:26, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Some users have a strange relationship to the concept of retired. This one went directly from adding the retired template to his talk page, to reverting edits in article space. This was not the first revert there had the edit summary "1976 is correct asshole". i wouldn't take the user's declaration at face value (especially as he lied about not edit warring to get unblocked). Extending to indef would force the user to at least confront his behaviour in an unblock request, rather than returning later to exact revengeYobMod 11:27, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

If Radiopathy abides by 6 months of 1rr through not editing at all for 6 months, that's ok, it's not "avoiding sanctions." Meanwhile he can put up and take down "retired" tags in his user space as he pleases, they're harmless, their meaning is drawn only from the ongoing contribution history of whomever posts them. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:52, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

The 1RR limit was applied to prevent further disruption to wikipedia. As such it does it work irrespective of whether Radiopathy is active or not, or acknowledges the problem with their editing. Also, many users lash out at being blocked or sanctioned, and their conduct in the immediate aftermath is not necessarily reflective of what they'll do later. So unless there are further disruptions, lets see how the user edits over the next six months before deciding whether the 1RR limit needs to be modified or extended. Abecedare (talk) 12:00, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Oki doke. It seems to me that declaring oneself retired, then calling an editor an asshole but not getting any warning is problematic. But maybe it was a last gasp, so doesn't need action.YobMod 12:04, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Radiopathy didn't get a templated warning for that, but both User:Master of Puppets and I did make it clear that such edit-summaries were inappropriate. See the conversation at my userpage. We always have the option of tightening sanctions and imposing blocks if needed, but usually we are better off if we try to de-escalate such situations, and giving the user some space. Abecedare (talk) 12:22, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

If he comes back and starts edit-warring off-the-hop, we can deal with it in turn. Master of Puppets 14:06, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Alrighty, thanks for the opinions and eyes. I'll hit either of you two again if I spot him edit warring.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 19:49, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

And by hit I mean hit you up.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 19:50, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Future Perfect at Sunrise's block of Jacurek

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Wrong forum. Since the block is labeled as an arbitration enforcement action under WP:DIGWUREN, any appeal discussion must take place at WP:AE, as directed by Wikipedia:DIGWUREN#Discretionary sanctions.  Sandstein  21:39, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

---

Some people might remember that 2 days ago I filled a request on this page against user:Varsovian for edit warring at the London Victory Parade of 1946 article against myself and Jacurek (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). The discussion is now archived here: [1] To my total disbelief I have now discovered that administrator user:Future Perfect at Sunrise issued a 1 month block to Jacurek!? Since nobody in that discussion felt that Jacurek should be even blocked I think it's a highly problematic block to say the least, and specifically:
a) IMO it was the user:Varsovian who was causing problems on that talk page by refusing to compromise on the issue on the lack of Polish participation in the parade. In any case if Future Perfect thought that Jacurek's actions were problematic he should have warned him first, giving the editor the chance to change his behavior
b) IMO, Future Perfect could have indicated in that ANI thread that he intends to block Jacurek for 1 month seeing if there is consensus for such a drastic measure. IMO there would not have been any.
c) the length of the block, 1 month, is IMO opinion a complete overkill, if I'm not mistaken usually admins block for 24 hours first
d) Future Perfect inexplicably completely failed to address Varsovian's calling Jacurek an idiot
I request some non involved admin re-examines the situation and possibly reverse the 1 month block to Jacurek. Loosmark (talk) 20:24, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Is User:Jacurek requesting an unblock? If he does not contest his own block, why should anyone else care? --Jayron32 20:28, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

In my opinion loosing a good editor due to an unjust block is bad for the project. Loosmark (talk) 20:39, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

A perfectly good and necessary block IMHO. We gotta be cracking down on this kind of nonsense. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 20:29, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Re the length of the block, AFAIK, there is no set scale. It is down to the blocking admin to set the length of time. This can be from 1 second to indefinite, depending on circumstances. If Jacurek requests an unblock, the request will be dealt with via the usual channels. Mjroots (talk) 20:47, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

• Could the blocking admin please provide some diffs please of the inappropriate comments and of any discussion that took place regarding them? I didn't see anything that looked blockable. Also, Jayron deserves a trouting for suggesting that improper blocks can't be discussed by concerned third parties. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:06, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
• Varsovian's comment at 17:38, 28 October 2009 (UTC), along with the number of bad faith assumptions/accusations I read along the way, suggest that there were some chronic problems here. My preliminary view is that I am inclined to agree with Deacon. Ncmvocalist (talk) 21:16, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
• Admin's comment: I blocked Jacurek principally for this exchange (with beginnings in the immediately preceding thread), where I believe he was engaging in serious harassment of his opponent. This in connection with the observation that his edit-warring behaviour on the article and his conduct on the talk page over the preceding weeks was an expression of a stubborn "WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT"-type refusal to engage in meaningful discussion, that it was distinctly less constructive than that of his opponent (although Varsovian also got a warning from me), and that he showed an overall hostile battleground mentality. The length of the block is also influenced by his prior block log, with several blocks even longer than a month, by prior observations of aggressive and unconstructive conduct in other related disputes, and (secondarily) by my knowledge of the disruptive role he played in the EEML fiasco. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:46, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes Varsovian got oh so harrased by that question and he was making big drama about it. But now that Jacurek got blocked for a month suddenly Varsovian doesn't feels so harrased anymore by questions and in fact even ask Jacurek on his talk page to ask him more questions!!! [2].

Loosmark (talk) 22:05, 30 October 2009 (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.

LotLE violating WP:EDITWAR and WP:CANVASS

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

This is about Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters and his conduct at Ward Churchill academic misconduct investigation . Engaged in edit warring here: [3] [4] When he realized he had reached 3RR, he then canvassed two like-minded editors [5] [6] to join the fray. This is a violation of WP:CANVASS and, while not technically violating WP:3RR, it is a violation of the spirit of WP:EDITWAR. There has been similar conduct at another article, ACORN. I believe this conduct has earned a block. Since he has already experienced 24-hour and 48-hour blocks, this one should be a seven-day block. 64.208.230.145 (talk) 16:14, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

You seem to have conveniently left out the fact that you've been edit-warring too. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:18, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

The difference is that my edits seek to restore WP:NPOV, while LotLE is POV pushing; and when I attempted to engage him in discussion on his User Talk page, he deleted my comments and went canvassing. Every quote in the article that is more than three words in length supports Churchill. We have extensive quotes from socialists such as Howard Zinn and Noam Chomsky, but none from conservatives such as Ann Coulter or Eugene Volokh. It gives the inaccurate impression that the entire academic community believes his firing was a miscarriage of justice. Policy even trumps consensus here, and NPOV is a fundamental principle. I did not violate WP:3RR nor did I violate WP:CANVASS. Rather than be drawn into a continued edit war, I came here. 64.208.230.145 (talk) 16:35, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually, you have edit-warred, and NPOV does not excuse your conduct. Therefore, any sanction on the others will require a sanction on you. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:41, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

(ec)WP:NPOV does not mean that every perceived "positive" entry must be matched by a perceived "critical" one. This is a fundamental error that trips up far too many editors these days, especially in political articles. Tarc (talk) 16:43, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

(ec)I have not violated WP:CANVASS. LotLE has violated WP:CANVASS. I never even tried to match "every perceived 'positive' entry [with a] perceived 'critical' one." If I had, I would have had to introduce about six or seven quotes rather than just one. I'm just trying to satisfy WP:NPOV. 64.208.230.145 (talk) 16:47, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but as the article stands there are three lengthy direct quotes from Churchill supporters and zero from those who though the decision was balanced. This certainly seem to go against WP:WEIGHT. WVBluefield (talk) 16:50, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

(ec)There are more than just three, Bluefield. Look higher on the page for quotes from Emma Perez, a supportive Colorado University faculty member, and from Noam Chomsky. Aside from the findings of the investigation and the judge's ruling in the lawsuit, this is a Ward Churchill hagiography. 64.208.230.145 (talk) 17:06, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Edit-warring on its own does not become excused because of edit-warring and other conduct issues by another party; any sanction on the other side will mean you too will be sanctioned - that you feel satisfied you get less charges of misconduct on your list than the other side suggests that you are battling. Sorry, that is not acceptable. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:55, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

A quick review of your edits indicates you've supported LotLE's POV pushing in the past. As a like-minded editor, I'm surprised that he overlooked you in his canvassing expedition. 64.208.230.145 (talk) 17:10, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Now you're adding gross unjustified assumptions of bad faith to your list. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:15, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I'll leave it to others, who have not supported LotLE's POV pushing in earlier cases, to make that determination. 64.208.230.145 (talk) 17:17, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Supporting or not, edit-warring is edit-warring. There's only one excuse to break 3RR, and that's vandalism. We have a bold, revert, discuss cycle ... note, it's not a bold, revert, keep frigging doing it cycle. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:33, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Very true. In particular, "but my version is NPOV" is one of the lamest excuses for edit-warring ever. I don't think the relatively mild warring by both sides so far merits blocks, but if this continues, WP:AN3 is thataway. And please stop discussing the content dispute here, that's what the article talk page is for.  Sandstein  17:49, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

(outdent)I agree that we have a "bold, revert, discuss" cycle but when I tried to follow it, my attempt to discuss the matter on LotLE's User Talk page was deleted. At that juncture, I chose not to continue the edit war, and came here. 64.208.230.145 (talk) 19:06, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Article alk page, IP. Got to settle content disputes at the article talk page.Bali ultimate (talk) 19:08, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

(ec)LotLE has also engaged in edit-warring and other misconduct at the ACORN article. This should be investigated before dismissing this matter. I suggest we give it some time for others to step forward. 64.208.230.145 (talk) 19:10, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Or you could just put the stick down. Either. Or. Whatever "ip." Bali ultimate (talk) 19:14, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Also, in light of Ncmvocalist's distaste for "gross unjustified assumptions of bad faith," I will observe that LotLE has also engaged in "gross unjustified assumptions of bad faith." Specifically, he's accused me of being a sockpuppet,[7] with no evidence other than this content dispute. 64.208.230.145 (talk) 19:16, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Blah, blah, blah. I'd bet my last dollar that you're either a returned banned user or a sock for an ongoing user too. Your behavior has convinced me of that. You'll just have to live with other people's suspicion.Bali ultimate (talk) 19:19, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

And you'll have to live with my suspicion, without even checking your edit history, that you're another like-minded editor who has supported and defended LotLE's edit warring in the past, like Ncmvocalist. 64.208.230.145 (talk) 19:22, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

This complaint by a sock puppet is silly. But I would note one minor thing that editors may not have noticed in 64.208.230.145's mischaracterization. S/he posted an article content matter on my user talk page, so I moved the comment (verbatim) to the article talk where it made sense to appear (and noted my action there). After this notice, I saw that WVBluefield made a good edit to the article in question to provide balance to the section the anon was trying to edit. I mention on the article talk that I agree with that improvement. LotLE×talk

It is exactly as I suspected, LotLE is the "attack dog" for a large group of editors who have been POV pushing for years. They eliminate negative material from WP articles about progressive (and radically left-wing) persons and groups such as William Ayers, Barack Obama, ACORN and Ward Churchill. I suspect User:Ncmvocalist and User:Bali ultimate are members of this group. It is painfully obvious that User:Scjessey, now serving a one-year topic ban from all politically related articles, is another "attack dog" for the group. They provide cover for each other at WP:ANI and ArbCom. They use tag team tactics to avoid WP:3RR violations during edit wars. User:Noroton, a respected and long-established editor here at WP, has gone into great length on his User Talk page regarding this group. Admins evidently ignore misconduct by this POV-pushing group, while harshly punishing anyone else who speaks out against the group. I urge any admin with any sense of self-respect and genuine NPOV to step forward and join me in fully investigating this matter. 64.208.230.145 (talk) 21:40, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Hey! Everyone knows there is no cabal! HalfShadow (talk) 21:50, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I beg to differ. Noroton was very thorough. 64.208.230.145 (talk) 21:53, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

That is rather chilling given Noroton's history here, his attempt to intervene in the Obama arbcom case, and 64's attempt to wake him from the wiki-dead.[8] Let's nip this sock in the bud before it causes a real fuss. - Wikidemon (talk) 22:00, 27 October 2009 (UTC) stricken in light of subsequent statements by all concerned - Wikidemon (talk) 18:11, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Um... tangential point - Noam Chomsky is an anarchist, not a socialist. Furthermore not all lefitsts support Ward Churchill. The guy is a plagiarist. That he is saying correct things doesn't make that less academically dishonest that he claims credit for it. Simonm223 (talk) 21:51, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

(before ec) I agree with the 64 sock's POV here regarding article balance so I can't quite say I'm "like minded". However, I find LotLE's argument persuasive that the specific content 64 wants to include is redundant and not pertinent to the section. All this can and should be discussed on the article talk page. For anyone who needs context, Ward Churchill is an incendiary subject both on and off Wikipedia, one of the most militant Native American rights supporters who accuses the US of ongoing genocide and wrote an essay basically saying that American policies caused 9/11 and that the victims at ground zero deserved to die because they were agents of financial imperialism. Alas, he was by most serious observers' accounts unmasked as a fake Native-American, and found to have fabricated much of his most noted academic research. That he has supporters at all in the US is interesting, and they are very strident. Some of the content that gets added to the article in support of Churchill seems very pointed and fringe-y. It's a good article to avoid if one values one's wiki-sanity. Against that context we have an IP editor who has edited a number of high-profile political articles lately, jumping into the fray of accusations, and who is clearly familiar with many old Wikipedia disputes and the players in those disputes. They seem to be carrying a grudge from past interactions with LotLE - rather than AGF we have escalation and complaints. Many to most of the editors who were antagonizing LotLE in months past are on permanent involuntary wiki-breaks for socking and/or tendentious editors, so it is a reasonable question whether this editor is a sock. Further, established editors getting together to ask each other whether an suspicious IP account is an old sock is not canvassing - if editors couldn't compare notes on socks we wouldn't be able to deal with them. I've edited the Churchill article before, it's on my watch list, and I'm no pushover for requests made on my talk page - in fact, I initially agreed with 64. And here I'm solidly on 64's side regarding the POV of the Churchill article. But this page is not for POV battles, it's for administering the encyclopedia. If 64 is going to hurl accusations, edit war contentious articles, and start administrative complaints, we're going to have to settle sooner or later whether it's a legitimate account. - Wikidemon (talk) 21:52, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

(after EC) - 64's latest post is WP:QUACKing. Nearly all the accounts that wrote in those terms about that particular group of articles, and who made those accusations against that group of editors, are all indeffed as parts of one sock farm or another. Most are logged at the Obama article probation page sanction list. We let them troll far too long during the election and wasted thousands of hours of productive editing time. We shouldn't let them cause so much disruption this time. - Wikidemon (talk) 21:52, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, go ahead. Your attempts to shoot the messenger, like the criticisms against the Colorado University investigation of Ward Churchill, do not invalidate the complaint I'm lodging. There is a group of editors who are POV pushing. Several of them have block histories for edit warring, so I'm not making this up. 64.208.230.145 (talk) 22:01, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Ah, as do others who have apparantly resorted to socking. Grsz¹¹ 22:05, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

The solution is simple. Stop edit warring on both sides, and work out any POV problems on the article's talk page. I'm actually on 64's side here and would support their attempt to update the article, if not that specific proposal. My comments go to a different issue that is relevant to this page, that we have an old-timer editor ("sock", "messenger", take your pick) aggressively attacking other editors with the same sweeping accusations that caused so much disruption among the sockosphere in 2008 and early 2009. If 64 is willing to go to the talk page and work things out in a civil way without edit warring I think we should just close this thing as not actionable at this time. But any more stirring the pot on either side and we're going to have to deal with 64 as a likely bad hand account of another editor who may or may not be restricted from editing under their main account at the moment. I hope we won't have to deal with other old timers getting too rambunctious in their anti-sock patrols, though, that only flames the fire. Wikidemon (talk) 22:15, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

At the risk of being falsely accused (again) of being a sock, I'll add that LotLE's behavioral problems at ACORN and elsewhere are profound: hostile and needlessly abrasive edit summaries, edit-warring, and a generally combative demeanor ... except with his friends, who are accurately described by 64 as "like-minded." I suggested a six-month topic ban for LotLE on the article Talk page days ago. I go farther than 64 in reviewing not just edit histories, but also block logs and Talk page histories and archives; and I've been around long enough, using different IPs, to watch WP:ANI and WP:3RR (and take a peek at a few ArbCom proceedings when my curiosity is piqued). LotLE is a problem editor. His misbehavior has occasioned no less than nine 3RR reports, three ANI reports and six blocks. One thing that WD is correct about is a need for everyone on this thread to stop assuming that all IP editors are socks or SPAs, that we have ulterior motives, or that knowledge about problem editors is conclusive proof of sockpuppetry. Currently I'm using three IPs (work, school and home; to anticipate your question, 64 is not one of them) to edit three different subject areas at Wikipedia. No malice is intended. I just like to keep them separate (and I have some other personal reasons to keep my real life ID concealed). I'm not banned or blocked. This is the worst controversy I've encountered been involved with at Wikipedia. LotLE's behavior is far from collegial or collaborative, and he hasn't learned anything from his repeated blocks, except how to push the envelope (and his POV) without getting blocked. A block and a topic ban are well-deserved here. 71.57.8.103 (talk) 01:25, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

The value of an anon IP's call for topic bans or blocks or whatnot is precisely nil, IMO. Tarc (talk) 12:35, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

It's worth a million razzbuckniks. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:22, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

(outdent)Well, you made them stop and think for 11 hours, 71. In much the same way that BU shut up and ran for cover when I mentioned the possibility that he was part of LotLE's posse. Thanks for your support. For the record, LotLE's comment above was originally posted while he was logged out. I checked the edit history of his IP address, and found a previous post he'd made in response to one of the many, many 3RR reports that have been made against him. That, in turn, led me to the person who made the report: Noroton. And to his User Talk page. Noroton's contributions over the years have been nothing less than spectacular. Everybody at WP should be ashamed to lose him. And his diagnosis of the systemic bias here at WP is deadly accurate. LotLE and Scjessey are the attack dogs for a large group of editors who WP:OWN the political articles, POV-pushing on behalf of the left. Admins are POV-pushing through them by proxy, by letting them get away with murder while quickly coming down like a ton of bricks for minor infractions by anybody who stands in their way.

It's despicable. And all of you should be ashamed. 64.208.230.145 (talk) 13:50, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Nope. Not ashamed here. You're pushing your version of The Absolute Truth, which is not what Wikipedia is for. Tone down the melodrama and discuss the matter on the article's talk page. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 14:30, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Shooting the messenger

cmt it's blindingly obvious at this point that the ips are connected to this banned user [9].Bali ultimate (talk) 14:32, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Speaking of socks

Noroton (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is currently blocked for a week for operating at least three alternate accounts:[10]

• JohnWBarber (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• CountryDoctor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Reconsideration (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

These are nearly a year old, and collectively have made well over 10,000 edits, not all of them innocent, at least one of them contentious.[11]including during periods when Noroton was blocked or supposedly retired. I note that Noroton posted a long screed here similar to the accusations made above,[12] shortly before announcing his retirement,[13] and shares[14] with the 64 IP editor[15] a fondness for Goya. What to make of this? - Wikidemon (talk) 17:46, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

What to make of it? That I may have been wrong in my guess as to who the ip socks belong to. Does any of it really matter? 86 the lot of them.Bali ultimate (talk) 19:25, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

You can whac all the moles but the game won't stop until the machine is good and done, or you find the off switch. At least the mechanical moles don't mess up Wikipedia articles then file AN/I threads accusing the players of being a POV-pushing cabal. - Wikidemon (talk) 22:09, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

My guess in light of 64's subsequent statements and registration of an account after all these years, and Versageek's statement that 64 is unlikely to be Noroton, is that editors of like mind about what they perceive as Wikipedia bias and other editing problems tend to borrow each other's turns of phrases, explanations for what's going on, and Wikipedia iconography... In real life two people having the same talking point seems to convince people. On Wikipedia it's seen as evidence of socking or meatpuppeting. Anyway, I've modified my comments above somewhat based on assurances from these editors, and I'll assume good faith here.- Wikidemon (talk) 18:11, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Oof. JohnWbarber was the initiator of the eDrama that is Wikipedia:Deletion review/David Shankbone. That may throw a kink into the works. Tarc (talk) 17:54, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't see why. It would've probably been initiated by someone else otherwise. –xeno^talk 18:01, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I've asked the blocking admin[16] to help us understand what's going on there. Wasn't there another incident lately of a long-time content editor around the American politics articles who created sock accounts in response to a block? I'm trying to recall. - Wikidemon (talk) 18:03, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

• I don't know what conclusions can be drawn from this, but Noroton is not a friend of mine and made that clear. -->David Shankbone 18:18, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Wow. Given Noroton's intense antipathy to David Shankbone and the actions of the JohnWbarber account, I wonder if a longer block for Noroton is not in order. It's also intensely ironic (and telling) that the account most prominently supporting the retention of the David Shankbone article and the overturning of its deletion is a Wikipedian who is "appalled" by the article subject and who, I'm forced to assume, probably intended to edit the article in a negative fashion if it were kept. Of course this is exactly the kind of thing those supporting deletion were worrying about—agenda based editing in a barely notable BLP of a Wikipedian which we as a community could probably not do enough to protect. I would again suggest to David that he simply ask for the article to stay deleted, both for his own good, and also to put an end to the endless discussion about this, but of course that's up to him. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 20:08, 28 October 2009 (UTC) Addendum. There's too much of an assumption of bad faith here on my part toward Noroton, and as I noted here I accept as true his statement on his talk page that he did not intend "to edit the article in a negative fashion if it were kept" as I suggested above. It would have been far better for me to wait to hear Noroton's side before posting speculative comments like the preceding. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 02:05, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Any recognition I have received has come from work I did on this website. I believe in its ability to adhere to policies and guidelines to determine notability, to write NPOV articles and to protect those articles. Out of thousands of photos, I took a handful (most of which are deleted) that show nudity; whereas some people don't like my politics. I am aware I have hardcore detractors for whom nothing else I have done or will ever do will change their opinion of me one bit. That's fine. You can't live life without crossing somebody's line. I believe in this website, its policies and its people. I don't see how I could possibly argue otherwise. -->David Shankbone 21:05, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

←I just stumbled across this thread that appears to mention me. I don't believe I am familiar with this IP, but he/she is making attacks upon my character, and also incorrectly stating I have been topic banned from all political articles for a year. That's "complete cobblers", as we British like to say. I'd appreciate it if this obviously-socking, POV-pushing liar was blocked/topic-banned/nuked from orbit post haste. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:30, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Looking at the language of the posts above, and the style of edits, it would not surprise me at all if it turns out that Bali ultimate is right and this IP is User:BryanFromPalatine. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:46, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Scjessey wasn't topic-banned for a year from all politics-related articles. Instead, he was topic-banned for a year from all Barack Obama-related articles. Since the 64 IP editor wasn't seeking any additional sanctions against Scjessey at this time, a notice on his User Talk page was not required. ("Nuked from orbit"?) 71.57.8.103 (talk) 23:56, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

That is also inaccurate. I was topic banned from Obama-related pages for 6 months. If someone is going to come to WP:ANI and make false statements and accusations against me, they should have enough common decency to notify me so that I can defend myself. And "nuked from orbit" is a reference to the movie Aliens. And why are you defending the socking IP anyway? Are you also a socking IP? -- Scjessey (talk) 11:29, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

My apologies, Scjessey. You do retain the right to edit articles about the politics of Kyrgyzstan and Sri Lanka, if you don't pick any fights or violate WP:3RR. But it wasn't "complete cobblers," was it? 64.208.230.145 (talk) 12:40, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but you are still wrong. I am free to edit any article that isn't related to Barack Obama. In addition, I self-extended that to cover articles that were somewhat tangentially-related to Obama, but did not mention the man by name. This was a purely personal choice, and not mandated in any way. I made this choice because I edit Wikipedia for fun, not for a political agenda. I don't know who you are, but it is clear that you should be blocked for not assuming good faith. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:05, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

• I posted at Noroton's talk page saying that I believed his accounting, at least as it relates to JohnWBarber. Good times. -->David Shankbone 00:56, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. Versageek stated that (s)he does not think Noroton and the 64.xxx IP editor are related; Noroton has said he did not mean to violate policy. Opinion seems to be running in favor of unblocking Noroton, but other than that we're done here, right? Wikidemon (talk) 03:33, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

<-This case sits astride the fine line between abusive socking & alternate accounts. Using an alternate account for aggressive debates IS disruptive, and being disruptive with an alternate account IS abusive - even if you've recently marked your main account 'retired'. IMHO, using an alternate account for debate tends to lead to incivility since people don't worry as much about the 'reputation' of a throw-away account. I don't think it was User:Noroton's intention to be abusive - he just stumbled into that trap. I leave it up to the community to decide how they want to handle the issue. --Versageek 06:12, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Yet another reason why BLP's on arguably non-notable subjects should default to delete. Cla68 (talk) 08:16, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

(ec) The technical violation of WP:SOCK is clear. Segregating multiple accounts so that some of them can make controversial edits without casting the others in a bad light is what the policy is all about. Some of the edits under the Noroton account were very controversial - long term disruption to the Obama articles and extreme incivility (often against me, in the spirit of disclosure) leading to a series of blocks. That abuse was intentional, and assuming good faith about them is not at issue. Some of the edits under other account names were controversial in their own way but in different topic areas. But all that is water under the bridge. Accepting Noroton's statements at face value, he violated the sock policy unintentionally in the sense that although his intentional actions were against policy, he was unaware that they were against policy. In real life ignorance of the law is no excuse for breaking it. But on Wikipedia the goal is to avoid future disruption, not to punish for past acts. Assuming that Noroton sincerely believed his actions were okay at the time, and accepting the assurances that he will not break policies he is aware of, an ongoing block serves no purpose. - Wikidemon (talk) 08:28, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Once again WP:AGF is stretched to its breaking point to cover an abusive editor's bad behavior, as this looks like one giant spin job by Noroton to me, to cover his ass. Tarc (talk) 13:08, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. WP:AGF is stretched to its breaking point to cover the misbehavior of an abusive editor ... named LotLE. False accusations are made against the reporting editor, and enormous amounts of energy that could be devoted to improving articles are instead wasted by investigating these false accusations. People become discouraged, and start cutting back on the time they invest in editing (or abandon editing entirely). The damage done by LotLE spreads outward and intensifies exponentially. 64.208.230.145 (talk) 14:14, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I've just created this account. All edits by 64.208.230.145 are mine. Let's try to AGF and move forward in a constructive way. There are a lot of articles here that need all the attention we're investing in Noroton. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 14:36, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Great. Now we're extra-done. A little rocky but a good outcome. Move to close? Wikidemon (talk) 17:53, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Not quite. Both LotLE and the Wikipedia project deserve, at the very least, an extremely stern and very unambiguous final warning to LotLE: his next display of tendentious editing or accusations against any editor, for anything except provable WP:3RR and/or provable personal attacks, will be interpreted as prima facie evidence of WP:DIS or WP:AGF respectively, and result in an immediate seven-day block and reconsideration of a topic ban. This warning should be in template form and placed on LotLE's User Talk page by an admin he trusts and respects, with instructions that it must not be removed, until the admin agrees that LotLE's misconduct problem has been resolved. This is not punitive. It is for the protection of the project and other editors. Agreed? 71.57.8.103 (talk) 04:23, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

No one is going to do anything but laugh at your pot-stirring here. Put a sock in it sock.Bali ultimate (talk) 12:30, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Well that certainly is an interesting form of punishment. Tell us more, Nathaniel Hawthorne. Tarc (talk) 12:35, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Love these two responses. Not. Please review WP:BITE and WP:AGF. Regarding the sock accusations: I cordially invite you to post your smear campaign at WP:SSP, followed by RFCU, which are the proper venues for smear campaigns of this nature. You'll be thrown out of there with a reference to fishing expeditions, and neither 71 nor I will ever get an apology from any of you. Regarding 71's suggestion: it is constructive. It protects WP articles from the many edit wars started by LotLE. It protects new users, particularly IP editors, from being unfairly attacked by LotLE. And it doesn't impose a block or a topic ban (at least not immediately), so LotLE can keep pushing his POV if he's more careful about it and stays well within WP policy and guidelines concerning his conduct. Win-win-win all around. Regarding the cute little reference to The Scarlet Letter: unlike Hester Prynne, LotLE deserves it. It won't be on his User page, unlike the SSP template which I'm sure several of you are preparing for 71 and for me. And he can get rid of it, just as soon as he's proven that he won't misbehave again. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 12:48, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Look -- you've edited under another account before, one i'd bet my eye teeth is banned (User:BryanFromPalatine is my bet -- every time his socks are run to ground he comes up with this "topic ban my enemies to protect the encyclopedia from them" shtick.). You and your "friend" the IP are on a campaign against an editor you disagree with here rather than discussing content there and you won't put the bone down. Assumptions of good faith are replaced, in time, with evidence of faith. The evidence here so far is that you're yet another MMORPG game player with an agenda, nursing old grievances. CU? What the heck for? It can't do anything to clear you. And the quacking gets louder still.Bali ultimate (talk) 13:09, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

This IP is not a newbie, and AGF is not a shield for what is perhaps the most absurd form of wiki-punishment I have ever seen proposed here. We're not going to hang a template around LotLE's or anyone else's neck until some appointed admin decides he's been punished enough. And in case you haven't noticed, not a single person has voiced support of your calls for LotLE's head over his editing. Safe to say that this An/I report has been rejected, and it should be marked as such so we can move on and stop making up fantasy punishments against users we don't like. Tarc (talk) 13:06, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Then you agree that an indef block under WP:SOCK for "users we don't like" is a "fantasy punishment," and I trust that you won't be seeking one. Thanks for that at least. LotLE continues his false accusations and his incivility here, so doing nothing only means that his abusive behavior and edit-warring will continue indefinitely. I'm convinced you like it that way, as long as it doesn't target you or your friends directly. Skoal. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 13:16, 30 October 2009 (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.

Response from JohnWBarber

I need to respond to some things said about me in the subthread just above about my supposed "abusive" socking. My block led to a ton of abusive and incorrect statements about me here and elsewhere:

1. When I set up this and the other accounts, it was not forbidden by WP:SOCK to do so. This is the version of the policy at the time: [17] It's my fault for not keeping up better with the changes on that page, but I wasn't purposefully going against policy or being abusive in any way by doing what I did, and any statement to the contrary should be checked for wikilawyering. If anyone had just told me I was violating the policy, I'd have looked at it and fixed it, no block necessary.
2. Versageek says: This case sits astride the fine line between abusive socking & alternate accounts. No, Versageek, actually it didn't, and if the line is that "fine" it calls for questioning the person you suspect, not blocking that person for a week on a policy you've misapplied and which you should know has been changed greatly in the past year.
3. V also says: Using an alternate account for aggressive debates IS disruptive, The weakest word there is the one in capital letters. I was mistaken in using the JohnWBarber account instead of the Reconsideration account, and therefore violated WP:SOCK policy, but unintentionally (I didn't realize that would be a violation -- again, because I hadn't kept up with changes in WP:SOCK policy; my bad -- Reconsideration was my main account after Oct. 5). Also, "aggressive" debating is only disruptive if it's the type of thing that falls under WP:DISRUPT, and that just doesn't characterize my edits with JohnWBarber.
4. V also says: and being disruptive with an alternate account IS abusive - even if you've recently marked your main account 'retired'. Given Versageek's definition of "disruptive", that just isn't policy. Period. See WP:CLEANSTART. Versageek's statement is simply incompatable with it. If I'd made the same edits under the User:Reconsideration name, there would not even have been a technical violation. There's no other way to look at it. Facts are facts.
5. V also says: IMHO, using an alternate account for debate tends to lead to incivility since people don't worry as much about the 'reputation' of a throw-away account. In general, yes. But it matters that I wasn't uncivil, and JohnWBarber clearly wasn't and isn't a throwaway account.
6. V also says: I don't think it was User:Noroton's intention to be abusive - he just stumbled into that trap. That's an odd statement for someone who imposed a one-week block. Perhaps that's why it got no support.
7. Wikidemon says: Segregating multiple accounts so that some of them can make controversial edits without casting the others in a bad light is what the policy is all about. Actually only one account is allowed to engage in controversy -- the main one -- when you have more than one; any others are necessarily segregated from that. One thing I did wrong was contributing to AfDs with two accounts instead of one (explicitly disallowed by WP:SOCK since Oct. 3). Oh wait, there was 2009 Nobel Peace Prize. That was an experiment on a controversial page where User:Reconsideration edited sections that were hotly disputed. My edits stuck and seemed to calm the disruption, and the article still looks not much different from the way I left it, I think. It was a controversial subject, but my edits don't seem to have been all that controversial. I'm pretty proud of that one.
8. W also says: Some of the edits under the Noroton account [...] were in response to outrageous behavior by editors including Wikidemon, but it's water under the bridge. I resigned from that account on Oct. 5.
9. W also says: Some of the edits under other account names were controversial in their own way but in different topic areas. Incorrect, unless some rather innocuous edits by Reconsideration in a few recent AfDs are "controversial".
10. Tarc says: Once again WP:AGF is stretched to its breaking point to cover an abusive editor's bad behavior, as this looks like one giant spin job by Noroton to me, to cover his ass. There comes a point, even at ANI, where an editor should be blocked for constant incivility. I never attacked Tarc, and he has no reason to be spewing out most of those adjectives. It's time an admin looked over his recent history of comments on his talk pages and give him a civility warning. He's constantly over the top and lowering the level of civility in the discussions he participates in. Notice that there's nothing for me to refute here because the entire sentence is hot air.
11. Sorry this is long, but so was the amount of abuse hurled at me for being wrongly labeled an "abusive sock" by Versageek. I made some technical violations of WP:SOCK because I didn't monitor the changes to that policy enough over the past year. Not one of those violations was intentional, hurt anybody, harmed the encyclopedia or avoided legitimate scrutiny under the terms of that policy. My edits at the Shankbone DRV included some sharp criticism of the closing admin for the AfD, but they weren't uncivil. You need something more than expressing strong disagreement to be disruptive.
12. I don't think anyone has brought up the idea that some of us on Wikipedia have a WP:COI problem regarding David Shankbone. It probably hasn't occurred to anyone because we think about the WP editor, but the article is a subject that we can have a conflict of interest over if we're either very close or very antagonistic to Shankbone (or somehow would benefit or be hurt by the existence of the article, although I don't see how). It's worth thinking about in these cases. I may have a COI for the DRV and I'll post a message about that there. JohnWBarber (talk) 01:05, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

• My comment at the Shankbone DRV is here, although it might be moved to the talk page there. JohnWBarber (talk) 02:22, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Harassment

User:Zencv harassing anyone who prevents the vandalism of the article Love Jihad. According to the consensus reached over the edit war here: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Yusuf.Abdullah/Archive, both me and User:Zencv should refrain from editing article Love Jihad. I complied with the request, but was still blocked for one day as see here: User_talk:Yusuf.Abdullah#Talkback. But the real vandal User:Zencv continued his page blanking even after the warning and no action has been taken against this. Further he has been constantly harassing me by putting up two sockpuppet allegations and one block request in the space of two days. Yusuf.Abdullah (talk) 01:12, 30 October 2009 (UTC) I have notified the user of this thread. Basket of Puppies 01:38, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Wrong. The first sock investigation(started by me) had a merit on its own and the user Yusuf.Abdullah agreed that he had edited with an IP account here. He was pardoned there(after he confessed it was a mistake here) and the admin who pardoned him mixed the sock case with an ongoing edit war. The second investigation was NOT started by me and you have been dragging me there and have been engaging in personal threats as here calling me names like "Jihadi" and another respected user a "radical". The edit war investigation had a merit on its own and you were blocked, but another admin again pardoned you again after you apologised. The latest investigation was NOT started by me, rather by User:Sole_Soul. Take your issues with him and stop abusing me in these forums. I recommend the admins to look into the edit history of this user Yusuf.Abdullah to see how disturbing the edits that he is making with blatant disregard for core policies of Wiki and how blatantly he violates WP:NPOV, WP:EL, WP:CIVIL and WP:CANVASS Zencv ^Whisper 08:51, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I will also say that your claims are not entirely accurate, Yusuf.Abdullah. Nobody stated that the two of you should refrain from editing the article. What was said by NuclearWarfare was that the two of you should refrain from participating in an edit war in the future. That rule applies to everyone in Wikipedia on every article though, not just the two of you, so there were no special sanctions given. If you voluntarily refrained from editing the article that was your own choice. You claim to have been blocked incorrectly, and that seems to be true, but you were also unblocked early so there seems to be an acknowledgment of that mistake by an administrator. Zencv has reverted the page after the warning, but has not even approached three reverts in one day and so seems to have complied with the admonishment made by NuclearWarfare. Your claim that Zencv created two sockpuppet reports against you is incorrect, the second request was initiated by Sole Soul. That investigation has yet to be concluded, but Checkuser has been endorsed so it clearly is not a baseless claim. Your accusation of harassment, on the other hand, does seem to be a baseless claim. -- Atama頭 23:39, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

User re-uploading images under different file names to evade deletion

Resolved

 – Blocked by User:Abecedare, copyvios nuked and free images reinserted <>Multi-Xfer<> (talk) 22:51, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Frickintony00 has uploaded a number of images to Wikipedia that have been tagged as being potential copyright violations. He is now replacing all these images with identical images with slightly different names. See [18], [19], [20], and [21]. (There are others.) All images are identical and have the same copyright problems; most don't have any ownership information, and the ones that do have no information other than "Photobucket". He has been warned about uploading non-free items; if he hadn't, I'd have simply warned him.

At first I assumed his edits were blatant vandalism as he appeared to just be putting a "1" in front of file names, which is something vandals do. Looking into it further, though, it appears that he's not actually vandalizing but he does seem to be trying to prevent these images from being deleted in a less than upfront manner. I've removed the vandalism warnings on his talk page and I've notified him of this message.

Let me know if there is a better place for this. Thanks. --NellieBly (talk) 02:38, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

This is as good a place as any. Even if they're not committing deliberate vandalism, they ARE being highly disruptive. And you'd think they would notice something was wrong considering their talk page is loaded to the hilt with deletion notices. I have issued a final warning but I think this account needs to be blocked until they demonstrate they understand our copyright policy. I'm tagging the uploads for no license. <>Multi-Xfer<> (talk) 02:51, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

These are all obvious copyright violations. I've tagged them for no license and removed some of them from pages, but the sheer number of them is really too much for me right now. Someone else will have to deal with it. <>Multi-Xfer<> (talk) 02:59, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I have a bit of time; I'll remove them from pages. --NellieBly (talk) 03:07, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

They're gone from article pages (at least they all appear to be orphan files). I'll put the articles on my watchlist. --NellieBly (talk) 03:27, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I spot-checked a few images and they are taken from UFC, Myspace and other websites and are all copyrighted. I have blocked the account till the user is willing to comply with the WP:Image use policy, and will delete the uploads. Thanks for bringing this up here. Abecedare (talk) 03:49, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Almost every article he edited had either free or CC licensed images which he replaced with copyvios. I'm restoring the free/CC images now. Thanks for your help. --NellieBly (talk) 04:01, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

User:193.200.200.64

193.200.200.64 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

This user is the same person as Njirlu, who is being blocked for long-term disruptive editing, threats and personal attacks (and blocked also on other Wikipedias for similar behavior). Now he edits anonymously and keeps vandalizing the same pages as before, with a vengeance, since now he adds jokes in articles such as claiming that Romanians are in fact Chinese who speak a dialect of French.

He has already been reported here twice, [22], [23], and was blocked on both occasions. Obviously he has no intention to stop this disruptive behavior, despite promising several times that he understood what Wikipedia was and that he reformed himself. On the contrary, he displays a blatant disregard for Wikipedia rules and a total lack of civility.

I don't have time to keep undoing his edits. Others and myself have already tried countless times to explain what he does wrong, but all that went to waste. I don't see any sign that he will ever be a constructive editor. I definitely believe he needs some more vigorous measures. — AdiJapan 14:48, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

This looks like a content dispute to me. We cannot just block an IP address because we don't "see any sign that he will ever be a constructive editor." I see edits that are misguided but not obviously vandalism or even disruptive. Frustrating, yes. Vandalism? Highly questionable. For example, this edit indicates a real content concern, and also indicates to me that English is not the native language of the editor. Perhaps we can try to focus on the content? I realize the content dispute is more difficult, and in fact the editor may be on the wrong side of that dispute, but I don't (at least on that talk page) see any attempt to determine that.  Frank  |  talk  15:05, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

And, regarding the idea that the IP is the same as Njirlu, we may need a checkuser to weigh in here.  Frank  |  talk  15:09, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure a Checkuser is needed; reading the comments of Njirlu and 193.200.200.64, it is painfully obvious they are the same person, and Njirlu is clearing evading a current block. At the very least, the IP should be blocked; if you want a Checkuser before extending Njirlu's block to avoid a Joe job, OK, but it really, really looks like the same person, and it would take quite a bit of effort to recreate that distinctive style. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:13, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

• I cannot emphasize this enough: this is far beyond a content dispute. Njirlu (like the IP) edits those pages to push notions unheard of by anybody but him - it is his POV that he defends, something extremely fringe and utterly concocted, without any source whatsoever backing any of the notions he pushes. He does not understand wikipedia policies, no matter how many times they were cited for him, and doesn't even seem to understand English to a decent level. He broke consensus so many times it's not even funny, and every time came back with mass xenophobic accusations targeting Romanians and Greeks en masse. To cite this edit as evidence of "a real content concern" is absurd. Look through it: it's an attempt to depict editors of other nationalities, who respect wikipedia policies, as his personal enemies (something Njirlu has done in the past, over and over), and claims that they oppose him because of their origin: "The Romanian State must respond for this genocide. Europe recognised as a distinct people with a distinct language, but Romania still sleeps."; "I repet to you Mister AdiJapan! Stop these criminal attitude because has no future for Romania." etc. The funny thing is that I for one don't even object to the fact that Aromanians are a distinct ethnicity, and that nothing in his edits ever added rational content that would endorse that POV, and that the POV isn't even marginalized on wikipedia - he just believes it is, because other users won't let him invent his own terminology and symbolism for Aromanians, or because they won't let him add claims of Aromanian origin to all people he admires. Dahn (talk) 17:03, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

  To clarify (expand?): When I wrote "a real content concern" I meant exactly those words: the concern over content expressed by the editor is real. I didn't say it is legitimate; I'm not informed enough at this point to judge that. I do think we need to understand that, behind every edit, no matter whether helpful or not, sourced or not, correct or not...is a person. This person clearly has an agenda, and whether or not that agenda is consistent with the article(s) in question is, to me, a content dispute. Having said that (and of course I may be incorrect about it anyway), if said dispute has been adjudicated in other venues already, then a block may well be in order.  Frank  |  talk  18:10, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

  No, the concern is not real. Far from it. The editor in question manipulates info by introducing data which is not (not just!) incorrect, but which does not reflect any terminology in the real world. And this kind of edits is simple vandalism - "Chinezi" means, as Adi Japan pointed out, "Chinese people" (note the question mark at the end of the sentence); same here. Even if his others edits would count as "content disputes" under some definition or another (though I respectfully disagree), those show that he is being simply disruptive. This guy doesn't understand wikipedia (even though he has repeatedly claimed to have understood the rules and guidelines) and will even resort to this kind of bluff. Dahn (talk) 18:26, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I looked through the article and talk page edits of the IP and User:Njirlu, and IMO they meet the WP:DUCK test. Hence I have blocked the IP for 48 hours for block-evasion. If the user wishes to discuss a content issue, they need to either wait for the block on their account to expire, or request an early unblock. Abecedare (talk) 23:19, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

admin Future Perfect at Sunrise

Resolved

 – WP:LETGO Toddst1 (talk) 23:47, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

The following discussion 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.

---

Please stop... all of you. Xavexgoem (talk) 23:10, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

ok the previous thread got closed coz according to Sandstein this is not the appropriate board for an DIWURGEN unblock. Fine, so now i'm not requesting Jacurek be unblocked but I request review of user:Future Perfect at Sunrise admin conduct. In the thread above, now closed, he claimed that he blocked Jacurek because of this exchange [24] allegedly because Jacurek harrassed Varsovian with questions. It is now totally clear that Varsovian did not feel harrased by Jacurek because now he went to Jacurek's talk page and asked Jacurek questions about Warsaw and now both of them are discussing in friendly tone [25].

Above user:Future Perfect at Sunrise also stated that of one the reason for the long block to Jacurek is quote: my knowledge of the disruptive role he played in the EEML fiasco. I find this comment highly problematic for 3 reasons: 1) The EEML case before the ArbCom is still progress 2) In the proposal decisions by Arbitrator Cohen there are no sanctions against Jacurek 3) this unjust block of Jacurek will for sure at one time or another be linked back to the EEML case giving the impression that Jacurek is a problematic user.

In my opinion admin user:Future Perfect at Sunrise was too trigger happy and made a horrible block but I'd like to hear other opinions. Loosmark (talk) 22:41, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

• Yada yada yada. Jacurek was making a series of highly provocative comments (read "trolling") designed to unsettle and piss off the other editor in the dispute. Such misuse of discussion pages is not permitted by WP:TALK, although the violation of WP:BATTLEGROUND is far more serious. I do not such tolerate such things, nor should any admin, and FPAS has far too much common sense to do so. If this had been me, I might possibly have blocked for 3 months, rather than just one, but then I am known for being a shade draconian at times. Moreschi (talk) 22:51, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Here's an opinion Loosmark. 1) We just did this conversation. 2) Admins get paid exactly tripple what you get paid for working here 3) If editors are now attempting consensus through reasoned discourse all looks good.4) Drop the WP:STICK. I'm not saying my opinion is right or wrong but you did ask for some. Pedro :  Chat  22:52, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

• Oh, yes, and Jacurek is quite clearly a problematic editor, or at least one with a problematic history. This was a very good block: in fact, we should have a lot more of them, but we don't, unfortunately have enough admins enable to distinguish genuine good faith from trolling. Moreschi (talk) 22:55, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I request the thread be re-opened, so far only 2 editors had the chanche of expressing their opinion. Loosmark (talk) 23:22, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

As I said on my talk page: Jacurek has not requested unblock, nor is he able to participate in this discussion. Given the nature of the dispute -- which I know well -- it will be very easy for an onlooker to spot partisanship all over. Users on side X, Users on side Y, and Admins on the admins side. All sound and fury signifying... well, it could be nothing, but it's likely just to make matters worse. Wait until Jacurek requests unblock. Xavexgoem (talk) 23:30, 30 October 2009 (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.

1989 Rosie

User never responds to request for discussion. Did a bunch of uncited changes and unnecessary formatting changes which where inconsistent with his/her previous changes, seems to change his/her mind every time. 1989 Rosie was banned for disruptive editing only to be unbanned for wrongful naming of the reason of the ban. From the few lines that where actually typed by 1989 Rosie it't clear that the users English is really poor so maybe he/she just doesn't understand the requests. No idea what to do next as every attempt for dialog or dispute resolutions falls on deaf ears. _Xeworlebi ^(t•c) 20:21, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

The user was previously indefinately blocked and then unblocked by User:Cirt. You may want to contact him, since he has some familiarty with the case. He may see reason to issue yet another indefinate block. --Jayron32 20:30, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I unblocked after a comment by Mr.Z-man (talk · contribs) at my talk page. I would support a longer block. Cirt (talk) 20:58, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Just to put some context on this, because the full story hasn't being revealed here, Xeworlebi was recently involved in an edit war at List of Castle episodes that resulted in the article being protected for three days. During the edit war both he and 1989 Rosie made constructive and unconstructive edits. While the article was protected there was no discussion towards consensus. Instead, after the protection was lifted, Xeworlebi announced that he was going to make an edit that could have started the war again,[26] prompting further comment by another editor who had been trying to get the war stopped so he could make some constructive edits.[27] My involvement with the article came about because of a request by that editor for assistance and I've been trying to give some advice and clean the article up a bit. Today I made some edits that I've now had to detail at Talk:List of Castle episodes#Thwarted attempts to clean up the article because I've been thwarted by Xeworlebi who seems, by his actions and words, (albeit indirectly) to be asserting some ownership over the article. The long and the short of this is that, while I've certainly had issues with several of 1989 Rosie's edits, I feel that Xeworlebi is not without blame. --AussieLegend (talk) 01:18, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I reverted 1989 Rosie's edits because they where unconstructive and the page was fine as it was. Which doesn't count for all the other pages he changed. The announcement I made abouth changing the page was about something completely different, it was about an addition to the page under the promise of addition of sources which where never added. Eventually I did it myself, as the person in question (a different one) kept making excuses to not do it. The discussion for the new edits made by you should have been made before you added them. But nearly nothing of that has to do with his previous ban and other edits he made. _Xeworlebi ^(t•c) 02:18, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

The complaint that you've made here relates to edits made at List of Castle episodes, not anywhere else. Not only that, the complaint was made 3 days after the edit war there finished. 1989 Rosie's only edit to the article since the protection was lifted was this, which was a quite reasonable and appropriate edit to make. As for my edits, they weren't overly significant and didn't need to be discussed as they were primarily maintenance and error correction. --AussieLegend (talk) 02:47, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

The problem on the Castle page is only a small portion. And now he/she changed the Castle page again, and again does not feel the need to engage in the discussion. You yourself placed a low level warning yesterday on his/her page, not about Castle. The reason he/she was banned was not just for the Castle page but for the unwillingness to respond to discussion and conflict resolution and disruptive/unsourced addition editing abroad. The complaint made here is that he/she was unbanned because of a formality; the wrongfully naming of the reason of the ban. _Xeworlebi ^(t•c) 09:51, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Bot? Scam? Phishing? Just nice?

189.217.171.135 (talk · contribs) So far today, has posted this message on 50 user talk pages and counting:

<big><big>Thanks for your recent edits!! - </big></big> 
There should be more people in the world who do something constructive like this.

Seems to be running at a rate of about one ever 15 seconds. Whatever it is, it's new to me.--Dbratland (talk) 02:08, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

It is certainly automated. Chillum 02:11, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Blocked for 24 hours as an unapproved bot. Hopefully that will be enough time to allow the operator to realize and adjust accordingly. If the edits resume, a longer block will be necessary. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:19, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I am fairly convinced that this is an IP sock of User:BACON EXPLOSION (cf. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/BACON EXPLOSION/Archive). MuZemike 03:11, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

67.164.149.77

Resolved

 – --Jayron32 12:36, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Could an admin look into the situation surrounding this IP and adjust the block so that it isn't indefinite? -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Stop... at a WHAMMY!!)} 09:59, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

So done: [28]. --Jayron32 12:36, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Ludvikus inappropriately indefinitely banned.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

I ask some uninvolved administrator to review this block. thank you. 212.200.205.163 (talk) 10:34, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Please request unblock in the usual way while logged in. This kind of evasion will do you no favours. Verbal chat 10:37, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

i am not Ludvikus. Please stop implicitly accusing of sock puppetry. 212.200.205.163 (talk) 10:40, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

No, it just so happens that your 3rd edit was reverting Loremaster, and nearly all your edits relate to his dispute with Ludvikus. WP:MEAT, anyone? Moreschi (talk) 10:50, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

hahaha. why don't you run an IP check, and you will find out we are even from different countries. (i doubt he is from serbia). let me cite beginning of meat policy: Do not recruit meatpuppets. either you think someone recruited me (a.k.a. conspiracy theory), or you know you are talking nonsense. 212.200.205.163 (talk) 10:59, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

It's quite plausible he did. IPs rarely jump into revert wars in their 3rd edit. Any reason why you did? Moreschi (talk) 11:00, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

because i have a dynamic IP. so previously i had other IP's. i didn't "jump" into anything. if you think it is normal for registered users to be persistent and go into revert wars, while we (anonymous and unregistered users) should simply back off, or as you put it above "shoo", you are terribly wrong. I've been editing wikipedia since 2003, and i am quite familiar with its evolving rules. if i think i am right, i am going to show it with my edits and arguments, even if you are administrator. your privileges do not threaten me. 212.200.205.163 (talk) 11:04, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Not at all, but I query why this article, why right at the moment when Ludvikus and Loremaster were starting to kick off. It can hardly have been on your extensive watchlist, can it? Any other IP's you've edited under "since 2003", so we can get a rough idea of your good faith? Moreschi (talk) 11:08, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

why don't you ask my ISP provider why they changed my IP at that moment? maybe Ludvikus asked them to, i don't know. and also, you might know that IP's don't have a watchlist. so what i do is i type into my Firefox browser few letters, and Firefox search suggestion algorithm brings to the top some frequent and recent pages that I've looked at. you see, a logic and reason can be found everywhere where you look for it, and no need for conspiracy way of thinking. 212.200.205.163 (talk) 11:13, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

• Please see WP:BLOCK and WP:BAN for the usual avenues of appeal, as I would have told you on my talk page, had you not decided it would be more dramatic and impressive to run to ANI. Moreschi (talk) 10:44, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

the blocked user decided to quit Wikipedia due to your action (instead of appealing the block). i am not him/her, nor can i request the usual review process the way s(he) can, so i am asking here for his block to be reviewed. i am sorry if you find the consequences of your action dramatic and impressive. i don't find it impressive at all. 212.200.205.163 (talk) 10:48, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

• Unblock requests are normally only acted upon when made by the blocked editor. This thread is a waste of time, and I'm archiving it.  Sandstein  11:12, 31 October 2009 (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.

Block review request: JohnHistory

Resolved

 – A month extended to indef, as literally and figuratively requested by the editor in question (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:55, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I have blocked JohnHistory (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) for one month for personal attacks. Even though he dropped one on my page, I'm by no means an involved editor, as I've never (that I recall) encountered him before. It seems like a wikicide to me. I'm not sure that a month is a sufficient, but I'm unfamiliar with this guy. Some of you may know him better. I have no objection whatsoever to another administrator adjusting the length of my block. The immediate point was stopping the tantrum. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:37, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, his last post (and the edit summary) were particularly vile. Agreed you're effectively uninvolved, and block is valid. Although, he says he's off to Europe, so a month might not even phase him. Good block, well-deserved, sadly. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:44, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Since he's clearly said that his behaviour won't change in a month, I've changed the block length to indefinite. If he wants to come back and try to convince us that his behaviour and attitude has changed at any point, he is welcome. Black Kite 11:51, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I wonder if a connection to Orangejumpsuit (talk · contribs) should be explored here. Same level of POV-pushing, though John seemed to keep it on simmer for longer than Orange did, but when it does boil over the finale language is almost a cut and paste. Tarc (talk) 12:36, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Redneck

Resolved

 – ip blocked after uncivil response to talk page. Toddst1 (talk) 22:20, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Could someone help at the article. User:74.250.13.4 is removing information, reverting edits and trolling. Repeatedly insults other editors and is making a general nuisance of himself. - 4twenty42o (talk) 19:22, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Alerted him to this thread and gave him an NPA warning.--SKATER ^Speak. 19:25, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks.. I kept getting an edit conflict. - 4twenty42o (talk) 19:27, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually, he's right. It is an ethnic slur. HalfShadow (talk) 19:30, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

In your opinion... - 4twenty42o (talk) 19:33, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this is vandalism. Seems more like a content dispute to me, from the bits I checked. Equazcion (talk) 19:49, 30 Oct 2009 (UTC)

Actually the individual in question appears to be purposely baiting the editors of the article, with no other purpose than to disrupt. Eastcote (talk) 20:24, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Could an admin please review this case. I am in danger of violating 3RR, but the editor in question is still up to no good. - 4twenty42o (talk) 20:38, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Also, User:74.250.13.4 and User:74.250.3.74. Obvious sockpuppetry.. - 4twenty42o (talk) 20:40, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

• I agree that some disruptive editing has been occuring, and I've encouraged the IP to stop such actions and discuss civilly before reverting again. They're well over the 3RR, so further reverts are blockable. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:47, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

After an unsavory response to Tony, I've blocked the editor. Toddst1 (talk) 22:46, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

It can be an ethnic slur, but is also often worn as a badge. Jeff Foxworthy is the obvious case. And I've known plenty of folks who use that term on themselves. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:54, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure, but I believe the disruptive individual is back, this time as User:68.18.201.254. The oddball and political nature of the newest post implies it's the same person. The issue here is not whether "redneck" is or is not a particular type of slur. The issue is the disruptive behavior of the individual. Let's leave debate about the article on the talk page. Eastcote (talk) 15:53, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Disruption, 3RR, vandalism and insult from User:Shmayo

Resolved

 – Shmayo blocked 24 hours for hounding, Dejwono blocked 24 hours for continuing edit war/disruption. indefinitely as a sock of AramaeanSyriac (talk · contribs) Toddst1 (talk) 14:41, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

The user has been warned before for Vandalism and 3RR [29] , and has recently called me for an "idiot" [30]. He does not help with anything, and the only things he does is guarding the articles [31]. He adds "Assyrian" to all the articles. I use neutral term on Aramean-Syriac-Assyrian related articles, to get both sides satisfied. But he keeps reverting my edits. Dejwono (talk) 14:06, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Please read all discussion about what names we should use first, and stop putting "Aramean" everywhere. You are not neutral! You are changing everythin that is neutral! Suspected sockpuppet of User:Aramaean-Syriac. Shmayo (talk) 14:11, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Definitely appears to be a case of WP:Hound and a WP:Civil issue with Shmayo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) Toddst1 (talk) 14:12, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Shmayo, calling an syriac speaking Syriac orthodox priest for "Assyrian", isnt that insult and non-neutral?Dejwono (talk) 14:17, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Verbal, Floydian and Colloidal Silver

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Editors are aware of WP:Edit warring, and the topic ban proposal does not seem to have gained any traction. Please take this discussion to Talk:Colloidal silver unless additional issues requiring administrator attention arise. - 2/0 (cont.) 21:41, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

---

I am having trouble with an editor that is consistently making accusations against me, and turning a talk page into a soapbox rather than discussing the article in question. This is further amplified by the fact that they are now taking it upon themselves to close discussions of mine rather than addressing them.[32] This user is not contributing anything or discussing anything, just making fly-by-edits and accusing me of verbal abuse (which though I will not admit verbal abuse, I will admit I am becoming extremely frustrated with this editor).

I will start with my post that has been used against me in place of answering the discussion:

"Removing the rest of the about 11 sources that claim an antibacterial effect is the biggest fucking piece of point of view pushing I've seen on this website."

You will note that though I accuse Verbal of POV pushing (the "biggest fucking piece of it"), I do not make any personal attacks on the user, I am merely using emotional adjectives.

Verbal has on occasions twisted my words, accusing me repeatedly of verbally abusing editors,[33] and of owning the page,[34] to which he has yet to provide a diff for at my request.[35] (In fact, his response to this request was to threaten me again with being blocked.[36]

I was not aware that consensus was formed by linking to the hive mind, but I have seen little to no discussion, and no answers to the points I have brought up. After the editor in question reverted back and forth with me he quickly reported me for 3RR (Which though I admit I reverted 3 times, I was restoring to a version that had actually been discussed and had consensus (Essentially any version prior to October 20th) I have made attempts to be civil,[37][38] often getting a response that shows the editor didn't even read my message[39], or more accusations and what I would interpret as benevolent threat[40]

I have only insisted on the changes being discussed rather than forced. The editors who have made the changes have not once addressed my questions and arguments, and now the page is locked on their version, effectively meaning that they have no reason at all to discuss this. I find this horribly biased towards those editors and feel that the pre-dispute revision should be locked to actually encourage those editors to work towards a consensus.

I ask that no actions be taken without discussion by multiple editors, as fringe theory problems tend to be jumped on without a close inspection into the root of the problems. I have not notified Verbal yet. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 00:11, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

You can write a bit about alternative medicine applications of colloidal silver in this article, but you have to understrand that an article like this will be written from a firm scientific point of view. If there is a peer reviewed article suggesting that some treatment may work, then you could write about that in detail in an article about alternative medicine, but not in this article as that would give too much weight to a fringe issue.

Insisting to include such edits in this article will always cause trouble. Then, when that happens it is fruitless to investigate who reverted who first, who insulted who first etc.. Count Iblis (talk) 23:53, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Thats the thing though. I'm insisting on keeping the status quo (at least until some consensus is formed amongst the editors who have been long term contributors to the article and its talk page) - It is not my edits that are controversial, its the edits of half a dozen fly-by-editors who didn't discuss anything, and now Verbal insisting on them staying without any sort of discussion. Rather than respond to me, he has made accusations, beat around the bush for a while, and now pulls out WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT against me, which is ridiculous, considering I was never given a response in the first place. When i ask what point I'm not getting, I'm told to stop or risk being blocked, by Verbal (They say this, they don't threaten to block me themselves). - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 00:16, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Article is also being discussed at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Colloidal Silver.- Sinneed 01:15, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, but its gone stale, as with the discussion elsewhere that I have attempted to spur. All of it dubious, the editors who made the changes will never discuss them, only revert back to them. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 02:35, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Ask for protection. If you have fly-by editors who don't discuss and who just revert, protection works to force them onto the talk page. After that, they'll either learn to act appropriately or find themselves blocked. I've gotten other articles to work similarly. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:38, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Floydian, you could also stop uncritically promoting fringe theories. People might take you more seriously then. Just a thought. Skinwalker (talk) 03:10, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Do you have proof for this declaration or are you just blindly categorizing me? - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 16:20, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Since when has it become acceptable to not notify the subject of an ANI thread? (I have just done so.) In any case, Floydian is in the wrong here -- edit warring to insert fringe views into an article against the consensus of other editors, and being uncivil in discussion. We should not be supporting the principle that disputes can be won by simply refusing to ever accept defeat. It is very disturbing when admins function as enablers of disruption -- this is not what content-neutrality is supposed to be. Looie496 (talk) 03:14, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm only trying to show things as the sources show. Right now I am trying to get the controversial changes discussed before they are implemented. I'm still waiting for someone to explain why I am being uncivil to ask for editors to discuss such edits. Yes, I broke 3RR, I have admitted to that, and I admit to it being a mistake, but nobody has assumed good faith on my part because they've instead assumed that I "uncritically promote fringe theories". I've repeatedly asserted that I'm also representing its historical usage. I do not believe colloidal silver does work internally as it is promoted to (apparently it cures cancer, who knew?), but I do believe that if no studies have been done, then the article should say that no studies have been done. I've once represented homeopathy in trying to get an article represented as a source, but still discussed it on the talk page first without ever placing it on the article.

I did not notify the author because I was in a rush at the time. I apologize for that, but I have generally notified people I am bringing up on ANI. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 04:05, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

If you look at the sequence of events, you will see that Floydian was involved in a cooperative discussion of trying to solve one of the ongoing causes of problems in the article in this section: Talk:Colloidal_silver#proposal to end the constant reverting caused by the conflicting interpretation of "colloidal silver". It was during this discussion that Verbal made 3 reverts on the article with absolutely no discussion of those reverts: [41][42][43]. Verbal's first post on the talk page was here, AFTER Floydian called him on the reverting. Verbal's next post was after Master of Puppets posted to stop edit warring. Verbal's post was to deny any culpability in the edit war, and to complain about the disruptive contributing editors, mainly Floydian. If you look at Verbal's total contributions to this article, they are all reverts., [44]. The 2 reverts on October 22 are almost exactly 24 hours after Verbals 2 reverts on the 21. After Master of Puppet's post about discussing changes, Verbal made a couple of posts commenting about his "reverts", but most of his posts on the talk page are complaints about Floydian and threats about how Floydian will be blocked. I would call Verbal's behavior disruptive, and certainly not conducive to trying to reach any kind of consensus. stmrlbs|talk 05:19, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

• Recommend Floydian take a long wikibreak from this article. He's very riled up, making wild accusations, running afoul of 3RR, and generally behaving like someone on their way to a block or ban. ScienceApologist (talk) 06:08, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Stmrlbs and Floydian have a problem in that their version of events is misleading, and their preferred version of the article has several policy issues and is opposed by consensus. I have asked Floydian to stop his disruptive behaviour and abusive, off topic, comments. Master of Puppets has warned Floydian that if he continues with this behaviour he will be blocked. We tried to unprotect the article, by Floydian insisted on his preferred version being restored against consensus. Any discussion is quickly hijacked and taken off topic by verbal attacks and insults (telling others they are behaving like "scum" and should "fucking" do what he wants, for example.) He also twice broke 3RR in attempting to force his preferred version, against multiple editors. The actions of these two editors, their general behaviour, and misleading comments as evidenced by this ANI report do probably deserve attention and possible admin action. In reply to the complaints that I have not entered discussion, I have been involved on the talk page discussing edits, and at the NPOVN post. I have acted properly, as have all editors on the "other side", despite extreme provocation, baiting, and disruptive behaviour from Floydian. Verbal chat 09:52, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
    • Just a note that I address all of these accusations already in my first post. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 16:11, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
      • I'm afraid you misrepresent those in your first post. You were warned by an admin that further abuse, including a personal attack aimed at me and one at SA, or editwarring would lead to your being blocked - after you had already broken 3RR. Verbal chat 16:23, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
        • Provide a diff of my personal attack at you, pointing out where I make the attack on you. I have provided diffs for every accusation I've made, I do not see you providing any proof. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 17:22, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
• The revert behaviour across the article is unacceptable by both Verbal and Floydian and I'm inclined to propose a revert limitation on both; this would also act as a warning for all other editors who have involved themselves less aggressively. Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:30, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Care to point out which policy my behaviour broke? I can see quite clearly which policies Floydian broke, but only 2 attempts to restore a policy and consensus supported version do not seem out of line to me. I have followed correct WP:DR procedure, and reported the matter to AN3 before it became a problem, however Floydian's continued warring led to the page being locked. Verbal chat 15:07, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
    • • • • See my forthcoming comment below. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:21, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

A side note: It was locked after a 2R "war" between Mangoe and Strmlbs, not as the result of my behavior. I stopped reverting after the warnings - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 18:00, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

• • • • WP:CONSENSUS and WP:DISPUTE - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 16:11, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
        • No, I haven't broken either of those. Sorry. Verbal chat 16:21, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
          • Thats for this discussion to decide. WP:CONSENSUS#Consensus-building has it written pretty clearly:

            "Someone makes a change to a page (any page other than a talk page), then everyone who reads the page has an opportunity to leave it as it is, or change it. When two or more editors cannot reach an agreement by editing, consensus is sought on talk pages."

            Seems pretty clear to me. You did not seek consensus, you simply reverted edits made by Eublides being bold. Just because I hit 3 first does not mean that you did not edit war. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 17:17, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

  • I would happily self nominate myself to be banned from editing the article itself, to take it a step further. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 16:11, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Before handing out any penalties please remember this mess came about because of a blatantly provocative edit by Eubulides(on 08:02, 21 October 2009) who seems to have 'hit and run'. Without warning he removed the single most important piece of information about colloidal silver in the whole article. (i.e. that in-vitro studies demonstrate an antibacterial effect.) He called this info 'relatively unimportant' and said he was 'boldly' removing it. Clearly Eubulides knew he was lobbing a hand grenade into the article. (Is that some kind vandalism?). Admittedly there may be a fair case to be made for examining the context in which that particular info is placed, but it should never have been deleted outright. I share Floydians outrage about this.DHawker (talk) 13:39, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Those studies are not based on colloidal silver or its alt med use, which is where they were placed. Please tell us why they should be in the article on colloidal silver. Verbal chat 15:07, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I ask that we do not get back into discussing the content of the article here. There are plenty of venues for that, most of which nobody has taken the more than opportune time to discuss upon. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 16:11, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Of course I invite all editors here to join in on the talk page of the article, which is where I would hope he would have replied. Sorry for not being specific. Verbal chat 16:25, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I have replied to everything at Talk:Colloidal silver. Not one of the editors who made a fly by edit discussed the changes that were made. Yes, you discuss on the talk page, no you haven't discussed the changes that are controversial, only new changes that have come up since this issue. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 17:17, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

• Bold suggestion: Topic Ban Floydian This issue (Colloidal silver) had already been discussed at the fringe theories noticeboards in September. When I noticed that, I sent out a test balloon there diff, which was shoot down almost immediately by Floydian, who called my source "clearly biased based on the wording" and went on to state that argyria, i.e. someones skin turning gray, "is cosmetic, and harmless". diff. Just a friendly reminder, Floydian. This case is from the 1950s, and during that time people were usually classified as white and black, and black people faced some obstacles (well, that's an understatements, but we don't need to get into the details of historic racial segregation in the U.S. here). And the person, whose homepage I had quoted, explicitly says somewhere that the skin discolouration caused by argyria can't be covered with make-up, so it is not a cosmetic issue. But more importantly, Floydian completely missed that the homepage I quoted in turn quotes 17 academic works and articles on the issue; the statement: "Colloidal silver (CSP) is not a new alternative remedy. It is an old, discarded traditional one that homeopaths and other people calling themselves "alternative health-care practitioners" have pulled out of the garbage pail of useless and dangerous drugs and therapies, things mainstream medicine threw away decades ago." appears well sourced. So, if you want to call this statement biased, then this appears to be another case of the usual medical bias against alternative medicine, or, more to the point: This "biased" view is the mainstream view, and the other view is the fringe theory view. Fortunately, we have a guideline for such a case: Wikipedia:Fringe theories, but unfortunately Floydian doesn't accept this, and is now apparently trying the use of confrontational tactics to promote a fringe theory. As far as I see it, we have three options: 1) Let him have his way, and have another bad article. I certainly would find this unacceptable, but on the other hand, I find this issue rather boring and wouldn't personally need the hassle of fixing. 2) Keep on fighting until either Floydian gives up or the whole issue goes to the arbitration committee. Since I've had previous experiences with Verbal, I think that he stands a good chance against Floydian, so let's get it on! 3) Or, and this would be the preferable solution: Topic Ban Floydian right away and save us all a lot of stress.

• P.S. If someone finds my cynicism offensive, I'll apologize, but I think I've figured out how Wikipedia works by now. - Question: How many administrators does it take to deal with an edit war concerning NPOV? Answer: Five. One to block/warn one of the involved editors, and the other four to figure out that they've blocked/warned the wrong one. - If you would now excuse me, there is an edit war on the German Wikipedia that I might want to attend. Zara1709 (talk) 15:16, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I will only point to a peer reviewed source that describes adverse reactions to silver (including colloidal) in detail. You'll find it never once states argyria is anything more than a irreversible pigmentation of the skin.[45]. However, the changes to the article are less important than the conduct of everyone around it, myself included (I'm no angel).

Once again, I'm not concerned with its modern usage as an alternative medicine. I'm concerned that it was an anti-biotic before the discovery of penicillin, and that it should be discussed as such, and that its use for decades as a topical wound dressing is just now winding down as they find better solutions that don't turn you into the tin man. And does nobody else see how hard these people are trying to not have to discuss the changes that are disputed? They'd rather have me banned. Seems like the simpler solution than following the dispute resolution process. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 16:11, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

"These people" asked for you to be blocked because you broke WP:3RR twice. Simonm223 (talk) 17:26, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I broke it once, for which I've apologized and would like to move forwards from, by discussing the changes on the talk page and avoiding the need to make edits and stonewall them. A fourth revert doesn't count as a new 3RR violation. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 17:57, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Timeline: conduct problems

This outlines why I found problems with both Floydian and Verbal's approach, among other other editors:

• On 21 Oct, Eubulides (talk · contribs) made a series of bold edits [46] [47] between 8:20 and 8:30. He noted that it was in response to a suggestion made about 1 day earlier on the talk page. Floydian (talk · contribs) reverted these between 16:31 and 16:36. This was permissible in accordance with WP:BRD; Floydian also commented which should have started the discussion. 10 minutes later, Verbal (talk · contribs) instead of attempting to seek a consensus by commenting at that discussion, broke WP:BRD and reverted. This was highly inappropriate; at that point, even the NPOVN discussion only had 2 editors responses that had differing views to Floydian. Floydian reverted and made an aggressive comment at the discussion directed at Verbal.
• It was after this revert that the third editor commented at the NPOVN discussion, after which Verbal reverted again (again, avoidable) and endorsed as the forth editor. However, Floydian should have considered avoiding any further reverts at this point as it was potentially inappropriate, but nevertheless, did revert. Verbal then made a response at the discussion, to which Floydian responded 10 minutes later. No responses were made at the discussion after this time. Shortly afterwards, Master of Puppets (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) appropriately made a general warning to stop this cycle, and discuss it on the talk page to avoid the main page being protected. Floydian and Verbal made responses [48]. Meanwhile, a fifth editor also endorsed the differing position at NPOVN.
• On 22 Oct, Verbal made an edit [49], which was reverted a bit under 1.5 hours later by Floydian [50]. 5 minutes later, Verbal reverted again. Floydian partially reverted. Simonm223 (talk · contribs) made a partial revert without discussion, which was reverted by Floydian under 15 minutes later. Hipocrite (talk · contribs) partially reverted 5 minutes later, and Floydian made partial reverts 3 minutes later. Simonm223 again reverted.
• On 23 Oct, Mangoe (talk · contribs) boldly removed a section from the article. This was reverted by Stmrlbs (talk · contribs). Mangoe then broke WP:BRD and reverted. Mangoe finally opened a discussion and the article was then protected by Master of Puppets. Simonm223 and Verbal endorsed Mangoe's view; Floydian and Stmrlbs did not. Was this sufficient to form a consensus to remove the section?
• Later, during one of the discussions later, Verbal closed part of one discussion in which he was involved with Floydian, where Floydian asked a question. Floydian reverted the close and Verbal edit-warred to maintain it, even though he should not have been closing it off to begin with.
• Accordingly, it appears that a 1RR on Verbal and a page ban (and possibly 1RR) on Floydian is warranted. Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:51, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

As stated above, I would have no objection to a page ban on Colloidal silver. However, I wouldn't doubt it if Verbal and Scienceapologist tried to persue having me banned from the talk page to completely bypass relevant discussion. Nevertheless I think you for providing a timeline to show the faults of both sides.

I only wish to object to one point though Ncmvocalist, and that is the number of people with a differing view on the NPOV noticeboard. Some of the comments weren't clearly endorsing a side and were merely comments. For example, Steven Schulz. Only Verbal, Baccayak, and ScienceApologist give differing views, and two of those are editors involved in the questionable reversions - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 19:34, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

• I see no reason for any sanctions on me, I have acted properly and well within wikipedia norms throughout despite abuse, provocation, and baiting. Nothing in Ncmvocalist's timeline, which is incomplete, shows me acting improperly, so I don't see what problems it supposedly highlights. I don't see why this is still even being debated. It's pointless now Floydian has been given his final warning. Let's go back to the article, go back to improving the encyclopaedia. The "discussion" I closed was a violation of WP:TALK and merely consisted of more baiting and off topic, misleading, accusations - I asked Floydian to continue in a more appropriate venue. Other editors have also reverted Floydian, and we can assume that they woud voice this opinion on the talk page were it not already clear that he didn't have consensus. Verbal chat 19:43, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

With all due respect for Ncmvocalist's analytic skills, it would probably be far more helpful to hear the opinion of an administrator like MastCell who has some idea about the medical content and editors involved. Mathsci (talk) 19:48, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Why would we need to discuss content? This is ANI. A 3rd party analysis is exactly what this needs, neutral of any previous knowledge. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 20:27, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Sometimes it is helpful to distinguish between mainstream science and fringe POV-pushing. Mathsci (talk) 21:00, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes please get Mastcell to look at this this. Even though he managed to get me banned from the article I respect that he's usually fair in his judgement and has a long history with this article. The key issue seems to be whether comments about the in-vitro antimicrobial properties of colloidal silver (broadly defined) should even be in the article. A pretty simple question I think. DHawker (talk) 20:50, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

If you're looking for advice as to whether or not specific content should be in an article, then ANI is not the right place. I'm not disagreeing about Mastcell's ability to discuss content, merely that the content portions don't belong 'round here. If that discussion will solve most of the issues above, then awesome. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:10, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

The content issue itself should not be argued here, as there are several open venues for that. However, the content is relevant in some ways to the discussion at hand. I only hope that when the content is discussed, that its relevance to this discussion is mentioned if its not abundantly clear. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 22:17, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree that content should not be discussed here. Whether or not one side is 'right', there was still edit-warring on both sides (note: 'edit-warring' and '3RR' don't have to be synonymous - you can edit war without breaking 3RR). I'm fully in support of letting go of all the warring behaviour and excusing it provided that all parties promise to not do it again; that way, we can get to discussing the content and resolving this. If that can't be done, then this will go nowhere.

Oh, I am previously involved, for the record. Master of Puppets 04:45, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

To elaborate on the point raised by Master of Puppets, editors are each responsible for noticing when a debate is escalating into an edit war, and for helping the debate move to better approaches by discussing their differences rationally, rather than through disruptive editing - revert rules (such as 3RR) should not be construed as an entitlement or inalienable right to revert, nor do they endorse reverts as an editing technique. Edit-warring is unacceptable, whether by reversion or otherwise; this is so even when the disputed content is clearly problematic. Appropriately, more stringent sanctions would be needed (and likely handed out) if this were escalated to ArbCom the next time this sort of thing happens at the article.

For the record, at the request from MastCell for uninvolved input on a previous occasion, I took a look at the conduct on this article a while back - at that point, I felt it necessary to propose a topic ban on DHawker, and that was enacted accordingly. I'm not aware of any other interactions with both parties. Again, as someone completely uninvolved, I've taken a look at some of the major conduct issues and I outlined recent major issues above. I too would support letting go of all, should both parties promise not to do it again; but they do need to take it as an absolute final warning with respect to such conduct on any article/talk they edit. The parties also need to understand that admin noticeboards are not a step in dispute resolution for a reason. Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:18, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

• Verbal approached me on my talk page here. I thought the above comments by me and Master of Puppets explained the distinction between 3RR and edit-war, and why both sides engaged in edit-warring (see the timeline). Yet, it seems that Verbal still insists that his conduct was flawless, which suggests that he does not understand or accept the problems with his conduct. In such circumstances, the conduct is likely to continue in the future, and a promise to not let it happen again will be futile. I've tried once again to explain to him here. I am calling on an uninvolved admin to make Verbal (and others who fall in the same boat) understand that 3RR and edit-warring is not the same thing - what happened here was, for the most part, edit-warring, and is not acceptable. If another explanation does not happen or work, then sadly, sanctions will become necessary. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:36, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
  • I totally dispute Ncmvocalist's statement and interpretation of policy. I acted well within policy and made more than clear I wasn't going to engage in further reverting or respond to Floydian's clar editwarring, abuse, baiting, and gaming. Multiple other editors also reverted and discussed teh edits, leading Floydian to break 3RR twice. I wouldn't have made the second revert if I had known that Floydian was going to ignore policy (WP:BURDEN, for just one example) and insist upon his preferred version without discussion and against consensus. My crime seems to be AGF. I have acted well within policy and norms of wikipedia editing, and acually went beyond them requesting admin help as soon as I realised trouble was brewing - and since made no reverts, and made clear I wouldn't. In no way was I "editwarring". I see no justification for Ncmvocalist's claims. Verbal chat 11:30, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Analysis of article content and edits

I thought that I might as well spent another hour on the issue, and here a my results: Currently the article mentions that colloidal silver was used before the 1940s and for what it was used, but it doesn't really say why its use was discontinued. According to the medical literature, the main reason was not the "introduction of antibiotics", but the side effects caused by colloidal silver. Since I have an web page which quotes some literature (and a lot of experience with literature search), the articles aren't hard to find, and the Journal of the American Medical Association certainly is a reliable source. There is an article from 1935 about an "alarming increase of argyrosis". (SEVENTY CASES OF GENERALIZED ARGYROSIS FOLLOWING ORGANIC AND COLLOIDAL SILVER MEDICATION). There is also an article from 1940 in the Archives of Otolaryngology - Head & Neck Surgery: (ARGYRIA RESULTING FROM INTRANASAL MEDICATION). I think these sources are sufficient to establish that the medical use of colloidal silver was discontinued sometime in the 1940s because of its side-effects, which leads me to the interesting question: Why doesn't the article mention that?

If you look at the point of controversy between Verbal and Floydian, you'll see that it is about two sources diff. One is a study about in vitro anti-bacterial effects of colloidal silver from 2008, but the other is a book from 1920. So, if Floydian, as I assume, managed to find a book source from 1920, why didn't he manage to find articles in highly reputable medical journals from 1935 and 1940? There are three possible explanations: 1) Bad luck 2) neglect of academic sources, in favour of on-line sources or 3) tendentious editing. One can suspect that Floydian only used those sources that support his view. That is the editing pattern of a partial-POV-warrior.

The problem is, if you want to identify those partial-POV-warriors, you can't rely on an an analysis of editor conduct. Why? Because someone who is, as a matter of principle, interested in a neutral point of view, is also a POV-Warrior, only a NPOV one. You need to analyse the content of an article, and identify the POVs involved, which in this speaks case against Floydian. From his comments on the noticeboard I know that he would downplay the side effects of colloidal silver diff, and a short analysis of the point of controversy in the article would allow a similar conclusion.

As an editor concerned about NPOV (regardless of whether your understanding of the NPOV in a specific case is correct), you don't have many options. If you argue nicely, but abstain from reverts, the partial-POV-warriors will simply ignore your comments on the talk page and only reply with 1-or-2-line remarks. If you confront him, and revert him if necessary, he will go whining to the administrators noticeboards and try to frame you for edit warring. There currently isn't a working strategy to deal with a partial-POV-warrior, which is among the reasons why I am not doing much at Wikipedia any more. You can only chose the confrontational tactic and hope that some people at the noticeboards are competent enough (and are willing to spent the time!) to identify the core of the issue.

Back to this specific issue: If Floydian could agree to abstain from editing the article for 3 months, that would be a workable solution. It would allow the removal of the full protection and should give me and other interested editors enough time to research some facts that are currently missing in the article - like the real reason why colloidal silver was discarded as a medical treatment in the 1940s. But after my previous experiences at Wikipedia, I would not be willing to work on this article when I have to fear that someone who can't be talked to reverts my edits. Zara1709 (talk) 10:45, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

This is NOT what the present war is about. The question of why colloidal silver use was discontinued is a minor issue. DHawker (talk) 14:37, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

If you look at the comment Floydian gave me on the fringe theories noticeboards, the reason why the use of colloidal silver was discontinued is indeed part of the issue, because Floydian reacted quite strongly to that comment. I should have searched the academic sources to substantiate my view back then, but I didn't, so I supplemented them now. And anyway, I found another source, and this time a recent one (although this source also quotes my 1935 source). The side effects of colloidal silver can be more severe then he probably thought so far:

"Consumption of large doses of colloidal silver can result in coma, pleural edema, and hemolysis. Colloidal silver is also toxic to the bone marrow and may be associated with agranulocytosis. The toxic effects of inorganic silver ingested orally in large doses are very similar to any corrosive solution." (Systemic argyria associated with ingestion of colloidal silver

This certainly is of higher relevance to the article then the question whether colloidal silver shows anti-bacterial effects in vitro. Floydian is working on this article at least since September; I needed not even two hours to find these sources, so how come Floydian didn't find them in about two months? I think that this is a very good question, and it helps us more then the discussion who reverted how often. Zara1709 (talk) 16:15, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Not only that but you are taking a look at conduct from several weeks before the conflict. ANI is not for content disputes. It should also be noted that I have no access to academic journals. I've only made use of the sources that were in the article when I arrived, and have brought any potential sources to the talk page rather than editing the article. Am I POV warrior solely because I felt a source that was brought to the page seemed biased? Also a quick look through the talk page will show that I'm the one with the three or four paragraph debates while the others generally put two sentences in that completely evade me. You'll also notice the more up to date study from the more reliable source that I published above (Oxford Press > Dermatology Online Journal) that never once mentions the toxicity of argyria, despite the paper being a focus on the health effects of silver. But I appreciate the generalization, once again, Zara. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 16:24, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

This issue is now discussed on how many noticeboards, including this one? 3? 4? Already in September you were unable to admit that colloidal silver does have dangerous side-effects (and you still are). You were apparently trying to push the point that colloidal silver shows anti-bacterial effects in vitro into the article, before it was fully protected. True, I can't rule out that you simple did not find the sources I found, but then again, the only additional tool I have at my disposal is a database of academic journals, however, you could find these journals yourself using any search engine. The other possibility is that you are trying to promote colloidal silver, and simply ONLY brought forward those sources that support your view.

Really, why are so many articles at Wikipedia in such a bad shape? Is it because many of our editors simply are incompetent, or is it because many of them are not interested in writing good, neutral articles, but in promoting their personal POV? Probably, this case is not altogether clear, but I've seen editors "play stupid to spin articles in their direction" (to paraphrase a statement from Dbachmann) before. Of course, this page is not for content disputes, but I have to provide the evidence here that gives substance to the view that you, Floydian, are trying to promote a fringe theory at the article Colloidal silver by using the sources in a highly selective way. The evidence is here, and let me add that, aside from that short encounter with Floydian in September, I am an uninvolved editor. Zara1709 (talk) 17:22, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

It should be noted that the invitro effects were placed in the lead independently of my contributions to the article (and as far as I remember without going and checking, was there when I stumbled upon the article). Most of my edits involved changing the wording to represent the information that was presently on the article. I will still deny the dangerous side effects, as clearly the danger of the side effects are disputed from source to source. Every editor brings a point of view to the table, especially with fringe topics, and many editors have admitted to their POV. It an go without saying that any editor who takes a stance on the subject is going to input terms into a search engine looking for studies that validate the way they feel. As long as those are valid and reliable studies, are those editors committing some atrocity, or are they merely one of the many POV's making edits to the article? I have always discussed my changes before implementing them, and problems only arose when other editors failed to uphold the same courtesy and civility. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 18:05, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Floydian, I am sure that you will not find an article from an reputable medical journal that disputes that colloidal silver can have severe side effects. Of course, your average article on the anti-bacterial effects of colloidal silver in in-vitro experiments will simply not discuss the side effects of colloidal silver when used as a medication, but the absence of this fact there is justified because of the limited scope of these articles. In an encyclopaedic article, on the other hand, the absence of the very same facts is not justifiable. I took a look at the edit history, and the source I have quoted, "Systemic argyria associated with ingestion of colloidal silver" has been present in the article for over a year. Revision of September 22, 2008. Currently you are using this source as a reference for the statements that: ".. some websites still list its use for the prevention of colds and flu, and the treatment of more serious conditions such as diabetes, cancer, chronic fatigue syndrome, HIV/AIDS, and tuberculosis, among other diseases." and that "A number of case reports describe argyria after ingestion of colloidal silver marketed as an alternative-medicine treatment." Yes, this source say that. However, the source also has includes a comprehensive summary of the "Toxicology of silver", where it includes the information I have already quoted above: "Consumption of large doses of colloidal silver can result in coma, pleural edema, and hemolysis." Is there any good reason not to mention this in the article, aside from the fact that this information does not fit into your personal point-of-view? Zara1709 (talk) 19:35, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Because I hadn't even noticed... And if it has been that way for over a year than clearly other editors didn't notice either. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 04:37, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Zara. One good reason not to include that statement might be that the source provides no references, no case reports, or any details whatsover to support it. They sound like pretty exceptional claims to me. Isnt there a Wiki rule somewhere that says exceptional claims need exceptional sources? This source doesn't cut it IMO. DHawker (talk) 10:38, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Zara, 20 of the 31 references on the Colloidal Silver article talk about side effects, the main one being argyria. The colloidal silver lead paragraph has something about side effects as well as there being a section on side effects with a link to the article on argyria. It is not like the side effects aren't being discussed in the article. stmrlbs|talk 01:39, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Can someone also let verbal know that he does not own the talk page, and that he doesn't have the right to close relevant discussions on the talk page just because he cannot provide an answer to them.[51] - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 17:06, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

What Verbal is doing is "disruptive refactoring". The policy on Refactoring is stated quite clearly here: WP:Refactoring: "Refactoring should only be done when there is an assumption of good faith by editors who have contributed to the talk page. If there are recent heated discussions on the talk page, good faith may be lacking. If another editor objects to refactoring then the changes should be reverted." stmrlbs|talk 01:39, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh, please. I only set out here to show that Floydian should not be trusted with editing this article, because he is unable to accept the view that is expressed on the article topic in reliable academic sources, and so far this discussion has provided ample evidence of this. Now DHawker thinks he can invalidate my source by pointing out that the sentence I quote doesn't use any references - so what? As an article in an academic journal it is a reliable source, an although this particular journal is an online journal, this does not speak against it. In fact, if you look at the reference that article does provide, you will see that it quotes among other an article from the Journal of Clinical Toxicology:

"Conclusions: We emphasize the lack of established effectiveness and potential toxicity of these [silver] products." Silver Products for Medical Indications: Risk-Benefit Assessment, Abstract

I could bet, if we would have access to the full pdf, it would also point out that 'death' is among these risk, if you really overdose yourself with Colloidal silver. Would be no surprise - I think there are also people who have overdosed themselves with vitamin c, and died. Any way, if you were really concerned with writing a balanced article based on academic sources, the potential toxicity of Colloidal silver would be pointed out more explicitly in the article and there would probably be a tag 'Expert needed', since you would need someone who has access to medical journals for a throughout review of the respective articles - if you don't want to rely on the article in the Dermatology Online Journal (which would be fine in my opinion). However, since at least one of the involved editors persists in denying the potential toxicity of Colloidal silver RIGHT HERE, and the discussion on the article revolves, not around the issue of toxicity, but around the issue of the relevance of in vitro studies - which are certainly less relevant than the toxicity of Colloidal silver for humans - I come to the legitimate conclusion that the article is the target of fringe advocates who use sources in a highly selective way in an attempt to spin the article in their direction.

Since I have a lot of practice finding academic sources, I could literally do that for weeks, until I've found quoted every single accessible source on this issue. However, against people convinced of a partial-POV this skill is utterly worthless. Every time I quote another academic source, they do the equivalent of putting their hands against their ears and going on to sing *la,la,la,la,la,la...* Then they try to distract the readers by talking about something else, like the behaviour of other involved editors. The problem is: That strategy quite often works, which is why many articles on Wikipedia are in bad shape. I am not doing much any more on Wikipedia for that reason, but if you want to save Colloidal silver from becoming another one of these bad articles, you should identify the editors not interested in writing a balanced article based on academic sources, and ban these editors from the topic. Zara1709 (talk) 09:04, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Zara. Stop whining (or whatever it is you are doing) and just make your first contribution to the article. If its worthy it will stand. If not it will be ditched. That's how Wiki works. There are plenty of colloidal silver opponents who will support you.DHawker (talk) 10:25, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

"Then they try to distract the readers by talking about something else, like the behaviour of other involved editors.".. You mean what Verbal and ScienceApologist have done the entire time? Yet I have three well phrased, well worded questions that they try to lock up as against WP:TALK. Not only that but I'm providing academic sources as well. The only source I've questioned is NCCAM, which is clearly not an academic journal. But I'm an advocate, so only I can be wrong, correct?

The thing is, we don't have access beyond the abstract, so drawing conclusions would be a violation of WP:SYNTH. Whose to say that I'm the one spinning sources around? Of course the person who doesn't exclaim the fringe theory is an advocate who cannot contribute constructively and must be banned. Thats not one sided dictatorship thinking. I've repeatedly asserted why I take my position on the toxicology, and you clearly have it go through one ear and out the other. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 17:36, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

EDIT Also, I'm sure death is a side effect for almost any pharmacological product in the world, if you really overdose yourself with it. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 19:22, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Whose whining? I am only lamenting the general state of affairs at Wikipedia, which is something different. I would suppose you would be "whining" here, if that strategy would promise any success to you, but currently it isn't. I mean, DHawker apparently sees it as his mission to fight, quote, "colloidal silver opponents". What kind of approach is that? The idea behind Wikipedia is not that it is a battleground between adherents of different POVs - the idea behind Wikipedia is that it is an encyclopaedia based on reliable sources. So if the reliable sources say that colloidal silver has dangerous side-effects, you have to accept that, or you are not qualified to edit the article on colloidal silver. Of course, we could simply have the article unprotected, and then resume hostilities there. I would assume, if I was to edit the article, whatever my edit would be - you or someone else would revert it, and then we would have another edit war. I am assuming that, because that is how the last NPOV controversy I took part in went. Then we could count who has more supporters, but in any case you could make another report on this noticeboard about evil Zara, who keeps restoring his revision and is unwilling to compromise. As I said, this has happened to previously in other controversies. Now take this: I am unwilling to compromise, because I am right. Wikipedia articles should not be foul compromises between hostile fractions of editors, but encyclopaedic articles based on reliable sources. The view that colloidal silver has toxic side-effects is based on reliable sources, and BEFORE we continue working on the article, and want every involved editor to accept that.

I think Floydian and Dhawker have both given enough evidence for the assumption that they are advocating the use of colloidal silver, and that this influences their editorial judgement. DHawker has, right here, implied that I was a "colloidal silver opponent", whereas in fact all I have done is to notice that some editors are denying the dangerous side-effects of colloidal silver, and have then searched for reliable sources on this issue, and as a result, I have established that colloidal silver has dangerous side-effects, and I am using this to arrive at a decision at this controversy. Let's explain this in analogy to a poker game. Several editors were gambling about the article colloidal silver. Since I was sitting at the table too (albeit not in full view), I raised, under the assumption that some editors are bluffing, and are in fact not trying to write a balanced article, but to promote a partial POV. I re-raised, and now I want to see. These editors now only have two options. 1) to fold, and abstain from editing the article further, because I can demand from any Wikipedia editor that he is able to accept the view of the most reputable sources, in this case the view of academic medical journals. 2) to put down you cards and let me see them; you still have the option to find a reliable source that says that colloidal silver does not have dangerous side-effects, but currently you are not even trying.

Of course, there are a few more options. You can angrily leave the table, or you can assault the other player, in this case me, with personal attacks. But I think I you have to resort to those options, you have lost, too. Zara1709 (talk) 12:10, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah and the people who disclaim colloidal silver let that influence their editorial judgement. What's your point? You've established that it has dangerous side effects because you found a source which verifies your point of view (and you very clearly do have one). I can find sources that verify my point of view too... But mine must be wrong, because I advocate the use of the stuff (Which I've repeatedly mentioned that I don't, but you didn't hear that), and anybody who advocates what wikipedia has defined as a fringe theory through some wide criteria must be wrong, always. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 17:36, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Obviously you didn't get it. When I noticed this controversy I spent roughly 2 hours researching about the topic, focussing on the issue of the potential side-effects of colloidal silver. I came to the conclusion, that, according to reliable sources, colloidal silver can have dangerous side-effects. This is not my POV - considering that all the research I've done on this question was part of my work at Wikipedia I would even go so far as to say, that I don't have a personal POV, I only have a view as an editor, which I have throughoutly justified here. "Wikipedia articles should rely primarily on reliable, third-party, published sources." (You actually made me quote "wp:rs".) If several reputable sources say that colloidal silver can have dangerous side-effects I can demand from every editor working on the article colloidal silver, that he accepts this view. Since you do not have the option to challenge Wikipedia's policies, you either have to admit that colloidal silver can have dangerous side-effects, or you have to present reputable sources that say that it doesn't. However, considering how reputable the medical journals I have quoted are, it is rather unlike that you find other reputable medical journals that disagree with them. If you think that "you can find sources that verify your point of view too", please try. IAs a matter of principle, I will not rule out the possibility that the sources I found are not the most reputable ones. However, as long as you persist in denying the mainstream view (as far as I've identified it) and are not willing to discuss the issue based on reliable sources, you are advocating a fringe POV, and it can't be expect from Verbal or any other editor to cooperate with you in writing the article. Without the acceptance of our content policies there is no basis for a discussion whatsoever. I think I can rest my case now. Zara1709 (talk) 18:33, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

You can rest you case when you can point out where Verbal discussed this with me instead of making accusations at my character. I will go with the sources you show me, which you have. I will not listen to here-say, or accusations at me, but rather retorts to my arguments. I don't want editors to say "This is the mainstream view", I want links to the sources so I can read them myself. If you look to the beginning of this ANI discussion, however, you will see that the potential side effects were not the issue at hand. The issue was the potential applications. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 19:17, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Zara. I repeat. Make a contribution to the article and stop whining and filling space here.DHawker (talk) 00:35, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

You both are still not admitting defeat. I used this case as test to see whether it is possible to identify partial-POV warriors, and the test worked. So far, Floydian and DHawker have demonstrated that they are not able to conduct a discussion of the topic (colloidal silver) BASED ON RELIABLE SOURCES, and DHawker has actually now resorted to personal attacks, whereas I have limited myself to not-so-subtle polemics.

Without the acceptance of the policy that articles on Wikipedia should be based on reliable sources, here is no common ground for a discussion, and any discussion at the article would be futile. They would only use any attempt to edit the article as a pretext for starting another edit war, and then they would try to frame other editors for edit warring, as Floydian did when he started this section. So either Floydian and DHawker are banned from the topic (until they affirm that Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable sources, especially concerning the article Colloidal silver), or the article is doomed. If you want to have an acceptable article, sooner or later they would have to be banned from the topic - let's see how long it takes before this issue goes to arbitration committee, that is, if the article is ever unprotected and Verbal and/or some other editors fight the issue until the bitter end. Zara1709 (talk) 12:07, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

DHawker, your comments about "whining" are really incivil. Please tone it down. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 13:32, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm in a sea of yellow

Did you even read my message, Zara, or are you just on an automatic loop now? "I will not listen to here-say, or accusations at me, but rather retorts to my arguments. I don't want editors to say "This is the mainstream view", I want links to the sources so I can read them myself."

Despite Verbal claiming the contrary, nobody discussed the changes. I will not drop that issue, as per usual with ANI, everything gets ignored because people read half the text and come to a conclusion that they want to, or that favours the editors that they know better. I'm tired of editors whining that they've been insulted when nobody has insulted them, or making up a variety of terms to describe the actions of the editor rather than responding to them (gaming, baiting, etc, I don't know what that BS is. I asked questions, I expect answers or I make changes). My questions are valid, they question the validity of the sources (not the reliable sources regarding side effects, if you actually bother to read anything I've said up to this point, you'd realise the issue is around the NCCAM source.), and I will remove the questionable sources if nobody will bother to discuss them. Without discussion there is NOT A CONSENSUS.

Zara, you've already decided my evil destructive motives, and nothing I say or do will change that, so I'm rather indifferent to your opinion from here on out. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 17:33, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Accusation of personal attacks aside, this ANI thread really does support this statement from Zara: "Floydian and DHawker have demonstrated that they are not able to conduct a discussion of the topic (colloidal silver) BASED ON RELIABLE SOURCES". I am uninvolved with this article, but have synthesised colloidal silver (and many other nanoparticle metals) and used it in biochemical assays. There is tonnes of resaearch on colloidal silvers biological activity, including adverse medical and environmental effects. Toxicity is size, concentration and ligand dependant, but certainly exists, and simply require searching for academic sources to understand. If editors dislike sources, they should be searching for other sources that disagree, not arguing about editors reasons for adding the source. I think topic bans for editors or other article restictions (1 or 0 rvert rules) are needed here.YobMod 11:30, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Yobmod, Zaras so-called 'reliable source' about pleural edema (a heart problem) was little more than an aside in an article on argryia (a skin condition) in a dermatology journal. It contained no references, no cases studies or any other details whatsoever that could verify the claims. I simply pointed out that for those reasons i considered it a poor source for such exceptional claims, yet you say this demonstrates I'm unable to conduct a discussion 'based on reliable sources'. Very strange. I further suggested that if Zara thinks its such a good source then put it in the article and stop complaining in advance about the opposition she expects to receive. But as far as I know zara has never, ever contributed to the article so overall i find her long winded complaints here rather bizarre. Anyway, this is not the place for discussing article content.DHawker (talk) 12:17, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Advising an editor to add poor content to articles so you can edit war to remove it does not seem like conducting a discussion to me.YobMod 22:56, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

arbitrary section break

Let's see; I have brought forward three sources that mention that colloidal silver can have dangerous side-effects:

• SEVENTY CASES OF GENERALIZED ARGYROSIS FOLLOWING ORGANIC AND COLLOIDAL SILVER MEDICATION, INCLUDING A BIOSPECTROMETRIC ANALYSIS OF TEN CASES, Journal of the American Medical Association, 1935
• ARGYRIA RESULTING FROM INTRANASAL MEDICATION, Archives of Otalaryngoly, 1940
• Systemic argyria associated with ingestion of colloidal silver, Dermatology Online Journal, 2005

Although there are likely not the most reputable sources, they are reputable enough to establish, in the absence of contradiction sources, the fact that the view that colloidal silver can have dangerous side-effects is the mainstream medical-academic view. The Journal of the American Medical Association must be among the most reputable medical journals that there are in the U.S. But what do these editors do? One is saying, quote: "I will not listen to here-say.. I don't want editors to say 'This is the mainstream view', I want links to the sources so I can read them myself." The sources are here, please read them. The first 150 words that are provided from two articles for non-subscribers are sufficient. And by the way, Floydian, you started with aggressive comments the comment on the issue, remember:diff? Seeing that the topic of colloidal silver was discussed, I provided a link to a homepage, which in turn quotes 17 further sources. I would assume that any honest editor working on the article would a least take a look to see if the sources are useful, but Floydian failed to even notice. So, based on this encounter, I already was under the assumption that Floydian was trying to promote a fringe POV, and after I pointed it out to him, in this discussion, he, and DHawker, did not do anything to challenge this assumption, but reacted in a way which only increased my suspicion against them. It would have been simple for them to say: *Yes, you're right. The medical use of colloidal silver was discontinued in the 1940s because it can have dangerous side-effects, this is more important for the article than the in-vitro effects of colloidal silver.* , but they didn't. They reacted just as you would expect it from someone who cannot accept the fact that colloidal silver can have dangerous side-effects. Of course, if they cannot accept what reputable academic sources have to say, then it would not make much sense to attempt a discussion with them about the due weight that would have to be given to studies on the in-vitro effects of colloidal silver in the article. That said, I could of course search for more reputable sources on the side-effects of colloidal silver. I would need between 10 and 60 minutes to find the next one, however, this would currently not change anything. Floydian and DHawker have not even attempted yet to find a reputable source for the view that colloidal silver does not have any dangerous side-effects, so I am leading 3:0 anyway; and even if I had more sources, that would not change their attitude. As I said: For a meaningful discussion you need some common ground (which on Wikipedia is provided, among other, by wp:rs). Since Floydian and DHawker have openly rejected a discussion of the topic based on Wikipedia's common ground, the should not be editing the corresponding article. Zara1709 (talk) 18:58, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Zara. Have you even read the article? The article is FULL of comments about the side effects. Theres a section in the article specifically called 'Adverse Effects'. Most of the 30+ references in the article are about the side effect argyria. No-one could possibly read the article and conclude colloidal silver is harmless. What more do you want? (And this discussion is over as far as I'm concerned) DHawker (talk) 22:15, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Great, you have finally conceded that point, and admit that colloidal silver can have dangerous side-effects. So now we can move forward in the discussion, although we would still need to clarify why Floydian felt it necessary to understate these side-effects. I mean, even as purely a skin-discolouration, argyria is certainly not cosmetic and harmless. Here are the quotes from the literature: " All these [15] children [who suffer from argyria as a result of taking colloidal silver] will present throughout their lives a conspicuous and permanent bluish or slate-gray discoloration that will select them as objects of whispered comments by friends and strangers." (JAMA); " The physician who has seen even a single victim of full-blown argyrosis, with its typical generalized pigmentation of the skin, giving the patient a bronzed blue or slate color which has been described aptly as the appearance of a corpse suddenly come to life, ..." (Arch Otolaryngol) The author of the second article explicitly says that taking silver-containing nasal medication might result in making you look like a zombie - albeit more poetically. All the medical articles I've read so far contain such dire warnings, some are more, some are less explicit.

Since we now can proceed to discussing the article content - what does the article make of this? If you take a systematic approach to the article colloidal silver, the first big problem is that it does not identify the most reputable sources. Ideally, most articles would have a section "Literature" or "Further Reading"; those sections are provided for the readers, too, of course, but they have an important purpose for editors - they identify the most reputable sources, which one would have to read if one intends to do more work on the article and which are the are needed to structure any discussion on due weight and balancing, in short, on NPOV. Because THESE DISCUSSIONS, to say that again, ARE NOT SUPPOSED TO BATTLES BETWEEN EDITORS OF DIFFERENT POVs. The article should follow the most reputable sources in presenting the various POVs, and therefore a discussion on NPOV has to based on reliable sources, too.

After this general justification of our approach, what can we say on the controversy of this case? Let's take a look at this edit, for example. Floydian had removed the mentioning of the adverse side-effects and apparent lack of effectiveness of colloidal silver from the lead section, and Verbal restored it. Considering that the reputable sources I had found all prominently warn against the use of colloidal silver, for its ineffectiveness and dangerous side-effects, it would violate wp:NPOV not to mention this in the lead section, and Vernal was right in restoring the statement. We don't need to discuss the question whether Verbal could have justified his edits better. I think this discussion has given ample evidence to support the view that Floydian is unable to conduct a discussion based on reliable sources, so regardless of the approach Verbal would have taken in the issue, there is no way a meaningful discussion could have been achieved.

Well, it's not my task to come to a decision on this issue. I have good reasons to suspect that Floydian is trying to push a fringe POV, but then again, in my personal experience it takes several months to successfully take down one of this kind - and honestly, I don't have that much time for Wikipedia any more. (It was interesting to see, though, that there actually might be a workable strategy to identify these editors.) Seeing that the article is currently unprotected, I think we could try with: *Let's hope that the edit wars on this article don't continue* - if not, there will be another thread on this article on the noticeboards anyway. Zara1709 (talk) 18:59, 30 October 2009 (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.

User:Ludvikus revisited

Ludvikus indef blocked by Moreschi. Abecedare (talk) 02:34, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Ludvikus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) appears not to be abiding by what he agreed to at the close of Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive568#Historical revisionism: User:North Shoreman & User:Philip Baird Shearer v. User:Ludvikus, namely this post. Whether it's because he doesn't understand what he agreed to here there and to the unblocking admin, User:PhilKnight, or he is intentionally violating what he agreed to, is unclear. Another editor, User:Loremaster in off-wiki and on-wiki correspondance, has requested that Ludvikus be banned. I'm not sure that's necessary, yet, but something needs to be done. It's not easy to find, as he archives his talk page after only 24 hours, but the history of his talk page makes it clear that, even after the last ANI link referred to above, he believes he can do anything unless there's consensus against his actions, which he defines as a majority opposing his actions, including himself as approving his actions. The locus of the present dispute is New World Order (conspiracy theory) and a few other articles related to New World Order and to conspiracy theory. Normally, I would think a topic ban might be sufficient, but it seems to me that, considering his edit history, the problems would likely occur anywhere he edited a controversial article. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:11, 27 October 2009 (UTC) Comment. Quote: Thank you for your note. All three of you are fine editors that unfortunately cannot see eye to eye. I am going to do a little more research and see if I can come up with something that would be helpful to all. Sincerely Ludvikus I am sorry you have to continue facing personal attacks from these users. I don't know how you manage to maintain your level head in all of this. I would be pretty upset if I were you. I am heading to the library right now, but I will catch up with you on the article talk. - 4twenty42o (talk) 17:10, 27 October 2009 (UTC) That's my response. I've followed every rule of Wikipedia. But am the victim of one editor, and his side kik, while the consensus is in my favor. --Ludvikus (talk) 17:19, 27 October 2009 (UTC) Comment. I, User:Loremaster, have been contributing to Wikipedia for over 5 years. During this time, I have improved the quality of numerous articles from a relatively neutral point of view despite my secular rational humanist perspective. The fact that some of these articles appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article demonstrates my general knowledge and respect for Wikipedia guidelines and standards. And I have been praised for my work by people from both sides of any given issue. However, I have also had to endure every violation of behavioral guidelines one can imagine including insults, personal attacks, threats, and harassement but I'm still here despite all that abuse. That being said, regardless of how diplomatic Ludvikus might be, his comments on the Talk:New World Order (conspiracy theory) page (all the damning ones have been archived) have convinced me (and probably a few reasonable observers of our discussions) that he is an extremely disruptive editor who, despite his good intentions and occasional constructive edits/suggestions, can seriously damage the quality of the New World Order (conspiracy theory) article and other articles he has taken interest in if he has his way. I think he should be permanently banned from Wikipedia because he insists on revamping articles despite the fact that he 1) confesses to being ignorant of the subject of articles he takes interest in, 2) confesses to not having read nor understood these articles in their entirety, 3) doesn't know or understand basic Wikipedia guidelines, 4) is an extremely bad editor when it comes to style, and, most important of all, 5) can't be reasoned with. Mea culpa: I am guilty of repeatedly engaging in personal attacks against him due to my frustration over not knowing how to get through to him. I therefore sincerely apologize to him and the entire Wikipedia community. --Loremaster (talk) 17:36, 27 October 2009 (UTC) Comment. I'd suggest that Ludvikus get at least break from articles to do with The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, broadly construed. Their focus is too intense for them to take a step back and see what others are saying, and perhaps they need some time to edit other articles to gain more familiarity with less heated subject matter. I am involved with Ludvikus, but not in relation to the article in question. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 17:55, 27 October 2009 (UTC) Comment. I only notified User:Ludvikus and User:Loremaster. User:PhilKnight, the admin who unblocked Ludvikus most of the way through his 2 year block, suggested I post here. If anyone wishes to notify the blocking admin or the participants in the last ANI thread, please go ahead. I have a browser incompatibility which prevents me from using WP:AWB, which together with WP:TWINKLE, are the only local semi-bots I have. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:00, 27 October 2009 (UTC) Comment. My comment above was left on Ludvikus' talk page and it applies here as well. I have an opinion but I do not feel that it is my place to state them until I have all of the facts. I am on my way out of the house but I will revisit this topic when I get done with my research. - 4twenty42o (talk) 18:11, 27 October 2009 (UTC) Comment Myself also being a major participant in recent discussions involving this editor, it is my observation that Ludvikus has been the target of repeated personal attacks as well as what could be construed as hounding. Much of this appears to stem from Ludvicus' multitude of proposals, many of which appear to be made with (putting it softly,) a less than complete understanding of the topic of discussion, or of Wikipedia Policies and Guidelines. In response to these stressful conditions, Ludvikus has, in my opinion, behaved exceptionally. Ludvikus has actively avoided responding with personal attacks;he's shown the capacity to understand arguments backed by policy, and modify his own arguments accordingly; he's shown the capacity to offer and accept compromise; and he's shown the capacity to back down when consensus is obviously against him. I'd love for Ludvikus to take greater care in reading and understanding guidelines and policies, and take more time in reading, understanding, and responding to arguments against his positions. But I fail to see any need for administrative action against him. -Verdatum (talk) 19:48, 27 October 2009 (UTC) Although I reject the over-the-top accusation of "hounding", I actually agree with Verdatum that Ludvikus has in fact behaved exceptionally in response to my repeated personal attacks (which I maintain where justified but unacceptable according to Wikipedia behavioral guidelines). However, I strongly disagree with the notion that Ludvikus has truly shown the capacity to back down when consensus is obviously against him. Putting aside the fact that User:Arthur Rubin has been repeatedly trying to explain to him the Wikipedia concept of consensus to no avail, Ludvikus has in fact shown the tendency to back down temporarily only to come back days or weeks later to argue the same discredited point as if the previous conversations had never happened all the while claiming that the consensus is in his favor when it was in fact against him. --Loremaster (talk) 20:06, 27 October 2009 (UTC) Hounding claim made in relation to this edit/thread, nothing to do with Loremaster. -Verdatum (talk) 22:06, 27 October 2009 (UTC) The extent of my "hounding" Ludvikus is that his Talk page is on my watchlist and I reminded him of his promise to avoid confrontations. So long as I'm being accused of hounding him, I might as well mention that I'm a member of WikiProject Jewish history, so I was informed that The Protocols of the Elders of Zion was undergoing featured article review and I commented on it. Ludvikus is one of the main reasons that article is going to lose its FA status. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 22:35, 27 October 2009 (UTC) User:Ludvikus revisited (arbitrary break 1) Comment My apologies for the delay in a more detailed response. I have been watching the New World Order article for quite some time now and until now I have remained pretty silent on the matter due to my total lack of knowledge on the subject. However, as this is a controversial topic, that attracts much attention, I have been spending more time researching the topic. To make myself clear to all, Ludvikus and I are not acquainted at all but I am stepping up here to say this. I reverted an edit that USER:Loremaster apparently made using an IP sock in which his edit summary he referred to Ludvikus as a "disruptive editor". That in itself seemed to be a personal attack against Ludvikus. I reverted the changes and asked others to reach a consensus before any more reversions and was ignored. The topic is a conspiracy "theory". In other words no one has the facts, because they do not exists out right. Loremaster appears to be trying to own this article to the point that any edit or suggestion not made by him or others that he "trusts" is reverted or ignored. This is all my opinion and as an open mined individual I am open to others interpretations. However hounding Ludvikus and attempting to have him banned is just plain wrong. While Ludvikus obviously has some issues with how the article is written, he also appears to want to reach a consensus. I have not and will not troll through every little comment and point fingers at anyone. Nor will I stand by and allow comments like the one Loremaster or the anon IP (presuming they are one in the same) made go unnoticed. As a testament to his integrity Ludvikus has not reported the apparent use of a sock by Loremaster nor has be reported (to my knowledge) the verbal abuse he has suffered from multiple editors. I have no agenda or personal qualms with the article or the editors, I am simply pointing out that out of Ludvikus' many faults he appears to only edit in good faith and while his edits may very well be wrong (I don't believe anyone knows for sure) they are not malicious. - 4twenty42o (talk) 00:39, 28 October 2009 (UTC) Due to problems with my home computer, I often edit the New World Order conspiracy theory article anonymously from IP User:216.99.45.48. This is not a case of suck puppetry since I've informed most regular contributors of this article that I do this. So this is a non-issue. The fact that Ludvikus insists on revamping an article whose topic he confesses to be ignorant of and whose content he refuses to read while lacking a basic understanding of basic Wikipedia guidelines makes a disruptie editor. I revert Ludvikus' edits because New World Order conspiracy theory is a controversial topic that is be under dispute, which means that substantial changes must be discussed on the article's talk page before they are made. Ludvikus failed to do this. Putting aside the the world does contain facts that either support or refute claims made by conspiracy theorists, an encyclopedic article on New World Order conspiracy theory can only be on reliable sources which all happen to be academics and journalists who have studied this topic from a rational-skeptical perspective. I don't own the New World Order conspiracy theory article but I've openly declared my interest in collaborating with anyone in order to make the article well-written, comprehensive, factually accurate, neutral and stable enough for Good and Featured Article status. Unfortunately, this topic by its very nature attract many cranks who want to and have tried to edit the article in order to promote their pet conspiracy theories without ever supporting any of their claims with reliable sources (which is obviously impossible for them). This has obviously made me very protective of this article. However, when I've been accused of trying to own the New World Order conspiracy theory article in the past, User:Dougweller said on 29 July 2009: "I would use the word responsibility, not ownership. It's not a bad thing. I was wondering about it when [Loremaster] first arrived, but not now. In fact, I'm pleased someone is looking after this article, it needs it." Since 4twenty42o has not familiarized with all the disputes that Ludvikus has caused he no way of knowing that Ludvikus 1) confesses to being ignorant of the subject of articles he takes interest in, 2) confesses to not having read nor understood these articles in their entirety, 3) doesn't know or understand basic Wikipedia guidelines, 4) is an extremely bad editor when it comes to style, and, most important of all, 5) has demonstrated many times that he can't be reasoned with on some issues he comes fixated on. --Loremaster (talk) 06:04, 29 October 2009 (UTC) Comment I came upon Ludvikus when he appeared on my talkpage re some issue involving User:BrownHairedGirl (can't remember what the specific issue was). I suspect English isn't his mother tongue which may account for some of the eccentric editing and misunderstandings. At first I had no idea what he was complaining about but in fairness he was polite and calm when one made an attempt to understand what his point was. (He felt I was getting better treatment from an Admin than he had). I'd appeal for some allowance to be made for his poor English; Wiki isn't an English exam after all. More banning is not a proportionate response in this case. Sarah777 (talk) 00:49, 28 October 2009 (UTC) Comment I'm somewhat at a loss here. The problem with Ludvikus' activity on Wikipedia is much more complicated than the usual highly disruptive user. Ludvikus is a fabulous gatherer of information; I don't know why he's working here on Wikipedia, with its stringent rules against original research, rather than somewhere that he can work expansively and broadly in his areas of interests. But coordinating his particular style(s) with Wikipedia guidelines has proven to be very difficult, not in the least because of the prodigious number of edits he makes. He's hard to keep up with; I think if someone sat down with him (virtually or actually) and walked him through Wikipedia style guidelines, and how to follow them, the attempt could be successful. But that would take an enormous amount of time; I certainly am not going to volunteer to do that. When Ludvikus was banned for two years, a large part of it was because he was wasting the time of so many of our volunteers. A lot of editors simply give up on working in Ludvikus' fields of interest because it's so frustrating, leaving important articles such as The Protocols of the Elders of Zion in the hands of fewer editors than it needs. I've not much to say about Ludvikus' social awkwardness (to put it politely); I suspect he simply doesn't understand how his curiosity about the motivations of other editors is something that he really should keep to himself. In the meantime, he's damaging articles. Is this correctable? I'd hope so, but I'm skeptical. --jpgordon::==( o ) 02:35, 28 October 2009 (UTC) Comment - The diagnosis of 'wasting the time of other volunteers' seems apt, in the one case where I noticed Ludvikus' activities. He participated in the unblock discussion at User talk:Gaunkars of Goa. Though most any editor is welcome to join these discussions and give their opinion, he gave many signs that he didn't understand what was going on. This did not deter him from extensive participation (58 edits altogether) and adding general confusion. If he would listen to feedback, things would be different. It's hard to think of any action short of a ban of Ludvikus that would actually address the problem. EdJohnston (talk) 02:57, 28 October 2009 (UTC) Comment - I also was involved in the Gaunkars of Goa talk page discussion that EdJohnston refers to directly above. I was notified of this ANI discussion otherwise I wouldn't have seen this. Ludvikus didn't do anything in the Gaunkars of Goa discussion that should result in a ban or block. He merely wanted to discuss the possibility of unblock, which should take place for all blocked users, at least mentally. He finally concluded that the user's block was justified. An indefinite block is a very serious matter. Fixed term blocks, even lengthy ones, such as 1 year, seem to be not used much in Wikipedia so the next best thing is to allow discussion. I don't know Ludvikus in any other situation so I can't comment on those other complaints. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 18:16, 29 October 2009 (UTC) Comment - I'm completely uninvolved. I'm looking through his contribs and I'm not seeing any huge offense. What I see is maybe a large knot of miscommunication. I'm absolutely certain that continued discussion here - particularly for issues that are primarily content-oriented - will be, in hindsight, a giant waste of time. Xavexgoem (talk) 03:18, 28 October 2009 (UTC) If you look in Archive 3 of Talk:New World Order (conspiracy theory), you will find that the problem is far greater than mere miscommunication. Ludvikus insists on revamping the New World Order conspiracy theory article when he 1) confesses to being ignorant of the subject of this article, 2) confesses to not having read nor understood the article in its entirety before critiquing it, 3) doesn't know or understand basic Wikipedia guidelines, 4) is an extremely bad editor when it comes to style, and, most important of all, 5) has demonstrated many times that he can't be reasoned with on some issues he comes fixated on. --Loremaster (talk) 06:16, 29 October 2009 (UTC) Comment: "Arthur Rubin" - "overdue for recall": [52] "about this much-blocked admin": Arthur Rubin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)--Ludvikus (talk) 04:25, 28 October 2009 (UTC) The blocks listed in Arthur Rubin's block log were over a year ago - why do you think it is appropriate to dig that up now? Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:06, 28 October 2009 (UTC) It seems fair enough. Ludvikus's 2-year block was over a year ago, too. If he hadn't continued the same sort of activities which led to the block, we wouldn't be discussing the matter here. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:35, 28 October 2009 (UTC) Not quite; his block lasted until last month - yours expired last year closer to the time at which it was imposed. Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:22, 28 October 2009 (UTC) Comment - I only know of Ludvikus from the Protocols article, so my comments reflect that limitation. It may be true that Protocols was considered as featured article quality, but it was not a good article. It had a lot of rigid assertions from traditional sources and essentially ignored modern scholarship as by Hagemeister and De Michelis. It badly needs someone like Ludvikus to bring it up to date. It isn't there yet. Ludvikus has a uniquely intense style that is hard to keep up with, and he doesn't take kindly to ignorants, but I don't see any cause for sanctions. Zerotalk 09:31, 28 October 2009 (UTC) Comment. I do not think reimposing the ban on Ludvikus is justified at this time. Regarding The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, this is the one area where Ludvikus is actually doing something useful - before his unban, the article had degenerated very badly. I encouraged Ludvikus to do something about this, and after some initial reluctance, he is doing so. Please do not ban him from The Protocols of the Elders of Zion and related articles. Ludvikus would be easier to work with if he learned to use the sandbox and show preview more often to develop his edits. The only times when I have felt Ludvikus should be banned were when he made unjustified accusations of anti-semitism against me. He has apologised and said that he was mistaken. If he starts making this kind of unfounded accusation again, by all means ban him. But he is not doing it now, so it is not justified to ban him now.--Toddy1 (talk) 09:17, 28 October 2009 (UTC) Comment I haven't the slightest clue as to what's happening. I need to be briefed, as sorting through all this, would take me the rest of this month. GoodDay (talk) 14:21, 28 October 2009 (UTC) Comment I have always found Ludvikus to be very polite in his dealings with me. I do not feel he should be banned from Wikipedia.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:24, 28 October 2009 (UTC) Comment I don't think there's really much doubt in my mind that Ludvikus is generally polite in his dealings - at least the discussions on my talkpage have certainly been that way He even gave me an admin barnstar, even though I have yet to pass an RfA. I have seen his interactions on a variety of pages where he can get frustrated when he feels he's being dismissed - and I have seen other editors frustrated when Ludvikus "just doesn't get it." Really, he needs guidance more than anything, as I do not think he's trying to be disruptive, he's quite genuinely trying to help. None of his actions so far that I have seen since his return have been truly disruptive, more ... näive ... for lack of a better word. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:55, 28 October 2009 (UTC) Comment I don't think he should be banned since he is trying to help the project. I agree that in general people need to learn how to work better and get along better, that's all of us. Steve Dufour (talk) 17:24, 28 October 2009 (UTC) Perhaps a mentor would help. He has shown he doesn't understand WP:CONSENSUS, what constitutes a personal attack, (or, in fact, most Wikipedia policies and guidelines), but it's possible that he could be a net gain to Wikipedia if someone could explain to him what he's doing wrong in a way he could understand. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:16, 28 October 2009 (UTC) What would help, Arthur, since you're an administrator, would have been if you had put a stop to the dementor who had summoned you in the first place. It appears that you are saying that what I experienced were not WP:Personal attacks, when in fact the person who inflicted them has apologized for them to me above. I therefore I find it impossible to believe in your WP:Good faith. What I need from you is a demonstration of your Good Faith. Have, or have I, or have I not been, submitted to an incredible amount of Personal Attacks, which you witnessed, but did nothing to stop? If you admit that fact - that you did nothing to stop that, we can all move forward for the Good of Wikipedia. It takes an incredible amount of will power not to respond in kind. It's exhausting, provocative, and disruptive. And you now are trying to tell me that I do not know the meaning of personal attacks. It's infuriating to hear that from you - a Wikipedia Administrator! --Ludvikus (talk) 20:04, 28 October 2009 (UTC) This is what I expect from you, Arthur Rubin, to enforce everywhere you appear because you're an Administrator: "Civility is part of Wikipedia's code of conduct, one of Wikipedia's five pillars. The civility policy is a standard of conduct, that sets out how Wikipedia editors should interact: editors should always endeavor to treat each other with consideration and respect. Even during heated debates, editors should behave politely, calmly and reasonably, in order to keep the focus on improving the encyclopedia and to help maintain a pleasant editing environment. This policy applies to all editing on Wikipedia, including user pages, talk pages, edit summaries, and any other discussion with or about fellow Wikipedians." Question1: Is that Arthur Rubin what I cannot get where you appear as an editor and Administrator? Is that what I do not understand? --Ludvikus (talk) 20:20, 28 October 2009 (UTC) Comment He reminds me a lot of User:Badagnani, and a little of User:Fabartus: prolific, passionate, and in constant personality-clashes and policy-disagreements. The most clueful thing I've read about these 'types' of contributors, is User:GTBacchus/A recurring problem (recommended reading). There is no easy solution. A mentor is probably the only way forward, but I doubt it would work unless attempted in-person (wiki-conversations are too disjointed and glacially-paced to change stubborn worldviews.). His subjects of interest seem to be mostly controversial/charged, which doesn't help matters. [Disclaimer: I haven't interacted with him in years, and have not looked into any of his recent edits. I am responding here to his canvassed request on my talkpage. Consider this an outside/abstract view.] -- Quiddity (talk) 20:26, 28 October 2009 (UTC) Question2: Arthur Rubin can you explain this to me: "I therefore sincerely apologize to him and the entire Wikipedia community." Why is User:Loremaster apologizing to me? Does she have anything to apologize for? You're the Administrator who was intimately involved it the editing. Is there something about her apology you wish to clarify as it relates to Personal Attacks (which you say I do not understand)? --Ludvikus (talk) 20:33, 28 October 2009 (UTC) Although I have apologize for some personal attacks (such as when I called you an “idiot”), when I'm arguing that the cause of one of our disputes is that you don't understand basic Wikipedia guidelines and I actually provide evidence that you don't, this is not a personal attack as much as it is discussing a problem. --Loremaster (talk) 07:47, 29 October 2009 (UTC) User:Ludvikus revisited (arbitrary break 2) Comment: User:216.99.45.48 = User:Loremaster. This has been another problem. Loremaster maintains that he's not a WP:Sockpuppet. But at the same time I'm accused of not knowing basic guidelines because I've computed the Consensus correctly. But there has not been more than 3 or 4 editors around at any given period of hours. So the fact the editor who "owns" this article must not be counted twice has a significant bearing here. Why Arthur Rubin refuses to acknowledge this issue is beyond my comprehension. --Ludvikus (talk) 21:29, 28 October 2009 (UTC) Due to problems with my home computer, I often edit the New World Order conspiracy theory article anonymously from IP User:216.99.45.48. This is not a case of suck puppetry since I've informed most regular contributors of this article that I do this. So this is a non-issue. --Loremaster (talk) 06:28, 29 October 2009 (UTC) Comment. In my opinion, Ludvikus has repeatedly violated the promises he made in his unblock request a month ago, and any admin would be justified in restoring the 2 year block, which has another 7 months to go. I have suggested to PhilKnight, the unblocking admin, that he do so, but I believe that given the clear violation of promises, any other admin could equally well do so. (I am totally uninvolved beyond being annoyed by all this unnecessary drama.) Looie496 (talk) 23:18, 28 October 2009 (UTC) To clarify, just because I unblocked, it doesn't imply that I get to decide whether he should be reblocked. PhilKnight (talk) 23:31, 28 October 2009 (UTC) Clarification: This is merely a dispute between two editors, myself and User:Arthur Rubin whose been also editing New World Order (conspiracy theory). I believe that editor User:Loremaster and I are working things out at the moment on that page. To be Blocked because of a difference of opinion with one editor for two years, while that editor was himself blocked for 24 hours severral times is excessive. I think this "drama" is caused by Arthur Rubin - not me. Why should I be blocked for what he himself has caused? Loosie, what's your beef? Did you get up on the wrong side of the bed this morning? Why must I suffer such an indignity from you [53]? --Ludvikus (talk) 23:41, 28 October 2009 (UTC) Sorry, but this is not "merely a dispute between two editors". If that were the case, it would be easy enough to deal with. It's not just about one article. It is, however, about just one person: you. It is about the behavior of one person: you. I'm glad that there are people who have worked with you and not felt the pain many other of us have. Your characterization of your earlier block is also incorrect; it was not the work of one person -- it was the action of one person, supported by the community. It doesn't matter whether someone who has blocked you has himself been blocked; that's not what this is about. --jpgordon::==( o ) 01:05, 29 October 2009 (UTC) Nothing is being worked out. I'm simply compromising on some minor issues because I'm tired on the toll these disputes are having on my mood in the real word offline the past few weeks. Let me repeat: I can provide evidence (from Archive 3 of Talk:New World Order (conspiracy theory)) Ludvikus insists on revamping the New World Order conspiracy theory article when he 1) confesses to being ignorant of the subject of this article, 2) confesses to not having read nor understood the article in its entirety before critiquing it(!), 3) doesn't know or understand basic Wikipedia guidelines, 4) is an extremely bad editor when it comes to style, and, most important of all, 5) has demonstrated many times that he can't be reasoned with on some issues he comes fixated on. I cannot and will not collaborate with someone like this. Short of having him banned, the only compromise that I am willing to accept is Ludvikus taking a break from editing the New World Order conspiracy theory article until he can demonstrate that he 1) has read the article in it's entirety, 2) has read some of the primary reliable sources on which the article is based on, 3) has been mentored enough that he understands basic Wikipedia guidelines related to the disputes we keep having. --Loremaster (talk) 06:38, 29 October 2009 (UTC) Comment: I feel a sort of a cognitive dissonance reading complains about Ludvikus. On one hand many people whose judgment I trust complain that he is a strong drain of resources, almost a troll and reading this as an admin I feel an urge to block the disruptor. On the other hand I as editor collaborated with Ludvikus a lot, mostly about Russian biographies, establishments and periodicals somehow related to the history of the Protocols (many biographies were potentially quite controversial: the people can be seen as evil Anti-Semites by some readers and estimated religious figures, even recognized as saints or heroes of the anti-Bolshevik resistance to other readers). From my own experience I can certify that Ludvikus has been very easy and fun to work with, he is very enthusiastic, and IMHO a great asset to Wikipedia. Some of his work on verification of the Russian 19th century and early 20th century primary sources had some OR elements but IMHO was useful and still within the wiki-pale. In short, as an editor I feel the need to praise and protect Ludvikus. I do not how to consolidate those two surges. I propose myself as a mentor of Ludvikus or as a mediator in Ludvikus-related conflicts if this would help. As a side note, because for some reasons (completely unrelated to Ludvikus) I am not working for the project as intensively as I used to so I might need a co-mentor if I am accepted as a Ludvikus mentor Alex Bakharev (talk) 00:14, 29 October 2009 (UTC) Comment. I am not all surprised that there are many people who have come to Ludvikus's defense. I probably would have been one of them if my interaction with him had stopped after our first discussions on the Talk:Conspiracy theory page. However, our disputes on the archived Talk:New World Order (conspiracy theory) page have destroyed the good first impression I had of him. After spending a year meticulously expanding and improving an article, is there anyone here that would collaborate with someone who insists on revamping this article when he or she not only confesses to being ignorant of the subject of this article but stubbornly refuses to read the article in its entirety before critiquing it?!? It got so bad that I started wondering if I was getting punked!--Loremaster (talk) 07:02, 29 October 2009 (UTC) Loremaster, don't get me wrong - I can fully understand the toll that your interactions with Ludvikus can take. If he was someone who I worked with in real life, I'd be exasperated at times. If he has a distinct task, he'll work well on them - personal interactions however can be a challenge. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:44, 29 October 2009 (UTC) Comment. User:Alex Bakharev, you are such a gentleman. I have a very nice impression of working with you in translating the Russian of Serge Nilus for The Protocols article years ago. I don't know exactly what being a "Mentor" means, but to have you as one of them - that would be 100% fine by me. And it would be great if I could find someone else too. I just do not know how to handle such (I'm not going to characterize the editor) an editor as User:Loremaster. I have a vast knowledge of Western history, and certainly that of my own country, the United States of America, and although I haven't read all the NWO conspiracists, neither has User:Loremaster, and to portray me here as effectively ignorant, is now a milder form of a Personal Attack. This Content-dispute is between myself and Loremaster, and for reason known only to him, Administrator User:Arthur Rubin supports Loremaster something like 95% of the time. I've sought the explicit advise of User:Jpgordon. But all he told me was seek Consensus. So there are other editors at New World Order (conspiracy theory) (and I've taken that into account into the computation of Consensus, as required). Therefore, the consensus is not in the favor of Arthur Rubin and Loremaster - I've been extremely cautious about that. Furthermore, the article's Consensus computation has been complicated by the fact that User Loremaster uses another, numbered account. Having discovered that I commuted the Consensus accordingly. Unfortunately, Arthur Rubin refuses to acknowledge this discrepancy, and insists on announcing, falsely that I do not know what consensus means. I think it means that a User should not be counted TWICE just because he has another account. I am deeply disappointed in Administrator User:Jpgordon for not coming to my defense since this is precisely the issue involved here. I've learned a great deal about Wikipedia since my return - that's why I have so many wonderful editors coming to my defense here now. But that Administrator Jpgordon does not see this is a deep, deep, disappointment to me personally. --Ludvikus (talk) 10:11, 29 October 2009 (UTC) Due to problems with my home computer, I often edit the New World Order conspiracy theory article anonymously from IP User:216.99.45.48. This is not a case of suck puppetry since I've informed most regular contributors of this article that I do this. I have never used an anonymous IP to misinform people about consensus. Only comments on a talk page are taken into account when trying to determine consensus and I've never posted anonymously on this talk page. Even if I wanted to, the browser on my home computer prevents me from editing Wikipedia talk page. What I have done is revert your edits anonymously with an edit summary that was too brief, which created confusion in the mind of 4twenty42o since he is unfamiliar with our disputes. This has obviously nothing to with Ludvikus's convoluted understanding of Wikipedia's concept of consensus. I rest my case. --Loremaster (talk) 16:31, 29 October 2009 (UTC) (ecx2 - please use the PREVIEW button) Ludvikus, can I say that you're sometimes the author of your own "issues". Earlier in this section you stated that Arthur Rubin is waaaay overdue for admin recall. When you're having issues, that's the wrong path to take. Imagine being mugged, and when the police come to investigate you keep saying "you cops are assholes" - how much help are you going to get? Well, you're here, the issue is being investigated, and you're claiming police brutality ... that's not good for your cause. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:23, 29 October 2009 (UTC) But Arthur Rubin is a third editor of this article. Don't you see the WP:Conflict of Interest? In my opinion he's 1,000 time more of the problem - because he encouraged the Personal Attacks of Loremaster - by doing noting about it. Haven't you heard of corrupt cops? --Ludvikus (talk) 10:35, 29 October 2009 (UTC) Yes. I'm quite convinced of that. In my opinion, I think I can work things out with User:Loremaster. I don't have any problem with any other editor that I think I cannot solve - if you could only get Arthur Rubin off my back. --Ludvikus (talk) 10:39, 29 October 2009 (UTC) In the real world, the thing to do is to keep your mouth shot while in police custody, get the conviction thrown out of court, expunge the record, and after all that, file a Police Report for police brutality (it does exist, doesn't it?). Accordingly, notice the confession and apology at the very top of this page - the admission by Loremaster of having engaged in personal attacks upon me. Had Loremaster not done that, I might have been able to adopt to his idiosyncrasies. So the question is (or should be) what did editor Arthur Rubin do to put a stop to that extremely disruptive Personal Attacks? Not really "nothing." He decide to place my name on this Noticeboard. My understanding is that our founder, Jimbo Wales, maintains that an Administrator is merely another editor, but with special privileges. According, IMHO, the problem here is just one editor - Arthur Rubin. --Ludvikus (talk) 10:57, 29 October 2009 (UTC) Comment -I think some sort of mentorship for Ludvikus is a worthwhile idea, so if Alex Bakharev is volunteering, I guess we should take him up on his kind offer. I think also that if Alex becomes Ludvikus's mentor, he should be able to add articles to the list of those which Ludvikus should avoid. PhilKnight (talk) 13:27, 29 October 2009 (UTC) Question: But if he becomes my mentor, why would there be a need for any articles for me to avoid? --Ludvikus (talk) 13:44, 29 October 2009 (UTC) NO. You still have previous article restrictions that were placed on you. Continue to live by those. I would hazard a guess that the requirement for a mentor has delayed your return to those other articles. I truly hope that we're going to end up with a positive ending on this whole thing...please. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 18:00, 29 October 2009 (UTC) Because I cannot and will not collaborate with someone like you because of the reasons I have explained. --Loremaster (talk) 16:46, 29 October 2009 (UTC) Observation: At the moment the article in question here, New World Order (conspiracy theory), there's an editor I'm trying to calm down because he's the victim of Loremaster's characterization of him as a "crank." His name is User:Batvette. And he's additional proof that User:Loremaster is not on the side of the Consensus, as User:Jpgordon emphasized we should follow. This user is extremely upset by being depicted as a "crank" by User Loremaster. Nevertheless, he has raised an excellent point there: that C. Wright Mills had written a book, in 1956, titled The Power Elite. The point being made - implicitly - is that it's far too easy to dismiss critics as conspiracists when they question our democracy. Another example is Noam Chomsky. Unfortunately, User:Arthur Rubin has done nothing - and is still not doing anything - to protect this user from the Personal Attacks which he's being subjected to at this moment by User:Loremaster. --Ludvikus (talk) 15:31, 29 October 2009 (UTC) Putting aside the fact that I stand by my accusation that User:Batvette is a crank, Ludvikus's comments proves again that he doesn't understand the concept of consensus which obviously has nothing to do with the dispute I am having with Batvette. --Loremaster (talk) 16:46, 29 October 2009 (UTC) Then please explain it to me. I'd be extremely grateful for it. And immediately apologize to you for anything due to my misunderstanding. But this general characterization is typical of my interaction with you, User Loremaster. Please, please, be specific, so I could possibly learn from your clarification. --Ludvikus (talk) 17:46, 29 October 2009 (UTC) I am NOT going to get sucked into another absurd debate with you. I am simply refuting claims you make so that people know the facts before making a judgment as to whether or not you should be banned. --Loremaster (talk) 18:19, 29 October 2009 (UTC) And isn't calling another user (not me), in Good standing, a "crank," a WP:Personal Attack? --Ludvikus (talk) 18:06, 29 October 2009 (UTC) Yes it is a personal attack, which I do not apologize for, because it is justified in light of documented history of cranky behavior by this individual. That being said, it is inappropriate to drag Batvette into this since this discussion is about whether or not YOU should be banned. --Loremaster (talk) 18:19, 29 October 2009 (UTC) But in fact, at this very moment, it is you User:Loremaster who are causing Disruption on the page in question by clottering it with your vicious attacks on User:Batvette, so it is You who should be banned, and I should be given an appropriate Wikipedia:Barnster for defending Wikipedia against you, and defending User:Batvette against the same general sort of Personal Attacks I've experienced from you. You make working at Wikipedia a very miserable place. And my compassion goes to User:Batvette: [54]. (outdent) As the concept of banning Ludvikus seems to have flown out the window long ago (by consensus), I recommend you stop focusing on that, and focus on the mentoring concept at hand. Continuing to float that idea is merely raising Ludvikus' objections - pretty standard operating procedures from most of his interactions, unless you failed to notice. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 18:29, 29 October 2009 (UTC) I assumed that the final judgement of administrators (which seems to not have been expressed yet) was more important than a consensus by editors who are not really familiar with the disputes around the New World Order conspiracy talk page. That being said, if the conclusion of all of this is that Ludvikus will be mentored and prevented from editing the New World Order conspiracy theory article, I can accept and live with that. --Loremaster (talk) 18:56, 29 October 2009 (UTC) With Mentoring, there will not be any need for preventing me from editing the article which you currently own. The most essential element of my Mentoring should be to teach me how to handle editors like you. I have absolutely no idea about that. I cannot understand what principle of Wikipedia permits you to get away with using the Talk page of the NWO CT to prove that User:Batvette is a "crank." That's one of the first things I would like to be Mentored in. I remember that it took me quite a while to establish that I was not a "crank" (in your judging eyes). And it was an infuriating uphill battle. --Ludvikus (talk) 19:13, 29 October 2009 (UTC) I will always remained convinced that you are exactly what I judge you to be. Everything you have said on this page has only reinforced my opinion. That being said, we have both made our cases. Let's now both shut up and wait for the final judgement. --Loremaster (talk) 19:26, 29 October 2009 (UTC) User:Ludvikus revisited (arbitrary break 3) Comment. I think a lot of people who have experience with Ludvikus and praise his knowledge but think this altercation is distracting should realize that it wouldn't be that way except he made the mistake of attempting to contribute to a page whose primary editor makes no bones about attempting article ownership at any cost. I've been subjected to some of the most abusive behaviour possible that he in turn claimed was justified by a misrepresented assessment of my beliefs, and a claim that I had a history of vicious personal attacks on him that when pushed to produce turned out to be completely false. He feels he has the right to assess the intents and personal beliefs of any potential editors and if they disagree on the article's presentation or content, misrepresent them as a "crank" and prevent them from contributing to the page. He tried that angle with Ludvikus and as you can see he will not be satisfied until he can keep him away from "his" page. Contrary to the notion the page as it stood was by "consensus" many potential editors (as shown in the archives of spring and summer) had a problem with the way the article addressed the issues and rather than attempt to work with or educate anyone he'd rather rudely run them off. Yes the article has improcved greatly but if that were the sole purpose of wiki we'd just call it Encyclopedia B-youknowtheone and print it up and tell everyone to keep their hands off. Summarizing, I can see from my perspective Ludvikus is kind of a PITA. However so is the guy he is arguing with and if there is a big differencce it's that one is incredibly rude and abusive and really won't let anyone near "his" article and the other is not. My 2 cents. Batvette (talk) 19:28, 29 October 2009 (UTC) I'm not going to fall in the trap of arguing with Batvette. Reasonable people who want to get a full picture of who this individual is can simply read all (not just some) his comments in the Archive 3 of the Talk:New World Order (conspiracy theory) page. That being said, NO ONE has or can contradict the following 3 facts: Ludvikus has insisted in the past on revamping the New World Order (conspiracy theory) article despite the fact that he 1) confesses to being ignorant of the subject of New World Order conspiracism, 2) confesses to not having read nor understood the article in its entirety, 3) doesn't know or understand basic Wikipedia guidelines. As for the repeated accusation that I act as if I own the New World Order conspiracy theory article, User:Dougweller said it best on 29 July 2009 when he said: "I would use the word responsibility, not ownership. It's not a bad thing. I was wondering about it when [Loremaster] first arrived, but not now. In fact, I'm pleased someone is looking after this article, it needs it." I rest my case. --Loremaster (talk) 19:39, 29 October 2009 (UTC) I thought you said we should both shut up? Since you didn't do that, I'd like to say (1) I'm now certain that I know more about said Subject than you do, and (2) obviously I could use some Mentoring because my understanding of Wiki policy is that you are in violation of it as enumerated above, yet you are being permitted to continue in your course of what appears to me improper WP behavior. I therefore could use Mentoring which would teach me how to handle editors like you, User:Loremaster. --Ludvikus (talk) 20:13, 29 October 2009 (UTC) I was replying to Batvette. When I talk about shutting up, I was referring to both of us engaging in discussion. The end. --Loremaster (talk) 20:29, 29 October 2009 (UTC) This is a perfect display of the problems an editor of the article in question(ludvikus or myself) faces when its owner (loremaster) sees someone wants to contribute to it. Rather than address any issues he (loremaster) goes straight to an ad hominem personal attack, groundless as he can only allude to some imagined heinous conduct on my part in an archive, assuming rightfully that nobody will take the time to go poring through an archive to figure out who batvette is and what his personal beliefs are, which of course is irrelevant. If you want to see what happens when pushed to provide examples see this-[[55]](see history of vicious personal attacks, LOL.) which he also expects no one to check. Why this editor thinks he can misrepresent someone to marginalize their ability to contribute to wiki is beyond me. As for Ludvikus being "ignorant", I think it's beyond saying he is of sufficient intelligence to have by now picked it up. The wiki policy page on article ownership does have such a tactic listed as example of how a problem editor will defend "his" page. It's just wrong. Batvette (talk) 20:42, 29 October 2009 (UTC) Exactly so, and, User:Loremaster, that - above - gave you an oppotunity to depict me as ignorant of the subject matter. This is in fact a Prime example of how you operate. You systematically attempt to depict those you disagree with, summarily as either "cranks" or "Ignoramuses" or simply "ignorant." Unfortunately, some believe what you say, while others are extremely Disrupted by such improper commentaries by you. My understanding of Wiki policy is that you should keep such observations to yourself. Or perhaps write a gentle comment on the Talk page of the User. Casual readers and editors do not need your help in being informed as to who is or is not a crank or ignorant by the clutter you produce on the Talk page of the article which you own. --Ludvikus (talk) 20:51, 29 October 2009 (UTC) At risk of hypocrisy I wanted to finish by addressing the relevant issue that Loremaster mentions- As for the repeated accusation that I act as if I own the New World Order conspiracy theory article, User:Dougweller said it best on 29 July 2009 when he said: "I would use the word responsibility, not ownership. It's not a bad thing. I was wondering about it when [Loremaster] first arrived, but not now. In fact, I'm pleased someone is looking after this article, it needs it." I rest my case. that's fine in context of the article being a magnet for CT vandals coming in and defacing it. However even if DougWeller is so impressed with you he puts a glass slipper on your foot and brings you home in a pumpkin at midnight, it doesn't affect Wiki policy on article ownership, which in the past your statements discouraging other editors could have been lifted verbatim off that policy page examples list. (as seen on archive page 3)It's rather bizarre to be so proud of a violation of wiki community policy which is of such a self centered nature. I feel the article can improve with the diversity of other editors reflected.Batvette (talk) 00:15, 30 October 2009 (UTC) Clarification: Batvette means that Loremaster is Cinderella, not me (but that's OK. I like Princesses better than Princes). --Ludvikus (talk) 00:42, 30 October 2009 (UTC) that is correct, blame my tendancy to use superfluous verbiage. Batvette (talk) 01:10, 30 October 2009 (UTC) Although I will never deny having engaged in personal attacks (which I believe were justified to expose some editors as being possible and actual sources of disruption), I have ALWAYS taken the time to logically reply and refute the convoluted arguments people like Batvette, and, to a lesser extent, Ludvikus, have made when it comes to their criticisms of the article or the proposed changes. People don't have to take my word for it! They can simply go through Archive 3 of the Talk:New World Order (conspiracy theory). I only have one question for Ludvikus: Have you publicly said that you refused to read the New World Order (conspiracy theory) article in it's entirety before criticizing it and proposed revamping it? YES or NO. --Loremaster (talk) 23:35, 30 October 2009 (UTC) From a discussion in Archive 3 of the Talk:New World Order (conspiracy theory): “ I agree with Arthur Rubin where he says "the article is now much less biased than it was previously, and none of your suggestions is even plausibly related to article improvement." and with his comment on YouTube. I would use the word responsibility, not ownership. It's not a bad thing. I was wondering about it when he first arrived, but not now. In fact, I'm pleased someone is looking after this article, it needs it. Loremaster's comments above are well said. Batvette is clearly not showing good faith towards Loremaster and needs to read WP:AGF as well as WP:NPOV which he either doesn't understand or does not agree with. And of course WP:Fringe which also applies here. I've already had to warn Batvette about personal attacks. Dougweller (talk) 08:03, 29 July 2009 (UTC) ” What wiki policy page addresses baseless accusations of personal attacks to discredit an editor and distract from a discussion? Loremaster did it repeatedly on the talk page and when pushed to produce them he was of course completely fabricating them. Now here you are with your own tired charade about ONE comment made months ago where I called his ARGUMENTS shifty and dishonest, and since they WERE the attempt to parse words then and repeat the allegation of personal attacks is nothing more than a personal attack on me by you. What, you can't find a current relevant issue and need to dig up ankle biting pettiness?Batvette (talk) 00:18, 31 October 2009 (UTC) User:Ludvikus revisited (arbitrary break 4) Question What were we talking about again? - 4twenty42o (talk) 00:44, 30 October 2009 (UTC) I can only speak for myself, just ensuring I have sufficiently indulged my petty and immature desires to defend myself from repeated unwarranted personal attacks, while avoiding the hypocrisy of appearing to only address that person, not the issue of article ownership. I'm done if everyone else is.Batvette (talk) 01:17, 30 October 2009 (UTC) From a discussion in Archive 3 of the Talk:New World Order (conspiracy theory): “ Batvette is clearly not showing good faith towards Loremaster and needs to read WP:AGF as well as WP:NPOV which he either doesn't understand or does not agree with. And of course WP:Fringe which also applies here. I've already had to warn Batvette about personal attacks. Dougweller (talk) 08:03, 29 July 2009 (UTC) ” --Loremaster (talk) 00:20, 31 October 2009 (UTC) Comment. Ludvikus : a) is polite (unlike two other editors mostly attacking him here, and quite often treating others with WP:PA's), b) is persistent about his views (which is good, as without stubbornness of editors on wikipedia, it would have much less quality articles, which in my opinion arise from intense discussions between editors), c) actually discusses his reasonings on talk page (almost?) ALWAYS, unlike other two editors who have a habit of often simply reverting other's edits without providing them with any reasonable justification. now, i can understand that some people are bothered with Ludvikus' sometimes confusing argumentation. he also confuses me sometimes. but is that a reason for me to tell him he should be blocked, or be silent, or not participate in wikipedia? that is simply ridiculous. it is against principles that wikipedia is fundamentally based on. if you are confused, you are not obliged to respond, or as Loremaster pointed out above, have your mood ruined in interaction with him. you can go of-line for a change and do other things. or imagine this option, an amazing and ingenious new idea that might not have occured to complaining editors: you can spend some time editing other articles, and leave the confusing Ludvikus' comments to some other editor to deal with. what a novel idea! (well, of course, article "owners" won't like this novel idea) 212.200.205.163 (talk) 04:19, 30 October 2009 (UTC) The only reason why I reject your "novel idea" is because, primary due to my one-year-long work, this article has steadily improved from being a vehicle for paranoid conspiracy theories to a Good article according to Wikipedia standards. I will not take a break from this article to see all this hard work destroyed. That being said, let me say this: Having invested a lot of time and energy in editing this article, I have been guided by one overriding principle: All claims about New World Order conspiracy theories and theorists must be accurate, properly attributed, and well-referenced. We don't own this article but we want it to be the best possible resource for anyone (e.g. students, journalists, cultural critics) who is interested in the subject. I have and will cooperate with anyone in an effort to make the article well-written, comprehensive, factually accurate, neutral and stable enough for Featured Article status. --Loremaster (talk) 00:03, 31 October 2009 (UTC) It seems the going off-line idea occured to many other editors in contact with Ludvikus, and if you look above, that has left some articles with too few editors. But anyway, Loremaster could leave the article to Ludvikus and Batvette for a period of time. Then the community could see if there is any improvement or not. 134.106.41.27 (talk) 10:15, 30 October 2009 (UTC) Putting aside that I'm always suspicious of anonymous comments on a talk page, leaving the New World Order (conspiracy theory) in the hands of a person who confesses to being ignorant of the subject and another person who has a political agenda would be a disaster! --Loremaster (talk) 00:03, 31 October 2009 (UTC) Comment. I was notified of this ANI section on my talk page. It seems to me that many of the people commenting here have not followed the links embedded in the introductory sentence of this ANI. "Ludvikus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) appears not to be abiding by what he agreed to at the close of Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive568#Historical revisionism: User:North Shoreman & User:Philip Baird Shearer v. User:Ludvikus, namely this post." If that thread is read it links to another ANI Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive566#Ludvikus September 2009 and it also contains this comment: Ludvikus was unblocked on Sept 21 with request stating "... I have learned how to avoid being blocked in the future.(2) I understand now 100% how to avoid it - simply drop ANY confrontation with any other editor...." Well, this is already, I believe, the third ANI thread in two weeks. Looie496 (talk) 13:48, 4 October 2009 (UTC) But here we are again. Clearly Ludvikus has not "drop ANY confrontation with any other editor". Take for example this statement slightly higher up this section "With Mentoring, there will not be any need for preventing me from editing the article which you currently own.", it is in my opinion confrontational. I think we need to enforce the promise that Ludvikus made before he was unblocked as he seems unable to help himself. I made some sugestions on 27 September on his talk page about how he could avoid conflict. I made a suggestion on how he could pick topics and areas where he could learn how to be a constructive member of the community and keep to his promise. I have also suggested else where on his talk page that he did not edit any page which he edited between his former block and the most recent one which was suspended before the two years were up. Making these suggestions, and therefore not part of his current formal restriction seems to have failed. I am of a mind to increase the restricted area to force him to abide by his promise to "simply drop ANY confrontation with any other editor...." until next May when his block would have been lifted. In the restriction I placed on Ludvikus. I included the following (so he can not claim that he was not warned): I made a suggestion on 17 May 2008, that "Ludvikus should refrain from editing, (including merging or moving) any article that Ludvikus has edited since the 17:24, 6 April 2008 -- which is when Ludvikus started to edit in earnest after his/her last block." [56],[57]. I am not going to put such a restriction on you yet, but if I find that you are in conflict with any editor on any of the pages that you edited between 17:24, 6 April 2008 and your most recent block then I will reimpose the block until the full two years are up. For example Ludvikus, has been editing The Protocols of the Elders of Zion a lot and been very vocal on the talk page strongly and at the moment seems to be the only person arguing that the article should not lose its featured article status. The Protocols of the Elders of Zion is one of his old hunting grounds and was frequently edited by him back in 2008. I think the time has come that because he has not chosen to do so, that he is forced to move onto new areas of Wikipedia, well away from the areas which he has been editing from 6 April 2008 to date. If however this is not a solution that other administrators can agree on, then we need to come up with some other solution, as a block until next May will not allow him to learn how to work on the project cooperatively in such a way that he is not back on this page ever few weeks. -- PBS (talk) 13:38, 30 October 2009 (UTC) i don't think you have a valid argument there. you cited one example, which in my opinion is not a good one, as just looking at article edit history does give an impression of "article ownership". i hardly see it confrontational to state an observation. now, if you were following their interaction, you would notice tons of confrontational WP:PAs from the other editor, so those comments should be directed at them. 212.200.205.163 (talk) 14:01, 30 October 2009 (UTC) Accusing someone of owning an article is to accuse that person of un wikipedia behaviour (see Resolving ownership issues) and is confrontational. -- PBS (talk) 17:10, 30 October 2009 (UTC) Comment: And I'm keeping my promise. I think, PBS, you assumed that if I was cornered by a bully, I would give in. There's a difference between hunting for editors who violate WP rules, which I do not do, because that would be Confronting them. But you are now attemting to corner me for your own Misconduct. And you are not simply an "editor." You are an Administrator at Wikipedia. You and another editor own the article Historical revisionism, an extremely controversial topic. You are simply seeking to protect that ownership. And you do not wish me to be able to create the article Revisionist historians (American). That's your real motive in trying to get me Blocked or Banned from Wikipedia. It's a Content dispute involving articles which you own. it is that simple. And because you are an Administrator, you think you can get away with that. Maybe you can, I don't know. It's up to the community at large, as Jimbo Wales informs me. --Ludvikus (talk) 14:20, 30 October 2009 (UTC) Now that you - User:Philip Baird Shearer = PBS - raised the point, I like to say that I'm fully capable of participating in the editorship of the historical revisionism family of articles, and I wish that the Restriction which you succeeded in imposing be lifted. I assure you that I will be extremely cautious in editing those articles because I know now that you, and one other editor OWN those articles. And I know what can happen to an editor who is not extremely careful. I will be especially careful NOT to create anything which even remotely resembles a Fork of any kind. I understand fully the need to act by WP:Consensus. And if I think an article is wrong, I will NOT violate the Consensus rule, in spite of what the other Administrator is trying to get me to do. I've imposed a 1RR rule upon myself, and I've interpreted Consensus as a Majority (which I understand is a more stringent condition). Therefore, the only possible Reason you can have to have me Blocked or Restricted, is to protect your ownship of your articles. --Ludvikus (talk) 14:34, 30 October 2009 (UTC) PS1: The editor/Administrator I "Confronted" about 1 1/2 years ago is User:El_C. I think I was insensitive then, and not fully aware of what the concerns were. So he retaliated - out of anger and frustration I believe - and imposed a Block on me for two (2) years. From that experience I've learned not to be Confrontational. But here, you, PBS, are confronting me - and your only real interest is in protecting the articles which you own, namely those related to historical revisionism. My promise to be non-Confrontational does not entitle you to believe that I would simply do anything you want just because you are an Adminstrator. So I think you should consider lifting your Restrictions regarding historical revisionism because I know now how to be extremely cautious regarding Wikipedia rules and articles that you particularly value, even if I think you're mistaken with respect to their content. --Ludvikus (talk) 15:02, 30 October 2009 (UTC) PS2: You PBS are also being inaccurate and unfair. You have a duty to inform the community that I've honored your Restrictions 100% regarding historical revisionism. How come you're totally igoring that? You closed the ANI regarding that issue within 24 hours - and I did NOT Confront you on that. So you should give me a WP Barnstar for excellent WP conduct. But instead you are here Confronting me because you wish to protect the Ownership of your article, historical revisionism. Isn't that the truth? And now I'm not being Confrontational - you are. My "promise" not to be Confrontational does not mean giving in to being bullied - as you - PBS - seem to interpret that promise. --Ludvikus (talk) 15:17, 30 October 2009 (UTC) Ludvikus you may think you are keeping to your promises, but others can make their own minds up to whether your word is your bond. So it is quite clear to you the restriction I placed on you remain in place, what I am discussing here is if we should extend them. Your comments above show how far you have yet to travel. For example you write "So you should give me a WP Barnstar for excellent WP conduct." but barnstars are given by some editors to other editors for what they think are outstanding achievements, but demanding a barnstar from another is quite the opposite :-( -- PBS (talk) 17:10, 30 October 2009 (UTC) I make no "demand" of you. I just have a difference of opinion with you. I think I've learned an awful lot very quickly. I've not violated a Single WP rule. There are many things I could still learn. And there are some wonderful people here who are teaching me. User:Verdatum is one very knowledgeable editor whom I particularly respect. Unfortunately you are not one of these yet. Just because you are an Administrator does not mean - according to Jimbo Wales - that you have any special rights - except the power to Ban or Block me. The reality is that you are only interested in one thing - protecting the Articles which you WP:Own - namely, historical revisionism. The fact is you cannot produce a Single DIFF, not One, which shows that I've violated Any WP policy. At the moment you are the Cause of the current Disruption. As you can see, the Consensus is in my favor. The reason you are here - the Only reason - is that you are afraid that very soon my Restrictions with respect to the articles you Own may also be Lifted. You are afraid of that. So now you're putting in your 2 cents to try to convince the Community to act the way you say. That's the truth. And you will not succeeded into bullying me to submit to you just because you are an obviously influential, clever, and powerful Wikipedia Administrator. You should stick to the topic. I'm here because two editors have ganged up on me to protect the articles which they Own. That has nothing to do with the nine (9) articles, related to historical revisionism, which you own. What is it that I have not learned? (It's extremely difficult for me to keep my cool with you. But as you see, I'm doing it very well). Therefore, I deserve a WP Barnstar. You, of course, are free NOT to give it to me. That is your prerogative. --Ludvikus (talk) 17:53, 30 October 2009 (UTC) You've bought in this issue, not I. The only reason these restrictions are in place is to protect the ownership of the articles you own. I did not Confront you with that. You Confronted me here. What reason do you have for keeping these restrictions? I promise the whole Community that I will be extremely cautious about them. So there's no need to keep these restrictions. As you can see, these restrictions also are used to ruin my good name as an editor. Therefore, since you introduced the issue, why don't you explain to the Community why there is a need to maintain a Restriction which only you, and your side-kick, desire? What could possibly happen if the Restrictions were lifted? In my opinion, the Wikipedia article will improve - because now I'm an expert on revisionist historians (American). You deny that such a distinction exists. That too is your prerogative. So I'm a minority. And it's for me to win support for my view. And you are afraid that I will succeed in winning over a Consensus to my side. Isn't that the truth? Isn't that the ONLY reason you are here now? --Ludvikus (talk) 18:09, 30 October 2009 (UTC) Ludvikus, nobody has questioned your motives. Please extend the same courtesy and assume we are all here for the same reason: to improve Wikipedia. That's what assuming good faith means. --jpgordon::==( o ) 19:08, 30 October 2009 (UTC) Comment Ludvikus, it was your disruptive editing on revisionism-related articles (including those as far afield as Revisionist Zionism) that earned you a two-year block in the first place. I agree with PBS that you should stay as far away from those articles as possible, at least until your block period runs out. — User:Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 18:24, 30 October 2009 (UTC) User:Jpgordon, as always, I give much weight to what you have to say. You are an experienced Administrator, and even if I do not always agree with you, I know it's productive to listen to you, give weight to what you have to say. --Ludvikus (talk) 19:21, 30 October 2009 (UTC) The fact is, User:Malik Shabazz, you've been identified above, by User:Verdatum, as WP:Hounding me. That happened almost two years ago. Now I'm aware, for the first time, your special interest in Revisionist Zionism. Had you informed me then of your concern, I would have given your views their proper weight. But you must know that telling someone that they are "disruptive" is not informative. I do not have any idea what it is that interests you regarding that article. But I can assure you that I am perfectly capable of giving your position its proper weight - certainly more so when than I did two years ago. Some people learn from their past. I'm one of those who does. And if you tell me something, in a respectful tone of voice, I'll listen. In fact I've even learned to listen to disrespectful voices. So why don't you explain, if you wish, what your fear is regarding that other Revisionism article? Can you explain more clearly why you took it upon yourself to WP:hound another editor? You seem not to like the status of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. But you've made no effort whatsoever to improve it - only criticize it as inadequate. That's not helpful to Wikipedia. Not only that, but you know that I was away for two years - yet above you blame me for the decline of it's status. Yet User:Jpgordon expects me to have faith in your good will. Wikipedia does not require one to assume Good faith where there is none. It is you - more than anyone else - who was responsible for my Block for two years. So I can assure you, I can be extremely careful in my editing wherever I will find your foot tracks. That in the interest of Wikipedia, I know that. Contrary to what Jpgordon says, not everyone here is working for the good of Wikipedia. I know, 100%, that I am. --Ludvikus (talk) 19:59, 30 October 2009 (UTC) 1) Saying something doesn't make it so. I've never hounded you. As I explained to you two years ago, when an editor is disruptive on one page, it's appropriate to review her or his edit history to fix similar problems on other articles. That isn't considered hounding. 2) The reason for my interest in Revisionist Zionism is irrelevant. My concern was that your editing and repeated page moves were disruptive. 3) I offered constructive comments concerning how to improve the Protocols article. I'm sorry that you interpreted them as a personal dislike of the article. 4) I'm hardly the only editor who believes you are responsible for the poor quality of the Protocols article. Please read the article's Talk page and its FAR page more carefully. 5) Take a good look in the mirror and you'll see the only person who was responsible for your block two years ago. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 20:26, 30 October 2009 (UTC) Malik is correct. The idea that anybody but yourself was responsible for your block is, in a word, unsupportable. You've been given opportunity after opportunity to adjust your style (both personal and editorial) to correspond to Wikipedia's policies and expectations. In your time here, you've managed to incur, in order, a 48 hour block, a one week block, a six month block, a 24 hour block, a two month block, and a two year block. Do you somehow think all the administrators that blocked you -- and more to the point, all the administrators who supported these blocks, multiple times, both here on AN/I and in response to your many unblock requests -- have something against you personally or ideologically, are generally irrational, or are here on personal power trips or something? As I said elsewhere, you need to take responsibility for your own actions and the effects of your own behavior. --jpgordon::==( o ) 21:08, 30 October 2009 (UTC) No Jp. You just live in the past. What happened before I cannot change. You apparently have not taken the time to realize that I have changed for the better. I'm very disappointed in you not looking carefully into what this is all about. It's about one article where I have been submitted to Personal Attacks. And when I asked you for help, all you said was - seek Consensus. I did that. I know you remember that. You have not been at ALL helpful to me. I made a big mistake in believing that you might help me. I'm not going to speculate why. I'm just letting you know that you are one of the biggest disappointments - because you were in a poisition to see trouble coming - but did nothing about it. I came to you for help, remember? --Ludvikus (talk) 22:38, 30 October 2009 (UTC) Yes, I was in a position to see trouble coming; but someone unblocked you anyway. --jpgordon::==( o ) 00:34, 31 October 2009 (UTC) I see. So you were convinced I was hopeless. You never gave me a 2nd chance. It's a shame you didn't tell me that at very beginning. I would have sought help and assistance elsewhere. Instead, in Good faith, I relied on your advice. I see that as a very, very big mistake. If I survive here, you can be sure that's a mistake on my part that will never happen again. --Ludvikus (talk) 00:50, 31 October 2009 (UTC) Time for the Administrators to Take Charge? The reverse side of the Great Seal of the United States (1776). Conspiracy theorists misinterpret the “eye and pyramid” as the Masonic symbol of the Illuminati, an 18th-century secret society they believe continues to exist and is plotting on behalf of a New World Order. Not that I’m attempting to tell the Administrators that have weighed in here (or are just observing) how to do their jobs, but it seems like it is now time for an Administrative Decision. To me, the starting point in evaluating this situation should be the rationale for the original two-year block articulated at [58]. The phrase that jumps out at me is “editing tenditiously.” This appears to be exactly what is going on at Talk:New World Order (conspiracy theory). What I see is the incredible number of 488 edits on the discussion page by Ludvikus in just 23 days from October 6 through October 29. Compare the substance of these 488 edits in the context of the rationale for the two year block. The blocking editor uses the term “long-term disruption” but links it to this page [59] that discusses a still earlier problem with Ludvikus’ and tendentious editing. I would suggest paying attention to the sections “Example user comments” and “Editors commenting on users driven away”. A month or so after this activity Ludvikus was hit with a six month block. It seems like the events leading to the six month suspension and two year suspension are being replayed here. With respect to the New World Order article, the overriding question that need to be answered is, “Has Ludvikus’ conduct on the discussion page helped or hindered the editing of the article?" This isn’t something that needs to be further discussed by all the invited guests to the ANI (such as myself) but by the Administrators that can actually do whatever is necessary to CORRECT the current problem and PREVENT more of the same. In evaluating that issue, it seems also necessary to evaluate the manner in which Ludvikus has responded to the current complaint. Rather than addressing the issues originally raised related to a specific article, Ludvikus invited in folks who had absolutely nothing to do with the current article. Ludvikus pictures hmself as a victim -- he blames two people for the problems with the New World Order Article, the administrator who initiated the two year block for his problems then, and yet two other editors (I’m apparently one of them) for his subject block from Revisionism related articles. This whole discussion, like other discussions that don’t go Ludvikus’ way, has now been turned into a mess that is difficult to keep track of. He has even gone so far as to attempt to use this forum to appeal yet again the subject ban that has nothing do with this article -- a ban that numerous admnistrators have either approved or refused to recommend reversal. While may of Ludvikus' invited guests have mentioned his civility, there is nothing civil about his unfounded accusations that PBS is abusing his position. And he has the audacity after his excessive canvassing to accuse yet another editor of "hounding" him. It seems to me the choices are clear -- a series of progressively longer blocks was initiated leading to the two year block. If Ludvikus has does nothing significantly wrong, then obviously no corrective action is necessary. If, however, he is doing largely the same thing (tendentious editing) that led to the earlier bans, then it seems like no remedy LESS than an additional two year block makes any sense. Mentorship, further subject bans, or even a block until his original two year ban would have expired make no sense to me -- he got his chance to prove himself six months earlier than he would have and (if the decision is reached that he continues to be a tendentious editor) he blew it. The question I would ask, if I were an administrator, is “Knowing what would transpire after I lifted the two year block, would I still do it?” Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 20:23, 30 October 2009 (UTC) *Comment: And you are in fact the editor who has succeeded in imposing the the Restrictions on me at Historical revisionism. That's why you finally are appearing here. The person responsible for the clutter on the page in question is User:Loremaster. You, on the other hand are interested in only one thing. You are the co-owner of the historical revisionism articles. I'm very glad that you finally came out of the closet. I can assure the Community that I will pay very careful attention to what you have to say. In addition, the place to discuss me, or another editor, is on my Talk page. If you look very carefully at the Talk page that's clutter, you will find that User:Loremaster refused to discuss things at my Talk page or his. The clutter ptoduced there is 100% his fault, not mine - particularly due to his extreme abuse by engaging in personal attacks. So any editor who has a problem with me, is free to discuss things on my Talk page - you are more than welcome to do that. But isn't it true that you're really that side-kick who is the co-owner of historical revisionism? Your only motive here is to protect that co-ownership. I can assure the community that I'm perfectly capable of keeping personal discussion to the proper Talk page. So that's not an issue. Regarding the all the articles mentioned - they have all improved thanks to me. The fact is, User:North Shoreman, you haven't bothered to check. If you look, for example, at the image at the article here in question, you'll discover that the Great Seal of the United States is my contribution as a result of a very difficult uphill battle with User:Loremaster and his side kick there. So if anything, I deserve a WP:Barnstar for improving the article under tremendously difficult conditions, notwithstanding your invalid criticism here. --Ludvikus (talk) 21:00, 30 October 2009 (UTC) If it wasn't for me, the Seal you see to your right would not be a part of the article. It's the result of my extremely difficult hard work. --Ludvikus (talk) 21:05, 30 October 2009 (UTC) It's not right for you to confuse the editors with what happened before. This is a case about one article now: New World Order (conspiracy theory). And you now hope that I'll be blocked for my Past (when I didn't know as much). Now I know you're concern over historical revisionism. So Blocking me would ONLY hurt Wikipedia - not me. I'll be disappointed of course. But you have absolutely no reason to go against the consensus expressed above. I know which article I have to be extremely careful about. And you are now distorting reality for one reason only. You are that other editor whose afraid of me contributing to the improvement of the historical revisionism articles. I assure you that I will NOT clutter those Talk pages because I do not think you will behave as Loremaster has with me. Also, I think you would be amendable to a discussion on my Talk page, would you not? So there's no need to Block or Restrict me because of your concerns. --Ludvikus (talk) 21:17, 30 October 2009 (UTC) I'll repeat what I wrote on this page last month: Within a week or two [Ludvikus] will muck up some other area of Wikipedia, and soon thereafter he will be accusing every administrator in sight of having a personal conflict with him. Save us all some time and restore his block. I'm sorry to say that Ludvikus has proven me right. In fact, he's exceeded my expectations by claiming that anybody who opposes him owns the article in question. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 21:19, 30 October 2009 (UTC) It would have been helpful if the issue of tenacity had been raised earlier. I was accused of that. What is meant by tenacity - that is a surprise for me now. It is unfair to introduce issue so late in this discussion. I think my tenacity was provoked by the constant Personal Attacks - so I was challenged to improve the article in spite of the Descriptiveness I was submitted to. But I find it bizarre that you only measure my tenacity. If you are truly interested in the good of Wikipedia, why don't you please compute the tenacity of the other editors, particularly User:Loremaster. By the way - that may not be simple since he operated under two different accounts. But why don't you simply teach me how tenacity differs from shear dedication to Wikipedia? I sure would like to know that. --Ludvikus (talk) 21:35, 30 October 2009 (UTC) Shabazz, you are concerned about Revisionist Zionism. I'll bear that in mind. Regarding "accusing" I'm only discussing here the two co-owner of the historical revisionism articles who are now afraid that I might edit the articles they own. I can assure the Community that I will not even be "tenacious" with regards to that. Since now - for the first time - tenacity is significantly raised. So your predictions, if they were right - must be due to reasons known only to you - and I will not speculate on that. I can only assure the community that I'll have you on my watch-list so that I will not offend any of your concerns. Isn't that what counts? --Ludvikus (talk) 21:42, 30 October 2009 (UTC) And your logic is twisted. I never said "anybody." You, for example, are not an owner, your just the hounding editor identified as such by Verdatum above. --Ludvikus (talk) 21:48, 30 October 2009 (UTC) this is to PBS and any other editors resting on the case that Ludvikus only invited other editors who he'd worked with in the past and their endorsement isn't relevant to the current conflict- PBS claims that Ludvikus promised to avoid conflict with other editors and accusing another editor, in this case Loremaster, of article ownership indicates his initiating a conflict- can I ask you to go to the archive talk page of the article in question and look at the heated conflicts immediately preceding the contributions of Ludvikus? Talk:New_World_Order_(conspiracy_theory)/Archive_3#Primary_Editor_Implying_Article_Ownership_in_Violation_of_Wiki_Guidelines and see what I even had to create a section to demonstrate the difficulty I was having with this editor before Ludvikus had even gotten off blocked status? If you are seriously looking at just this new conflict and the conflict surrounds Ludvikus and that editor's alleged article ownership, then the issue is clearly NOT Ludvikus being a problem at all. I am not the huge contributer around here many others are but have had an account in good standing for several years and get along with just about everyone- and am a fairly accomplished and prolific political debator elsewhere on the internet since 1995, at 47 years old. The editor butting heads with Ludvikus, whose history of very professional contributions to wiki articles is admirable, nonetheless is extremely difficult to work with and is proud of blatantly violating that policy-has probably subjected me to the most rude, condescending and abusive behaviour I can recall in years. So by your stated rationale the complaints against Ludvikus concerning New_World_Order_(conspiracy_theory) are wholly groundless as I had the exact same problem immediately preceding his incident. It's on the record.Batvette (talk) 22:17, 30 October 2009 (UTC) Problems Happen Taking your edit at face value, you apparently ran into the same problem that Ludvikus did -- an obdurate and aggressive editor. I daresay this has happened to most of the editors commenting here -- it has certainly happened to me. You, like most of us, resolve these things without making 20 edits a day on a discussion page and most of us have not been blocked 6 times for a total of 2 years 8 months 96 hrs. You handled the situation one way and Ludvikus handled it another way. Based on past history, this is the way Ludvikus WILL ALWAYS respond. Ludvikus is familiar with conflict resolution options -- he has requested RFCs in the past. He chose not to do that. here. He attacks me for participating -- I was deliberately avoiding participation until he started personally attacking me as PBS's sidekick. That highlights a major part of Ludvikus' problems -- he just doesn't know when to stop typing.Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 23:05, 30 October 2009 (UTC) Batvette is a problem. My accusations against Ludvikus since he nor anyone else has been able to contradict the fact has insisted in the past on revamping the New World Order (conspiracy theory) article despite the fact that he 1) confesses to being ignorant of the subject of New World Order conspiracism, 2) confesses to not having read nor understood the article in its entirety, 3) doesn't know or understand basic Wikipedia guidelines. Although Batvette may legitimately argue that I haven't solidly proven some of my criticisms of Batvette, it is ridiculous to compare the two situations when even even Ludvikus has promised that we will start reading the article it's entirety as well as read more reliable sources to resolve this dispute. --Loremaster (talk) 00:14, 31 October 2009 (UTC) Comment: The complaining editors herein are concerned with the article(s) Historical revisionism. They were improperly summoned here. I've complied with the Restriction therein 100%. So they have no business discussing the events to which they themselves were improperly summoned. --Ludvikus (talk) 22:30, 30 October 2009 (UTC) Ludvikus, you engaged in canvassing and you accuse others of "improperly summon[ing]" editors? What a hoot! — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 23:09, 30 October 2009 (UTC) Uninvolved admin here--while the evidence spelled out here seems to call for a community ban, part of me wonders whether this is a complex issue that requires arbitration. As messy as this might be given the nature of conspiracy-theory issues, will we have to end up going there? I'm torn. Blueboy96 22:32, 30 October 2009 (UTC) The complexity is only due to the arrival, on the 23rd hour, of editors who are concerned with a totally different issue - an issue which I'm complying with 100%. It involves their WP:ownership of articles related to historical revisionism. This issue in this ANI is totally different. I've been subjected to extreme Personal Attacks at New World Order (conspiracy theory) by the tenacious editor there, User:Loremaster. Instead of stopping that abusive conduct, co-editor User:Arthur Rubin brought me to this ANI. The Consensus was, and I think still is, in my favor, regarding the participants who also edited that article. But on the 23rd our three (3) editors from these other issues came here. They are afraid that I might not be blocked, and I might edit their articles centered on historical revisionism. I certainly have learned my need to be extremely cautious. However, as time goes forward the goal-post keeps getting pushed further, increasing the hurdle which I must endure. It appears that because of my past inexperience, I'm expected to accept the abuse involving this ANI. That's really quite simple in my eyes. If you look at the top lede of this ANI you'll the subject. What I hope from the Community is that they will recognize that it is improper to blame the victim for the rape - as was the case in the Dark Ages. I'm asking the Community to just focus on the Article which is at the very top of this page. I was blameless in my conduct there under the circumstances. What had happened before should not be permitted to cloud that issue. --Ludvikus (talk) 23:11, 30 October 2009 (UTC) Yes, I agree. Well, not with the arbitration bit. This is something we can and should handle ourselves. After reviewing history and reading this stupidly tortuous thread, I do not doubt Ludvikus' current good faith, but his total and utter incompetence in actually editing an encyclopedia is beyond a joke. Not to mention his incompetence in, y'know, relating to people. After good-faith concerns were raised, did he try to respond to them with any sort of compromise? No, just wikilawyered with layer after layer of meaningless, random text. He seems to be labouring under the unfortunate delusion that he cannot possibly be wrong, about anything: his content or his conduct. And this is after upteem million second chances. Ultimately such editors are totally unsuited for a collaborative encyclopedia, and would be best off in their own wikia-based fork. This is one of those times when good faith is not sufficient. I propose a community ban, and will implement it myself shortly unless there are any serious objections. Moreschi (talk) 23:15, 30 October 2009 (UTC) Comment: Before you do that, I strongly urge you to read and study this as it pertains to Wikipedia at this moment: [60]. --Ludvikus (talk) 23:49, 30 October 2009 (UTC) Yep, that really helped your cause. Applause. Moreschi (talk) 23:59, 30 October 2009 (UTC) Well, I'm perfectly willing, able, & ready to listen to your advice on how I could be a better editor. In fact, I would like very much like for you to be my Second Mentor. I think you would probably be ideal. Are you willing? --Ludvikus (talk) 00:08, 31 October 2009 (UTC) Unfortunately I think you are just temperamentally unsuited to collaborative editing. Nothing personal, just business. Me giving you advice at this point would be pointless. Yes, you'd have to listen, because I am effectively holding a gun to your head. But it wouldn't sink in, and in a couple months time we'd just be back here again. I've been in this situation before, and unfortunately I only see one result here that benefits the encyclopedia here (which is, ultimately, the patient, and not you). While I have no wish to be a jerk - nor should I be - at the end of the day the needs of the encyclopedia win out. Moreschi (talk) 00:23, 31 October 2009 (UTC) Tom, you know you're dead on right, thatis a very good analysis and I guess it's right to point out that the conflict I had at that article played out different for each of us, and will admit to some bias toward Ludvikus as I was happy to finally see another editor go in there and stand up civilly to the ridiculous situation that article, IMO, can be to edit. Perhaps you know Ludvikus better than I, but I will say I do have a vague familiarity with wiki law which isn't much different than most legal forums in human history. Ask yourself what it was that initiated this "motion" before the court, this ANI- wasn't it that conflict? We've had testimony from many good editors concerning valid issues in the past and in current issues that may hold water but in the matter that was brought before the court the fundamental issues were not just questionable, they were groundless-Ludvikus was, as I have been, being excluded from editing that article by two individuals who saw his history as a liability to do so, just as they tried to use a false presentation of my beliefs to exclude me. They (he, loremaster) will exploit what liability they can to exclude the editor. Are any of the issues raised by others serious enough to have initiated this motion of ANI on their own? I think Ludvikus was getting a hosejob with the initial motion and if the charges were groundless the testimony against his person is largely irrelevant. Does the ANI address his person or his specific actions? I think if you want to create an ANI to ban Ludvikus that is your prerogative- but wipe the slate clean and argue that on its own merits as the ANI that began this was complete BS by a couple of people setting him up to keep him away from THEIR article. Batvette (talk) 00:21, 31 October 2009 (UTC) From a discussion in Archive 3 of the Talk:New World Order (conspiracy theory): “ Batvette is clearly not showing good faith towards Loremaster and needs to read WP:AGF as well as WP:NPOV which he either doesn't understand or does not agree with. And of course WP:Fringe which also applies here. I've already had to warn Batvette about personal attacks. Dougweller (talk) 08:03, 29 July 2009 (UTC) ” --Loremaster (talk) 00:28, 31 October 2009 (UTC) Loremaster, this is THREE times you have posted another editor's groundless claim on this page, it is in fact so and can be seen addressed in the June 2009 section of my talk page. Since you repeatedly made false claims I had a history of vicious personal attacks on you but when forced into a corner to produce one linked to a comment made in jest about your own repeated flameword "crank" I can only surmise you now use the false claims of yes men to avoid getting caught in further false claims of your own. What makes it all absurd is the personal attack allleged by DougWeller concerned my calling your arguments shifty and dishonest, which you just again display are your modus operandi. Please find substance to include in your further replies to me. Batvette (talk) 01:05, 31 October 2009 (UTC) If you really do not wish to be a "jerk," as you say - for the good of the Encyclopedia - you would put Loremaster in his place for repeatedly calling Batvette a "crank." If you want to Block me for that - standing up for Batvette, at least be forthright about it. The fact is, that at this moment, Loremaster has been Archiving the Talk page to cover up his tracks wherein he called, repeatedly, Batvette a "crank." If you do not put a stop to that and choose to Block me instead, well than you are what you say you don't want to be. And I say to you again - you should put up, or shut up. You can be my mentor with that "gun to my head." Those are your words, not mine. That way, you can be the Big Cop, and I'll focus on Content editing. But obviously, you're only capable of doing the very easy thing - the few seconds to impose a community ban on me. That is not good for Wikipedia. And everyone who is reading this knows it. So try what I ask you. Be my Mentor. No one asked you to come here. You did it on your own. So mentor me how to avoid getting into trouble with characters like Loremaster. You are required to assume WP:Good faith with me. You do not have a choice about that. --Ludvikus (talk) 01:19, 31 October 2009 (UTC) Per that statement, I endorse Moreschi's ban proposal. Clearly, this user doesn't understand how this project works. Blueboy96 01:29, 31 October 2009 (UTC) Duly banned. How could I resist? You have poured bile on literally everyone in this thread: enough is enough. You are clearly unable to edit collaboratively, or even understand the basics of collaborative editing. That post showed a massive lack of clue and, as Blueboy says, a total inability to comprehend the basics of Wikipedia. You are not bigger than the encyclopedia. No one is, and ultimately, your inability to compromise, come to consensus, or admit you are wrong - ever - the defining characteristic of this thread - has led you to this. Goodbye. Moreschi (talk) 01:35, 31 October 2009 (UTC) indefinite ban??? i find this action quite extreme. where can i go as a third party to object to this? 212.200.205.163 (talk) 02:23, 31 October 2009 (UTC) i can see you reacted on the "jerk" personal attack. while a violation of WP:PA policy, it certainly does not deserve an indefinite block. in addition, there were quite a few other WP:PA's above with no consequences or blockings. 212.200.205.163 (talk) 02:30, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I wish I could've been briefed on all of this. GoodDay (talk) 21:29, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Attempted WP:OUTING by Martintg

Martintg has just now performed another act that seems to be an attempted outing over here. I believe that this was carried out as a deliberately malicious act. He was recently blocked for an attempted WP:OUTING of Offliner just this past July: [61], but was soon unblocked after ex-admin Piotrus, an ally of his who participated together with Martintg on a secret mailing list came out together with some others to push for an unblock at the relevant noticeboard.

Although my personal information was available on Wikipedia some time ago, it is not information that I have chosen to reveal now. Inded, given that I am now a party against numerous editors in a bitter dispute – some of whom could even track me down given this information and other clues that were possibly revealed in an off-hand way, I am seriously concerned about my privacy. This was precisely why I had my personal information removed from Wiki space. The attempted outing controversy in the thread regarding Offliner did not involve material as personal as that revealed now. Martintg was clearly warned at that point that any unauthorized disclosure of personal information could be considered grounds for administrative action on the grounds of potential outing attempts.

He still appears to have no compunction about violating people's privacy. Anti-Nationalist (talk) 21:32, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the outing is in that diff. You mean his addressing you by what looks like a first name? If it's just that, I wouldn't automatically assume bad faith. It's a common mistake people make, when they have once learned about somebody's real name in some legitimate context and may not be aware that person has in the meantime changed their stance about privacy of that piece of information. I've had it done to myself multiple times, by people who I know didn't mean ill. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:55, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Many of us have done it, but Martintg was clearly warned not to, when it was far less severe. It is hard to assume good faith here, especially when members of the mailing list repeatedly discussed real-life ways of harming other editors, as confirmed by the EEML archive evidence. Anti-Nationalist (talk) 21:59, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

If this behavior is connected in some way to the ongoing arbitration case, it might behoove us to refer it there. – Luna Santin (talk) 23:03, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

• So instead of bringing this diff privately to the attention of an oversighter to oversight, or the arbcom to deal with, you brought it to ANI, possibly the most watched noticeboard on the project, for everyone to learn, in true technicolour, what your first name is. The logic award for the month goes to...it makes a bit hard to take your supposed concerned for your privacy very seriously. Moreschi (talk) 22:08, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I've requested that the diff be stricken from the history, and I wanted to come to the place that would likely be the quickest venue. I am not confirming whether the personal information was accurate or not – per WP:OUTING, no one is supposed to. Anti-Nationalist (talk) 22:10, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Martintg notified here. Please remember this is mandatory. Singularity42 (talk) 22:28, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, this user initially came as PasswordUsername and he asked everyone to call him by a certain first name - right at his user page. He also said he used to edit in Encyclopedia Dramatica - see the diff [62]. I would appreciate if Anti-Nationalist tells under which nick he edits in "Dramatica" right now. And it is he who complains about outing! This is really something. Please fell free to remove my comment if it violates anyone's privacy.Biophys (talk) 02:57, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

??? User:Anti-Nationalist mentions his hame on his original user page here, who knows if this is even his real name. In the thread in question he addressed me by my name, I merely extended him the courtesy of addressing him in a similar fashion, which I have done n the past without issue, What's the problem? I thought we were having a reasonable discussion on the article talkpage, so I am somewhat surprised that he should report this here, so I have to ask what was he trying to achieve in submitting this report. I see that User:Future Perfect at Sunrise has deleted my response [63], I request that it be restored as its removal somewhat disrupts the thread of the discussion. --Martintg (talk) 06:31, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

It's a very good point. AN can't turn back the wheel of time, and thus he can't escape the information he has put out there by himself without actuall vanishing. That said, the only thing there really is to do is assume good faith and just ask Martin not to use your name, instead jumpting to the conclusion that it's an assault on your privacy. I say this because I know some people actually consider it polite to refer to a person by their actual name instead of their pseudonym. Heck, I'll ask him myself: Martintg, will you respect AN's wishes to not be referred to as *****? And AN, do you want your old userpage (or a set of revisions) deleted to remove all references you made to your own name? If the answers to both of these questions are "yes," everyone can happily forget this ever happened. Someguy1221 (talk) 08:25, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

"Frank" is Anti-Nationalist's name per his own user page as PasswordUsername before he also removed indications he knew the Russian language at a professional level. There are millions of Franks in the world, including one of my best friends. That this constitutes outing is silly and is just another attempt at provocation. Outing? I don't wish to be cynical but there is no evidence "Frank" is even his name.  PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ►talk  15:14, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Summary. Two important diffs to consider: May 11, September 19. I am trying hard to AGF, but it is soooo difficult here. Colchicum (talk) 16:32, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

• Note, I have linked this discussion to the ongoing EEML arbitration case as evidence [64]. --Martintg (talk) 19:28, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Disruption and WP:POINT issues from User:Kai Tatsu

Kai Tatsu (talk · contribs) is engaging in a pattern of disruptive behavior and WP:POINT issues. Would appreciate if another administrator could take a look.

---

1. 19:53, 29 October 2009 - Kai Tatsu adds poorly sourced content to List of new religious movements, just simply linking to the website of the "Church of Jedism". I removed this noting it is best to cite a secondary source.
2. 01:05, 30 October 2009 - I placed a note at his talk page informing him it is best to avoid primary sources on this article.
3. 23:28, 30 October 2009 - Kai Tatsu adds the entry back, this time with links to multiple sources - none of which identify the group Jedism as a "new religious movement".
4. 23:36, 30 October 2009 - I placed a note at his talk page informing him that none of the sources he used identify the group as a "new religious movement".
5. 12:10, 31 October 2009 - Kai Tatsu engages in WP:POINT, removing the entry on Sahaja Yoga from the page List of new religious movements. If the edit itself was unclear, this comment by Kai Tatsu makes it quite clear that this is WP:POINT, where he said I have removed Sahaja Yoga from the list as the reference given does not state it is a New Religious Movement, as Cirt explained it should.
6. 12:23, 31 October 2009 - I inform Kai Tatsu quite clearly that the source does indeed identify the group he removed, Sahaja Yoga as a "new religious movement" (For a sociological approach: Coney, Judith (1999) Sahaja Yoga: Socializing Processes in a South Asian New Religious Movement, Richmond: Curzon Press.)
7. 12:26, 31 October 2009 - This response from Kai Tatsu further exemplifies the WP:POINT issue: Please note that does not say 'Sahaja Yoga is a new religious movement'. It says 'Sahaja Yoga: Socializing Processes in a South Asian New Religious Movement'.

---

Thank you for your time, Cirt (talk) 12:39, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

It seems like the editor is attempting to work with you. AGF? Toddst1 (talk) 14:07, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Strikes me as being largely down to a confusion over the distinction between primary and secondary sourcing. As Toddst1 notes, there seems to be an attempt at engagement so AGFing is probably in order. Further rv'ing might well strengthen the impression of POINTy editing, but it looks more like a case of misunderstanding at the moment.

Xdamr^talk 14:18, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments, the user has added the entry back and made comments that he misread the sources. I agree with you that WP:AGF is the best course here now. Feel free to consider this "resolved". :) Cirt (talk) 20:09, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Magyar nem ember (Which means "Hungarians dont belong to the human race") is back 3.0

This blocked user returned to the Slovakia related articles (again) with his or her sockpuppets (user:78.99.230.65, user: 195.30.17.81) and disruptive edits. Compare Magyar nem ember's edit with these edits. (Another: this + this and this) Contribs are also similar: Magyar nem ember, 78.99.230.65 and 195.30.17.81--B@xter⁹ 22:45, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I blocked the second ip for socking - the first has not edited again today. If different ip socks start popping up then consider opening an WP:SPI with a view to getting a rangeblock, otherwise it seems to be a case of WP:RBI. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:05, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! If he returns I will request a checkuser.--B@xter⁹ 23:14, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/69.134.224.64

Resolved

What's up with that? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 23:08, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I've blocked the IP 72 hours for repeated willful violations of the WP:BLP policy and has strongly advised the IP to either create an account or make such requests for articles through WP:AFC. MuZemike 01:17, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Anon IP post

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

[65] = not sure what this means. Any help here? Cirt (talk) 04:54, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

It's Polish, if that helps. No idea of who or why. Abecedare (talk) 05:05, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Left the IP a message in my admittedly bad Polish. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 05:07, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Google Translate gives some bad craziness about the poster being monitored by "them" since they were 16. I would assume you can dismiss it as a crank. — Gavia immer (talk) 05:13, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

The Translation from google translate:

I'm that person-for whom are revised and made amendments Why Practically from the age of 16 I was monitored, irradiated in the media, observed, studied what was gained from the great series kożyści-policy carefully all a tragic consequence is now useless, I was abandoned without care and support of course went hard labor and torture to which I can not even write and talk loudly advertised my period now no employer wants to hire me-I do not want to be monitored, recorded tapped from me doing the fool-which is particularly awkward for the government because the government was right to and Justice which said note bene voted by 2.5 million unemployed-when I ask for help Just a minute but I am in this exceptional case, another served as a guinea pig-without my consent and without the permission of the tests carried out on me, viewed, reported tested medicines and not opposed to the case for glasses tossed me the drug issue now is trying to calm down. And pushes me to suicide-for lack of means of livelihood called for help everywhere-I ignored because I did not want to cooperate with Judaism from which all my misfortunes begun I wrote just for access to my file to the Institute of National Remembrance, I'm sure that this is just a particle of what about me = indi turn up in the United States-where the entire film business based on my life today I do not have friends, I do not have a family, what made attempts to calm down and cover up the alleged mental illness-which is even harder to find me a job-which of course leads to one, however, and I prepared for anything-please remember that I am not always the same helping hand than there is any evidence-that in due time-which will be presented will be a shock to the world, and what little has been done-my alleged that the disease is also emphasized accused and remembered every day ask straight-to-doctor increases your pacjęta saying that it is in a hopeless situation seems to me that there is only one answer, since as this one with 2.5 million unemployed people can not get work-Please take into account that 2.5 million was not monitored prześwietlanych The answer is simple the world is ruled not a man and a pig was used in a devious and brutal way and now there is help and let them handle this Made-Wait a minute after your monitoringach no one wants to even come close now I have 43 years of age and my fame, no one wants to hire me right Maybe Affairs respectable human rights violations have a plan on how am I to live-because I want to live--SKATER ^Speak. 06:10, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Cirt, WP:RDL is a better place to seek help with this type of thing. 69.228.171.150 (talk) 07:34, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, was brought here due to the nature of the content of the post itself. Cirt (talk) 08:43, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Personal attacks by User:Franklin.vp

I am not the easiest person to get along with, however that does not give other people free reign to attack me. The user Franklin.vp has launched three abrasive personal attacks at me on my user talk and one at WP:FPC. I have made it clear at my user talk page that I do not tolerate this, and as such left a less than kind series of replies to Franklin.vp requesting he stop posting at my page. My response has been less than good, however there is no excuse for this posting he made [[66]].

Quite simply, I want him blocked, or at least warned that posting on my user page ever again, or posting such content anywhere ever again will get him blocked.

Update After the continued attacks, I now am asking specifically for a block. He simply has gone too far.  Nezzadar [SPEAK]  07:19, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Franklin.vp has been informed of this thread.

 Nezzadar [SPEAK]  06:40, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Update After being informed of this threat, Franklin.vp has continued to post abrasive comments on my user space.  Nezzadar [SPEAK]  06:51, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Update It's still going on. I am really losing my patience with this person.  Nezzadar [SPEAK]  07:19, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

His edits are very troublesome. Considering that he's a newbie, I've decided to give him my very last assumption of good faith, and left him with a very stern warning, which includes a notice to avoid you in the future. If he does this again, he'll be blocked. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:32, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. For my part I don't intend on going near him, and will try to be less controvertial at WP:FPC.  Nezzadar [SPEAK]  07:51, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

---

• Remember Nezzadar? Look here Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Projections. And the thing is that that time that I was lecturing him was not the first time he was causing problems. And it was not the last either. It is just that he is plain ignorant and a brute, not willing to learn new things. It is true that restlessly he fights vandalism in many places of wikipedia and works constantly on it. But his ignorance creates more problems than benefits in some places like FPC. He has the energy of a good editor but the stile of a troll. franklin.vp  02:57, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
• More Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/File:Dead Vlei 4.jpg once more. franklin.vp  03:20, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

AUSC October 2009 elections: Vote now!

The election, using SecurePoll, has now started. You may:

• Visit the election "home page" for an overview;
• Review the candidate's statements: Dominic • Frank • Jredmond • KillerChihuahua • MBisanz • Tznkai;
• Or go straight to your personal voting page: here to cast your votes.

The election closes at 23:59 (UTC) on 8 November 2009.

For the Arbitration Committee,  Roger Davies ^talk 07:28, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

User:The Party Pooper

• The Party Pooper (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

This user's first and so far(as of the time of this post) only contribution is to insult me on my user talk page. In my mind, this user stinks of either a sock or a meatpuppet of someone who I have been in contact with recently. I would like more eyes on this matter, and if anyone has any opinions regarding this, I would like to see them.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 07:35, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I've blocked him indef. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:37, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

User:Freedom4korea

This user is the same person as User:HampshireCricketFan who was banned as a result of an investigation above. He is carrying on in the same vein by posting abuse on a number of talk pages including HCF. Needs to be blocked. Indefinitely, I would recommend. ----Jack | ^{talk page} 09:16, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Strongly support block. Edits since the recent discovery of the connection to HCF are unacceptable, and all prior edits seem to consist of telling the "truth" and insults. GlassCobra 22:28, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Concur, a disruptive joint-account. SGGH ^ping! 14:33, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

User:DoDaCanaDa long term issues of COI and canvassing

User:DoDaCanaDa long term issues of COI and canvassing

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

This user is the subject of Ray Joseph Cormier, which has been nominated for deletion. The user has a very long history of ignoring COI guidelines and has posted compulsively to the AfD, the article talk page, and the talk pages of other editors who he apparently thinks will help him get the article kept [67] [68] [69] [70]. He has already been warned about canvassing here and COI here and has been energetic in ignoring them. I posted the foregoing to the COI noticeboard a couple of days ago [71], but despite assurances his subsequent contributions show that he is still hyperactively posting on user talk pages in an apparent attempt to influence the AfD. I request that a block be considered for the duration of the AfD -- there is every sign he will persist in being disruptive, and a block for purposes of prevention is well in order. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:28, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Personal attacks, copy vio, removal of scholarly material at Wendy Doniger

Resolved

 – Civility addressed, NPA addressed, removal endorsed and copyvio reported at Wikipedia:Copyright_problems/2009_October_22. Toddst1 (talk) 12:41, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

The Article Wendy Doniger (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) needs admin intervention, currently the article is in bad shape, with reliable sources removed and copyright violations and plagiarized content from WP:SPS. The scholarly material was removed by personally attacking as "Illiterate BJPers"....while cherry picked quotes from favorable book reviews dominate the article.

Here is the list of problems:

Removal of Scholarly material

User:Goethean (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has removed scholarly material and personally attacking edit summary as "illiterate BJPers". Few of the references that were removed include material from Rutgers University Press, Routledge, Rupa & Co., Cambridge: Harvard Oriental, Religion in the News (Trinity College) to mention a few, without any link to BJP.

Please refer to the References in this older version and compare it to the present version.

Also the Book Review section is full of opinion peices and cherry picked quotes, to give an example:

• Wendy_Doniger#The_Hindus:_An_Alternative_History has a quote from David Arnold's "Beheading Hindus", but this review also contains discussions of the shortcomings of the book, which are nowhere to be seen.

It is also interesting to note that only after that the copyright violations and plagiarized content was removed, the valid scholarly material present all these months ( or years ) are being removed.

Racial and personal attacks

Goethean is also indulgin in Racial abuse and personal attacks:

• racially attacking the contributors - "fucking joke that only a BJPer would utter seriously" and pls note that this is the response given to my comments of acknowledging scholarly presence.
• [72] : "You actually had a good point in the midst of all that self-victimizing blather"

Plagiarized material

User:Meetoohelp (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) keeps copy pasting material from Doniger's CV, Publication list and Faculty page at Divinity School. The currently protected article also has plagiarized content and copyright violations. See : Wikipedia:Copyright_problems/2009_October_22 & Talk:Wendy_Doniger#Copyright_violations_and_use_of_Self_published_sources where I have discussed this.

In appropriate page lock

Also interesting to note is that administrator User:Akhilleus (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has locked the page from editing without paying any heed to copyright violations, personal and racial attacks. ( assuming good faith, he probably overlooked it ) The last edits resulting in a protection occur in the span of few minutes :

• (cur) (prev) 14:58, 25 October 2009 Akhilleus (talk | contribs) (20,014 bytes) (protection tag)
• (cur) (prev) 14:57, 25 October 2009 Akhilleus (talk | contribs) m (19,999 bytes) (Protected Wendy Doniger: Edit warring / Content dispute ([edit=sysop] (expires 14:57, 1 November 2009 (UTC)) [move=sysop] (expires 14:57, 1 November 2009 (UTC))))
• (cur) (prev) 14:51, 25 October 2009 Goethean (talk | contribs) (19,999 bytes) (remove bullshit sections per WP:BLP. Illiterate BJPers will not dominate this article.)
• (cur) (prev) 14:42, 25 October 2009 Meetoohelp (talk | contribs) (27,178 bytes) (If you find a sentence that matches one on another site please delete it singly. Page blanking is vandalism per Wiki policy. This article is short on facts. No warring please.)

For all you know, this "illiterate BJPer" may be a non-hindu and a editor with scholarly background. I request the admins to look into it.
Rgrds,
Spdiffy (talk) 05:28, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Without commenting on the specifics of the edits themselves, Akhilleus's protection seems fine to me. He/she appears to be an uninvolved admin and this is probably just a case of WP:WRONG. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 10:52, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Before commenting on the specifics of the edits, I'm bit dismayed that Spdiffy would WP:Canvass editors about this ANI report (see here, and here) but not have the courtesy to notify Goethean of the ANI report. Toddst1 (talk) 12:08, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

• Regarding the charges of racial attacks, this is nonsense. Bharatiya Janata Party is a political party, not a race. I see a WP:Civil issue at most here.
• The page protection seems well founded and I agree with RegentsPark that this is at worst a case of WP:WRONG. I see no need to change it.
• Regarding the removal of content, see WP:Coatrack as well as the discussion on the talk page. The Rutgers piece was presented as fact, rather than one writer's opinion and the removal seems justified and in line with our policies of WP:BLP, WP:NPOV, etc.

This seems to be a simple content disupute about a WP:BLP with some WP:Civil issues thrown in on the side of protecting WP:BLP. I think we're done. Toddst1 (talk) 12:17, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

• The copyvio may have been reported, but we don't address listings at WP:CP for 7+1 day after the listing is open. Accordingly, I've removed the infringement I've found. There may be more, and I will remove it if I see it, but so far I haven't found other copyvio text. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:29, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

• I am sorry for violating WP:Canvass, feel free to revert any of my changes that you perceive as canvassing. As far as racial abuse is concerned, this is what I felt, calling a group of people illiterates and what they say as f* joke is not right Those who have visited a country like India know how strong a association with a party can be, as equivalent to a nation. ( May be you don't agree, but this is my opinion and also now I feel that I overreacted. ) I did plan to notify Goethean etc., but got side tracked while on his talk page. Thanks for all your comments. Spdiffy (talk) 16:11, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I am surprised how POV is dominating the article. I have started Talk:Wendy_Doniger#Blatant_POV:_The_disappearance_of_Criticism. Why is a section with RS references like BBC and views of other scholars been removed. The current version (read quotes) not only over overwhelm the article or but also appear to take Wendy praiser's side, ignoring her criticism, a clear violation of the [[Wikipedia:BLP#Criticism_and_praise. If criticism is to removed, the admins should also remove the cherry-picked quotes POV quotes for NPOV, till the dispute is resolved. Note: informed User talk:Akhilleus and User talk:Abecedare (whose page popped up my watchlist with a Wendy Doniger section) about the section. I do not think User:Akhilleus made a mistake by adding protection to the article, I just think it was the wrong version. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 11:47, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

"The Admins" are not editing this article. Rather we are protecting it so you can work out your differences in a civilized manner without edit warring. Toddst1 (talk) 15:18, 27 October 2009 (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.

Whadaheck and his edits in America's Next Top Model and Cycle 13 article

User:Whadaheck decided to change a color box (dark green) on a call-out order table (casting week) in America's Next Top Model, Cycle 13 page. It did change many times thus the color is unrelated to earlier cycles of that show. You can check the article's talk page that one user gave a warning on Whadaheck's talk page. ASAP. Thanks. ApprenticeFan ^{talk contribs} 10:59, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment: I moved it to Incidents discussion to discuss on his bad faith edits in America's Next Top Model. ApprenticeFan ^{talk contribs} 15:03, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Not an admin issue. See Dispute Resolution. 99.166.95.142 (talk) 17:46, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I have notified Whadaheck of this thread. Basket of Puppies 17:48, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Whadaheck has a history of making unilateral changes, that go contrary to the majority consensus on the talk pages. When those edit's are reverted, he again makes them. In the past couple of days, I've given him warnings, but he's done this kind of thing several times before. At what point does that become an admin issue? ... Misty Willows ^talk 01:13, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

When it gets reported to WP:3RRN. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 19:50, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Edit war, please help

Resolved

 – both editors blocked, Balkan sanction imposed on Ceha (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) Toddst1 (talk) 20:18, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

User ceha has been causing problems on this page, Demographic history of Bosnia and Herzegovina, could the topic be locked for the time being, so that there can be some discussion? He just does not care. (LAz17 (talk) 16:56, 1 November 2009 (UTC)).

Edit-warring noticeboard

It'd be useful if an uninvolved admin could close this report before it becomes messy. I can't (well I probably could, but no doubt someone would whine about it) because I commented in the AfD which was the subject of the original report. Thanks, Black Kite 23:07, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I second this request. I noticed 4 reverts on an AfD (1st revert: [73]; 2nd revert: [74]; 3rd revert: [75]; 4th revert: [76]) I have watchlisted and reported it. The dispute behind those reverts of which I have no opinion and which is why I am not going to revert either standpoint in the discussion seems to have spilled over onto that page now instead of it being focused on the four reverts, including one after a warning. The user I reported has reverted 4 times whereas those he reverted are a couple different editors rather than one other editor, i.e. why I did not report them as well. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 23:45, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I closed it. We'll see if that sticks. Protonk (talk) 00:02, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

User adding clearly invalid nonfree use rationale

Can someone deal with the first template on File:Trans-Canada Highway shield.svg, claiming that it's "a logo owned by the Government of Canada for List of numbered roads in Kawartha Lakes, Ontario"? Thank you. --NE2 00:04, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I reverted; hopefully it sticks. --Rschen7754 (T C) 00:11, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I added it a while ago, per discussion here, verified it with my reviewer, User:Jafeluv, who made an edit to it.[77] It is a logo owned by the government of canada, for use on the List of numbered roads in Kawartha Lakes, Ontario article. Both these users are involved in a bunch of debates with me right now. I myself have questioned the validity of it, but would like it discussed by editors who aren't involved in debates elsewhere with me. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 00:21, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

University of Texas at Dallas assignment

University of Texas at Dallas has set an assignment (EMAC 2321) that involves editing wikipedia. Unfortunately some students have interpreted this as a suggestion that they vandalise wikipedia (eg http://aisharin.wordpress.com/2009/10/31/wikipedia-experiment/ ). An email has been sent to the person behind the course and the cases I've been able to trace have been reverted but something people should probably know about.©Geni 11:04, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

It certainly looks like a deliberate attempt to disrupt for the sake of an exercise. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 11:21, 1 November 2009 (UTC).

It isn't. Other edits from the assignment have been productive.©Geni 11:27, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Whether it is the vagueness of the wording of the assignment, or the malicious interpretation of it as an invitation to vandalise the site, the fact that this originates from a place of higher education makes me fear for the future. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:10, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

This week, our assignment for EMAC was to make a substantial edit to a Wikipedia article and see how long our changes last. Beats watching paint drying! If that's what passes for university education, what about junior high school? Anyway, the course description (hereabouts) doesn't seem to mention it; has it been expunged, or have the kids just got it totally wrong? -- Hoary (talk) 13:19, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

http://emac2321.pbworks.com/Student-Blogs has a list of all the student's blogs, several seem to mention this Wikipedia assignment in terms of making a sneaky change. Prodego ^talk 16:26, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Here's a sample from that page: "The key to this step is making a change that will be subtle enough to pass under the well-trained eyes of Wikipedia editors, but big enough to ensure that some poor Middle Schooler’s research project will be ruined." Nice. What's the name of this college course, "Furthering Stupidity For Future Generations?" Dayewalker (talk) 18:24, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Also shows mis-understanding of WP. Even wikipedia says don't use wikipedia for school, read the article and then read the sources. But that doesn't change the seriousness of the allegations. Remember Civility (talk) 21:38, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Meh. Wikipedia is used for school. Let me assure you of this. It is used (as the Medicine wikiproject will tell you and as they told the NIH) for self-diagnosis. It is used by incompetent airport cops to detain subjects based on a vandalized article. It is used in academic papers (yes, it is). We have no idea what level of credulity is present in the average reader, but we can't subscribe to the fiction that no one uses wikipedia as a resource of first resort. Protonk (talk) 23:40, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Mon dieu, I've been mentioned in a blog! I should have known that WP would make me famous if only I included enough pages on my watchlist. Deor (talk) 03:07, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Geni, I would like copies of the correspondence you have with the person running the course, if you can arrange that. Prodego ^talk 16:40, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

The twitter hash-tag link for the discussion is: here. I'm somewhat bothered by this quote "Do we get bonus points if our entries got our IP's banned, the edit revised, & deleted from history?". Maybe someone wants to tweet to this group to let them know this is not the best of all possible ideas? Best, --Bfigura ^(talk) 22:02, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Hmm it appears some people are sending hostile emails to the students. There is no need for that.©Geni 22:45, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

• It appears that someone has started a school project whose intent is to fuck with wikipedia. Arguably there is no need for that either. The students shouldn't be getting emails, the professor should be. Protonk (talk) 23:26, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Send them to the students, too. By that age, students should have the ability of questioning whether assignments are correct. It's like giving them paint cans and sending them out to do graffiti. Mature students should put the paint cans down and say "I'm not doing this."--Wehwalt (talk) 23:32, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is just some subject that students can investigate. Wikipedia may not like this, but then there are also students who have to do experiments with animals. Such experiments are subject to ethics rules. The question is if perturbing Wikipedia is such a big deal. Count Iblis (talk) 23:43, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Sure. But us wishing they didn't do it is part of "wikipedia not liking it". I mean, if their intent (I dunno if this is a minor part of the section of wikipedia) is to disturb wikipedia then they shouldn't be too shocked to see accounts and IPs blocked and emails sent off. It is how we respond to disruption. Protonk (talk) 00:04, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, and this is then similar to how a animal that is not properly sedated would react when a needle goes into its body. Perhaps Wikipedia is itself a conscious entity and the ethic rules regulating animal experiments should also apply to complex data systems? Count Iblis (talk) 00:16, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

A lab rat is under no obligation to cooperate with its experiment, and thus it is caged, killed, or sedated. Wikipedia is not under the jurisdiction of UTD, and cannot easily be killed, caged or sedated by it. Accordingly, students there should not be surprised if their experimental animal is uncooperative.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:20, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Who contacted a student? That is completely out of line. How dare we call their actions unprofessional when we can't even appropriately respond ourselves? Geni was handling this situation, there was absolutely no need for anyone else (myself included) to be involved. That is why I asked for the emails Geni sent, and did not contact anyone myself. Geni: you however, have done a good job, in the future, I'd suggest not commenting here, and instead using a place inhabited by more reasonable people. Prodego ^talk 00:24, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Has the professor been referred to Wikipedia:School and university projects? —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 00:25, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Geni has emailed me and asked that I clarify a few things here on the admin discussion. Yes, it is true that students in my class were required as an assignment to edit a Wikipedia page, but no it is not true that it was done as an experiment to vandalize or "fuck with" Wikipedia. While it is true that some students took the assignment this way, this was not the explicit language of the assignment. As Geni indicates in one of the first posts here many of the edits were productive. Indeed by my estimate roughly 80% of the changes were productive and remain as part of current pages.

There were a minority of students, who after several classes on Wikipedia decided that they would like to see how long a false edit would stand. This was not however a coordinated attack, or a deliberate attempt to disrupt. Indeed my assignment was to make a substantial edit to an existing entry, and to try and make one that would "stick." Thus the easiest way to do the assignment was to make a productive edit, which was sourced, the best way to guarantee ones edit remains. However some took a different route trying to edit pages that would not get noticed. It is true that I didn't explicitly say not to do this. Indeed I suspected some would. Both types of edits and people experiences editing became part of the class and our discussion. As you can see from the class syllabus the class is about Emerging Media, so wikis are both one of our means of inquiry and methods of inquiry. One of the only ways to understand Wikipedia is to engage in editing, and often defending ones edits. So to borrow one of the analogies here, I gave students paint, taught them how to paint, how painting works and told them to use it. True some chose to graffiti, but many also chose to paint in a different way.

Let me say that I have been doing this assignment for three years now, and this is the first time it has gotten any attention of this sort. I think perhaps because a higher percentage of the students chose to vandalize the pages, but also because this time I had students blog about their experiences in editing, and thus students opinions become grist for this discussion. It seems that many are interpreting their observations about Wikipedia as what the assignment was. "The key to this step is making a change that will be subtle . . ." was not a line form the assignment but rather a student's observation after and edit was made.

Additionally the tweet sent about being banned and having edit deleted was post assignment, a snarky response to the students experience. In this case said student actually made a legitimate edit, sourced in fact, to a politically charged article. Despite said edit conforming to the NPOV not only was the page reverted, but the edit was deleted from the history, without any discussion. Given this experience I think the tweet makes complete sense. Indeed this edit helped frame our discussion my revealing the ways that power and ideology influence Wikipedia despite the NPOV.

With regards to emailing students. True as Protonk and Wehwalt observe, if students chose to nefariously edit Wikipedia they should perhaps not be surprised that they receive emails. It is how Wikipedia defends itself. But, I would also suggest that angry and hateful emails do not paint a positive picture of the Wikipedia admin community. Let's be clear about who has more power here, the admins not the students, and how this power is exercised speaks volumes about the community.

I am well aware of the Schools and University projects section. Many of the guidelines I use/used in my classes. However creating an artificial class project to contribute in a way that I chose seems less productive. I want students to contribute in a way they see as appropriate and for us to then discuss that in class, not for me to exercise my power and demand that they act as I see fit.

As proof that I take Wikipedia seriously, and that this was not intended as an experiment on/thru Wikipedia I offer the following to links, both of which I wrote defending Wikipedia and its place an institution of knowledge. I think Wikipedia is tremendously valuable and important. I do not however believe that it is sacred and should not be questioned. So, I encourage my students to question it (as we do with every object we study) some of their questioning came in a form that the admins viewed as less than productive, but I am not sure that warrants the level of response that has been produced. -http://www.scienceprogress.org/2008/02/wikipedia-and-the-new-curriculum/ -http://academhack.outsidethetext.com/home/2009/seriously-can-we-end-this-debate-already/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.186.126.229 (talk • contribs)

• Cmt WP:TLDR. Could you summarize in 50 words or less?Bali ultimate (talk) 03:01, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

To reply, I'd first like to mention that it's probably unfair to paint 'admins' as the cruel and bitey ones here -- plenty of editors take exception to vandalism. It's not as if your students are getting responses solely from some small section of the community, I'd wager that plenty of regular editors responded as well. After all, "make a change and see how long it lasts" seems awfully close to being POINT-y. And to be honest, I'm surprised you didn't ask students to be constructive rather than vandals. Or at least give them some grounding in Wiki rules. It just seems somewhat silly to waste both the time of your students and that of other editors with unproductive edits. -- Bfigura ^(talk) 03:00, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't mean to paint all admins as cruel here. Indeed I totally respect many of the responses here, and especially Geni and her email, only to suggest that there was more to this situation and that how one responds (in the same way that how I phrased the assignment) affected the tone of the discussion. But the emails a few students received came from admins, or at least people who identified themselves as such. It wasn't "make a change and see how long it lasts" (although some probably heard it this way) it was try and make a change that will last. They had extensive grounding in wiki rules I assure you. Which it seemed some chose to exploit and some chose to be productive with. I think "constructive" edits might be a useful frame I could employ in future iterations of the assignment, but I am also sure that some would chose to constructively edit in a way that some editors would see as vandalism and they would see as constructive. Honestly one of the hardest things to do as an instructor is to craft an assignment broad enough that you don't ask students to merely "perform" for the instructor, but rather practice knowledge for themselves. Thus the rather broad phrasing of my assignment. I don't consider this assignment a waste of my students time, anything but. Again consider that a much higher percentage of the edits were "constructive" and now part of Wikipedia pages. -Dave 03:30, 2 November 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.186.126.229 (talk)

While I can understand what you are trying to do, and I have also run courses where I have asked students to participate in Wikipedia so that they would understand the processes involved, your statement that you expected some students to vandalise little seen pages in order to meet the requirements of the assignment is more than a little worrying. Generally, the best way of studying the effect of vandalism on Wikipedia, while still respecting the project and what it is trying to do, is to find examples of vandalism and see how long they have survived, rather than performing the vandalism yourself. It would be much better, and cause much less drama, if projects like this worded in such a way as to be clear than vandalising Wikipedia is not an accepted part of the assignment, especially as Wikipedia is a live public project. - Bilby (talk) 03:05, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

We actually did do this. But I can no more ban "vandalism" than you can. I wasn't going to make it ban it as part of the assignment. I think perhaps though as Bfigura suggests there were other words that could have been used to define more narrowly. But I would have to think about what these words some more. -Dave 03:15, 2 November 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.186.126.229 (talk)

Rewording would suffice. My advantage was working with postgrads, but nevertheless it was clear to them that I would need to see the edits and that the edits had to be constructive. If a student then vandalises then it is clearly against both the spirit and the rules of the assignment. I agree that we can't prevent it from happening, but steps to make it clearer to the students in all courses that it isn't acceptable would help make everyone happier. :) - Bilby (talk) 03:20, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

mr.Professor i would politely ask you that the next you suspect some of your students would take a "different" route you explicitly told them not to do it. We wikipedia editors put a lot of effort and work plus use a lot of our free time to build a reliable encyclopedia and these "test" vandalisms don't help us at all and in fact can be damaging to Wikipedia's reputation as a reliable encyclopedia. Loosmark (talk) 03:08, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

(e/c) I'm glad to hear that you did give them a background in the policies, but given some of the comments about deliberate attempts to insert misinformation, I'm sure you can understand the reaction they got. And since the community had no broader background on your class or project, again, I'm sure you can understand why people might fear the worst. After all, as you allude to, one doesn't notice the constructive edits nearly so much as the bad. (One of the advantages of the Schools and Universities Wikiproject is that it can give the community an idea of what is intended). And while I understand the need to ensure they have intellectual freedom (something I grapple with for classes I've taught), I think in this case a slightly firmer set of guidelines might result in a better experience for all. Best, --Bfigura ^(talk) 03:24, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Since when does Wikipedia have a reputation as a reliable encyclopedia? --NE2 03:50, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Productivity is also measured in terms of volunteer time diverted from other activities.

Expressing thanks to the instructor for coming to this board and addressing the matter promptly. There is an angle of this matter which I hope you will take into consideration in future versions of this assignment. Today my contribution to Wikipedia was to digitally restore a self-portrait of William Blake from the 1794 edition of Songs of Innocence and Experience. This high resolution work required approximately 30 adjustment layers in Photoshop--work which became the subject of a blog post[78] because I coach other volunteers in digital image restoration. Today that work was interrupted repeatedly by fellow volunteers who contacted me requesting feedback because they were alarmed by the appearance that your assignment had asked students to make destructive edits. When questions first arose I read the matter carefully and assured them that their worries sprang from miscommunication, but queries from different people interrupted the William Blake restoration three separate times. Another editor has requested restoration on a 1938 military parade in Lithuania and that work is a bit behind schedule due to the interruptions, even though I did not post to this thread until now. Please bear in mind that the site's most active editors would prefer to spend our time improving content: occasionally it has happened before that a university instructor assigns students to conduct breaching experiments. So it's something of a sore point when a new situation takes on a similar appearance. Better communication does help to avoid problems. Best regards, Durova³⁵² 03:47, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Block of Koalorka for uploading unfree files

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

Today, Koalorka added File:W+F Maschinenpistole E21.JPG to an article on my watchlist. I looked at the image and noticed that it was labeled as CC-BY-SA, but cited an author's permission (in German) that said, in relevant part, "I allow you to use this image on Wikipedia". That is, of course, not a sufficient CC release. I asked Koalorka about this at User talk:Koalorka#File:W+F Maschinenpistole E21.JPG, and found out that (see the discussion there):

• Koalorka did in fact not mention anything about the CC licence in his request to the author, but believes nonetheless that he may upload the image and label it as CC-BY-SA.
• Koalorka was and remains indef-blocked at Commons for "uploading unfree files after warnings".
• Koalorka has since uploaded many images to Wikipedia that are also of a questionable copyright status, including many Finnish army images (e.g. File:FDF BMP-1 IFV.jpeg) that he has labeled as "all rights waived", but that in fact are only released for free reproduction. For this reason, all such images were deleted at Commons, see Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/Template:FinnishDefenceForces.
• Koalaorka has a persistent problem with following or understanding copyright policy, and his Commons talk page and his talk page here attest to this; in particular, after being confronted with all of the above on this talk page, he believes that he has done nothing wrong.

To prevent continued copyright violations, I have indefinitely blocked Koalorka. I invite community review of this block. If it is upheld, I also propose to Special:Nuke all his image uploads because their licencing is unreliable, except those clearly sourced to a US military website (and hence properly PD).  Sandstein  19:50, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Just a notice, I have to be offline for a while now.  Sandstein  19:56, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

• Support User doesn't seem to give a damn about or want to comply with copyright policy, repeated violations, followed by blocks followed by repeated violations. Off2riorob (talk) 19:59, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

All images on US military sites are not necessarily public domain. Most are, but some have more restrictive copyrights if they're uploaded by certain contractors. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 20:17, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Everything that is not attached with a US-PDGov template, I have deleted. For those who want to check to see if there are still some more bogus images, contact me and they will be deleted. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 20:29, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

• User seems to have been a productive editor in other areas. I'm a bit hesitant on whether an indefinite block is warranted - perhaps a editing restriction in which the user may not upload any images would work? Then again, User:Koalorka seems to have a few other issues and a long block log. henrik•talk 20:32, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

• I have no objection to an unblock if the user agrees to such a restriction, though the admin unblocking him should be willing to check regularly whether it is obeyed. I'm not very familiar with his other issues, but his ANI record indicates that he does have some.  Sandstein  21:57, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Here is another issue from June 2008 [79]. Mathsci (talk) 05:28, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

IP "threats"

Resolved

 – IP blocked. Edit deleted. Abecedare (talk) 05:12, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Probably just stupid stuff, but just in case, could someone expunge this and its followup comment from the history? [80] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:08, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, Bugs - I just saw it, and was looking for what to do. For the record, what is appropriate procedure to follow in a case like this (involving a death threat, however improbable)? Ray^Talk 01:10, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Typically, an admin would render the entry invisible in the history, or show it as being hidden. Likewise with the Sinebot followup, since it blindly redisplays the verbiage. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:20, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Blocked... please do not add a template to his talk page for this. Xavexgoem (talk) 01:22, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

On this issue, I did a bad thing. I deleted the page to restore it sans edit summary vandalism, but now my browser can't open the undelete page. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:27, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Fixed. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:32, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Threat to editor because of article deletion

Resolved

 – New editor hopefully got the clue. Abecedare (talk) 05:11, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I have an interesting situation that has arisen as a result of an editor's article being deleted. The editor has stated that because he has had an article he created deleted he has been physically attacked and been threated with death. See [81]. What is the course of action that needs to be taken in this situation? ttonyb (talk) 01:56, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Highly unlikely. Delete, salt, and indef block. Who goes to school on Sunday? Grsz¹¹ 01:58, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Current article baleeted. Tony Fox (arf!) 02:03, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

All threats of harm should be taken seriously. General practices can be found at Wikipedia:Responding to threats of harm. I will contact checkuser to locate the user so that the local authorities can be notified.--Unionhawk ^{Talk E-mail Review} 02:06, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for moving quickly on this. I agree that all threats need to be taken seriously and cannot be discounted. ttonyb (talk) 02:13, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Right. Better to find out he was kidding, and slap him on the wrists for that, than to assume he was kidding, and find out he really wasn't...--Unionhawk ^{Talk E-mail Review} 02:17, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

He was kidding. Grsz¹¹ 02:20, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Should this editor be banned indefinitely for this tasteless joke? ttonyb (talk) 02:26, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Nah. Just make sure he knows that stuff like that is not funny.--Unionhawk ^{Talk E-mail Review} 02:28, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

He should be blocked as a vandalism-only account. Grsz¹¹ 02:33, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

(←) Hmm... the vandalism only part is a valid point. Let's let the admins make the call on this one.--Unionhawk ^{Talk E-mail Review} 02:36, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

The whole threat issue was a piece of foolishness, now thankfully resolved. Having taken a look at the account contributions, while I wouldn't by any stretch of the imagination say that the account had (so far) edited productively, I don't really see blatant attempts at vandalism yet. I'd be inclined to give User:Lodman a stern warning for wasting everyone's time, keep him under supervision, and see how things go from here.

Xdamr^talk 03:13, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Alteration of protected 'high risk' template without discussion

Resolved

 – Change was reverted by User:Protonk and endorsed by User:Philip Baird Shearer. Discussion is ongoing at Template talk:Hidden archive top.  Frank  |  talk  11:44, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Philip Baird Shearer (talk · contribs) altered protected template {{hat}} from stating that the template "archived" the contents to stating that it "refactored" it. Given that there was no discussion, and no indication that WP:REFACTOR is meant to cover the use of such a template (where the contained text is neither removed nor altered, merely hidden), I would seek a review of this unilateral use of administrative powers. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 17:43, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't think this is suitable for AN/I, considering that no attempt appears to have been made to contact the editor and ask about the change. Further, while I agree the change should probably be reverted at least until some consensus is reached, I see the reasoning behind it. Archiving is generally understood to mean moving the content to a separate page and providing a link to it. However, many discussions are rolled up such that they are effectively archived through collapsing or enclosing in a box of a different color (see WP:DRV, WP:RFD, and completed WP:RFAs, for example), so it's definitely a gray area, but I don't think this rises to the level of an incident. Let's try a discussion elsewhere.  Frank  |  talk  18:01, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

PBS is in an ongoing dispute about the use of this template, so this does appear to be an abuse of admin tools to gain the upper hand in a dispute. Verbal chat 18:03, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Didn't see anything recent on PBS's talk page; can you provide link(s) to ongoing dispute?  Frank  |  talk  18:07, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

[82], also see WP:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive571#Refactoring or archiving. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 18:14, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Could an admin at least undo this change as it is unsupported on the template talk page, where two editors (myself and Hrafn) have disputed the change. I have asked PBS, but I'm not sure he's online. Verbal chat 18:17, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Since I have commented above, I'm now "involved" and won't make such an edit myself. However, I do support the edit being undone. I prefer if PBS would do so after a request for same so as to avoid a potential wheel-war, but I definitely don't think "refactor" is a better term than "archive".  Frank  |  talk  18:26, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Where is this dispute that Verbal is alluding to taking place? Unomi (talk) 18:49, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Unomi, thanks for dropping by. The dispute over the template use doesn't involve me, you'll be pleased to hear - I was just aware of it. Verbal chat 19:08, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't think this is a matter for AN/I. I reverted the change (loosely citing BRD). Should it get restored or some other problem erupt, then we can worry, but at the moment "no blood no foul" Protonk (talk) 18:58, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Hopefully that will end this particular matter. Verbal chat 19:08, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Ah, so it seems that hrafn and verbal are defending a neologism by unilaterally 'archiving' discussions regarding it and then accusing PBS of being disruptive for another editor bringing up the same point? Or am I missing something? In the current context it seems clear that the previous discussion was not 'archived' in the traditional sense, it was refactored so as to be contained in a hat along with instructions to not bring up WP:NEO lines of argument. Clever. In either case PBS clearly objected to having the discussion cut short, if you want to call it impromptu archiving or refactoring does not really matter, hrafn and verbal should likely undo it. Unomi (talk) 19:10, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

• Huh? I don't know what all the disputes are, but if PBS was in some argument over whether or not archiving was refactoring then he went over and edited an archive template to read "refactor", that's not too cool. Protonk (talk) 19:12, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
  • I'm not involved with the use of this template at denialism, it's a shame Unomi is trying to make this personal again. This does show that PBS acted inappropriately, but he's willing to justify his edits now. Verbal chat 20:06, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
    • I don't really understand how you can claim that you are not involved with it when you are the one utilizing it here? I would also ask you to refrain from deviating from WP:AGF, the fact that I read and summarized what I saw from the link that hrafn posted above does not make it personal. Yes, apparently hrafn added the hat (along with a rather unfriendly description) here, but verbal clearly supported and expanded its use. Being bold and changing the template text to reflect actual use is not 'inappropriate', but rather what we should all do. Bringing this issue to ANI, seemingly 8 (eight) minutes after before attempting to contact the user is, however, likely inappropriate. Unomi (talk) 20:26, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
      • The dispute I was referring to followed that, which is stale by now. The current dispute was to a pointer, which I had said I was ambivalent about. As you say, the renaming of the template was done during a dispute and therefore inappropriately. Also, the change in no way reflects "actual use", but that shouldn't be debated here. I think ANI is an appropriate place request administrators undo the change, as it could only be undone by admins and PBS wasn't around at the time. If a page is protected you should have a good reason to change it, leave a note, and not do so while you are involved in a dispute. Verbal chat 20:59, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I have just seen the comment on my talk page. I would have reverted the change that only an admin can make to the template, but I see it has already been done. Now that I know there are objections to my bold change, I will discuss it on the talk page of the template. -- PBS (talk) 19:18, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Intentional misquote of a reference?

Resolved

 – Not an AN/I issue, and editor has made the change to the article.  Frank  |  talk  12:02, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Not sure if this is the right place, anyway, User:Jake73 seems to have intentionally misquoted a reference he introduced in this edit. For actual reference, see here. Perhaps whatever is appropriate to do in such cases should be done. Nikola (talk) 11:50, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, seeing as that edit was made in June 2007 (!) and Jake73 hasn't edited since August 2007, what administrative action do you want? If the information in the article is wrong (I don't know, because Google Books says "no preview available"), then feel free to change it; that doesn't require admins. Bencherlite^Talk 11:58, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Page protection

Resolved. You can't have teamwork without ork! Master of Puppets 13:51, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

What's the procedure if an admin considers that a page would benefit from temporary semi-protection but it hasn't been raised at WP:RFPP. Can that admin apply the protection anyway or must it be raised first? Mjroots (talk) 12:54, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

As long as the admin is uninvolved or there's no COI, I would go ahead and protect. The objective of protection is to prevent disruption, so there's no point in standing by and watching it get out of control until another admin comes along and does it. ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 13:06, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Seconded; think of it as the same as if an admin blocked a vandal without an AIV report. If they can see the disruption going on, have no other direct involvement and feel they can provide a remedy, there's no need to wait for an official report. Ironholds (talk) 13:08, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

If the page is under a consistent barrage of vandals, I wouldn't have a problem with an Admin semi protecting without having to go through WP:RFPP, just makes it easier on us vandal fighters.--SKATER ^Speak. 13:08, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that. In the end protection was requested and I granted it, but it's good to know for the future. Not so sure about COI, as it's an article I've contributed to, but the reason for protection was to prevent vandalism / OR. Mjroots (talk) 13:14, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Don't worry if there's COI; as long as you're protecting only for clear, persistent vandalism, and the length of time is appropriate, you'll be fine. Master of Puppets 13:51, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Assistance at the Virtual Folders article

Resolved

 – Robert.d.thompson (talk · contribs) indef blocked for making legal threats. Toddst1 (talk) 13:39, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Can someone please take a look at Virtual folder and Talk:Virtual folder? A choice quote from the talk page:

WITHOUT ACCUSATION, I must tell you I have a direct contact in the Obama Administration regarding a Federal Attorney I have a contact for who can look into this independently if a Rational Debate is refused for a Company receiving Public Funds, POSSIBLY, from Microsoft Corp. and/or Apple Computer.

I really don't have the time to deal with this right now. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 13:22, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Diff, please, just to confirm. Sounds like a simple legal threat. It is not our role to look into companies receiving Public Funds, POSSIBLY, from Microsoft Corp. and/or Apple Computer, nor is it our role to post information about Companies receiving Public Funds, POSSIBLY, from Microsoft Corp. and/or Apple Computer without some kind of reliable source. Ironholds (talk) 13:24, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Here is the diff: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Virtual_folder&diff=323366676&oldid=323312613

Sorry I wasn't clear. The accusation is that I'm receiving Microsoft/Apple funds, or Wikipedia is. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 13:29, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Robert.d.thompson (talk · contribs) indef blocked for making legal threats. Toddst1 (talk) 13:39, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

User:Crotchety Old Man : WP:TALKO violation/warring and abusive edit summaries

Crotchety Old Man (talk · contribs) engaged in repeated deletion of an IP user comments on the Richard Gere talk page (diffs: [83] [84] [85] [86] [87] [88]) with different reasons, sometimes claiming BLP violations while the comment -even if about a BLP-sensitive issue- was absolutely fair and by far not libelous or problematic in any way other than trying to constructively reopening a previous discussion.

When notified and/or approached on talk pages to discuss the issue by several users, he regularly deletes notifications and attempts at communication -which in itself is not a problem- but does it with edit summaries which are either insulting (diffs: [89], [90],[91]) vandalism accusation -even to editors sympathetic with his point of view (diffs: [92],[93]) or at best condescending (diffs: [94], [95] , [96]). Just for the sake of completeness, the user has a habit at condescending remarks also in unrelated discussions (example diffs: [97] , [98]).

Given that the user seems to dismiss any civil attempt at communication with him, I think some admin action could help. Thanks.--Cyclopia^talk 10:36, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Further comment: I forgot to include that the issue has been previously brought at the edit warring noticeboard by the IP editor; the 3RR issue was deemed "stale", and given the kind of violations the admin suggested to bring it here. --Cyclopia^talk 10:58, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

User notified about this thread. The repeated removal of viable (IMO) talk-page material is a serious problem. Discussion of an article's (non-)inclusion of BLP content on talk-page, even if it comes to consensus to exclude, sounds like exactly what a talk-page is for, and this talk section does not even make the specific BLP-concerning statements. The repeated incivility in edit-summaries is a problem too. Makes it hard to WP:AGF that he is working collaboratively if he's that antagonistic towards everyone. DMacks (talk) 10:49, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Just a comment: I had notified the user too -it seems we did it at the same time. Thanks! --Cyclopia^talk 10:51, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Removal of blatant BLP-violating material is well within the guidelines here. The consensus on Richard Gere is clear, plus an admin CSD'ed the separate gerbil page when WebHamster skirted consensus and created it on his own. Plus, an admin has my back. I'm all for drama and witch hunts here on Wikipedia, but it looks like some people need to grow up. Crotchety Old Man (talk) 12:32, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

A couple other issues. First, 3RR on the talk page was never violated. Any accusations of such will require an immediate apology. Second, there should probably be a CU instigated for the IP in question. A bit too convenient that they jump into the Richard Gere debate with his/her first edit, magically knowing all this Wiki-policy. Crotchety Old Man (talk) 12:50, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

The point is, the talk page comment was not blatant BLP-violating material. The fact that there is consensus, incidents with another editor months ago etc., are completely irrelevant. You cannot erase civil and constructive comments on a talk page, even if they resurrect a long gone discussion and you disagree with their content. If the IP is a sock, this is also not really relevant -two wrongs don't make one right, at least until there is certainity of such sockpuppetry. I am also curious to know how you justify your edit summaries with which you rebuke any attempt at a civil conversation. --Cyclopia^talk 13:37, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

The gerbil stuff IS a BLP violation and theoretically should ALL be deleted. The dilemma with doing that is that it makes it appear no one has brought it up. What doesn't make sense is that Crotchety removed the recent comments while leaving all the other gerbil stuff intact. Consensus is not forever. If the one section is allowed to stay visible, then other editors can surely revisit the issue. However, if it's PROVEN that the IP is a sock of a blocked user, then the comments could be removed on those grounds, as blocked users are not allowed to edit. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:54, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Crotchety: First I'm "vandalizing" the page, next I'm violating BLP, now I'm a sock puppet. This is getting to the point of being downright libelous. Please take your own advice and realize that you are wrong here and just walk away. As an aside, I think it's funny that you've asked for apologies from people about 10 times, all while insulting them and maintaining the same mocking tone. Also, if you want to debate the gerbil thing, please do so on the talkpage, that is the appropriate forum. This discussion isn't about that, it's about your inappropriate behavior. 98.251.117.125 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:12, 1 November 2009 (UTC).

Oh, there's no more gerbil debate. Don't worry about that. It stays out of the article. Crotchety Old Man (talk) 16:14, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Another snarky comment. Thanks. I've taken the liberty of going through this user's history and he seems to be a serial offender of incivility: [99] " you probably destroyed any chance you had at being admin. good work!" [100] "idiotic discussion" [101] "I have no idea why you think i care about your opinion." [102] "don't be dense!" [103] "this article is about the film, not any other crap". That's just from his edit summaries and just from the last 3 days. Looking at it I'm surprised this was the first time he's been reported. 98.251.117.125 (talk) 16:41, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh my. I don't know how I missed it for so long, but just checked and saw that you were on the wrong side of the gerbil debate. I was dumb enough to think you were an uninvolved editor. That explains a lot. Commence the witch hunt. Maybe then you'll be able to add the gerbil crap to the article. LOL. Crotchety Old Man (talk) 14:03, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I am just following the talk page since the discussion. I have no intention to get such stuff into the article -consensus is against, and that's fine. But I cannot accept user's comments on talk pages being repeatedly deleted with preposterous reasons, nor I can accept incivility, no matter which side comes from. --Cyclopia^talk 14:42, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

No. You're being petty and vindictive. Like I said, I wish I had realized who I was dealing with just a bit sooner. Wouldn't have wasted my time replying to this absurd report. You're wrong about the gerbil debate. Accept it, and move on. For everyone's sake. Crotchety Old Man (talk) 14:48, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I would have done the same report if you agreed with me about the debate. The "gerbil debate" is irrelevant now. Your behaviour is not. --Cyclopia^talk 14:56, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

BLP does not prevent discussing this issue on the talk page or else almost the whole talk page would need to be deleted. This is not about 'sides' of an argument. Simply thinking that another editor is flogging a dead horse or is potentially a sockpuppet is not an excuse for repeatedly edit warring to remove their comments. Crotchety Old Man has gone on to mischaracterise the edits of people including myself who have commented on his talk page as vandalism and has used abusive or mocking comments in his edit summaries. He's refusing to listen to reason or to discuss his editing in a mature manner. Fences&Windows 16:30, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

If there's any actual, useful discussion that takes place here, someone be sure to let me know. I've had enough of the playground bullying for now, so I'm removing this from my watchlist. Crotchety Old Man (talk) 16:36, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

OK, I've tried my best throughout this whole ordeal to remain as cordial as possible, but I can't help but point out that "I've had enough of the playground bullying for now" could be read in one of two possible ways and given his repeated attacks and bad attitude I find it hilarious. 98.251.117.125 (talk) 16:54, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

This keeps getting weirder. Not only has he not stopped with the abusive edit summaries since his actions were brought under scrutiny here: [104], but now he seems to be picking a fight with admin Master of Puppets by reporting him for a name violation [105]. I can only imagine that he either wants to get his account banned, or this is some kind of crazy preemptive defense, whereby he biases admins against himself, thinking they won't then be able to ban him because of a conflict of interest. 98.251.117.125 (talk) 16:05, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

• As a first, remove twinkle. The edits he's been tagging as vandalism are quite obviously not, and he's experienced enough that I'd expect him to know how to use such things properly. Ironholds (talk) 18:56, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Ezra Friedlander - likely sockpuppets

If I'm not in the right place, or did something wrong in filing this, let me know and I'll fix it...this is kind of a combination of edit warring, BLP violations, and sock-puppetry, so I figured AN/I was my best shot.

There are several users (Bogram (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Jessey09 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Jamessoar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Sams20091010 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), and 24.188.59.164 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)) who have been attempting to add the same unreliable sources and unsourced facts to Ezra Friedlander over the past couple of days. None of these users has any contributions outside of this article (except 24.188.59.164, who had one edit to Marty Markowitz, another Brooklyn politician). All are adding the same unreliable source to the article ([106], [107], and the same material added without the source [108]). What really leads me to suspect sockpuppetry is the tendency to put internal wiki links inside <ref> tags ([109] [110])...I cleaned these up when I still thought the article had potential.

I've nominated the article for deletion and so far nobody has !voted to keep. The article's subject is interesting, and he'd be notable if there were any good sources on him, but there aren't. The AfD notification template has been removed a couple of times, but as the level of disruption is fairly low I didn't think it was worth the effort to do an SPI. I just didn't want to keep reverting and get into 3RR trouble. What to do? MirrorLockup (talk) 20:28, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

(I started a BLP/N thread about this on Friday, as well: [111]) MirrorLockup (talk) 20:29, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Even if the article is deleted, as it seems like it will be, the disruption is a problem and the AfD could last for days still, with an article continuing to violate WP:BLP policies until the deletion occurs. As such, I've opened a sockpuppet investigation here, feel free to add input. I've included Abrahamss. (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) in the list of sockpuppets (and I've also left them a message about this ANI notice). The disruption has been bad enough to get you into 3RR territory and their use of sockpuppets allows them to technically avoid 3RR, so I think that the SPI report is worth it. -- Atama頭 21:58, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the input...I didn't include User:Abrahamss. because he didn't do anything bad...wouldn't surprise me if he were another sock, but he hasn't caused any disruption himself. I had two reverts yesterday, but there have been enough other users watching the article since I filed this report that I haven't had to revert again. I'll comment on the SPI report as well. MirrorLockup (talk) 22:17, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikihounding by User:IP69.226.103.13

"New" user IP69.226.103.13 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) seems to be singlemindedly Wikihounding me at my AfD nominations (and only my AfD nominations). I find this behavior harrassing to me, and disruptive to the AfD process. Can anything be done? Abductive (reasoning) 00:54, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I have also noted the curious behaviour of this IP and I endorse the concern of the complainant. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:50, 2 November 2009 (UTC).

I must also agree that the behavior of this user concerns me. They have been very aggressive and almost disruptive when relating to bots and bot policy, the user in question is also threatening to go to arbcom over comments that I made regarding the fact that they needed to read specific information. they claimed that I had said that they could not read, making my informative comment into a personal attack. This behavior is on going and log term. I suggest something be done in order to address the issue now, before it has a chance to get out of hand and become a larger issue in the future. β^_command 02:27, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Just as a point, the user in question is NOT apparently interested in discussing his own disruptive behavior: see [112]. I think that there is also a very good chance this is not his only account. He showed up, fully knowledgable in Wikipedia editing, less than 2 weeks ago. --Jayron32 02:36, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I would concur in the conclusion that IP69.226.103.13 is not her with forthright purposes, having seen his behavior at WT:BRFA and WP:BN. Given that he is opposed to discussing his behavior, any objections to an indef block? MBisanz ^talk 02:40, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

would recommend a CU then indef of all related accounts too. β^_command 02:42, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I first became aware of this user (as an actual IP editor) during the cleanup of the anybot mess; it may be that people involved in the relevant WikiProjects know more about him. This person's IP seems to change frequently (I've seen edits from 69.225.5.4, 69.225.5.183, 69.226.111.130, 69.226.106.109, and 69.226.103.13 apparently from this same user on WT:BRFA in the past 5 or so months), and I guess he eventually created this "IP69.226.103.13" account to answer concerns over that; at times he still neglects to log in. I have no indication as to whether he has other accounts or just extensive experience as an IP user. I know of at least one short civility block for this user, although I don't recall the specific IP. In general, I've found the user helpful when not overreacting to various issues, which unfortunately does occur rather often. I'm not sure whether an indef would be a net positive for the project or not. You'd have to identify and examine his contributions under his various IP addresses to get a full picture. Anomie⚔ 04:44, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

To Jayron's point, it appears that something else is going on here. Clearly not a newby and the behaviors appear to be disruptive. If another admin disagrees then feel free to reverse this block, but to me it quacks fairly loudly. Toddst1 (talk) 05:07, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Whoa, hold on a second... I'm not 100% certain that a block is fully justified here. Anomie notes a perfectly reasonable explanation for the sockpuppet issue; I think encouraging this user to keep a single account is MUCH preferrable to using multiple IPs, which hinder communication. The hounding behavior is a seperate issue, but I have not been personally convinced that rehabilitation is not possible here... --Jayron32 05:09, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Alright then. I've unblocked. Can we get a CU please? Toddst1 (talk) 05:16, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Shouldn't you file a SPI request and lay out the formal grounds for an investigation with CU? Crafty (talk) 05:27, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Probably not required to file a formal SPI case here; we only need a checkuser to verify Anomie's explanation that this is a former IP editor who has recently created an account, which as I note above is actually an event we wish to encourage. All a checkuser needs to do is confirm this; and we don't really need a formal SPI case to do that. Also see WP:BURO; no formal process is required here or anywhere, especially for a simple case like this. --Jayron32 05:37, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

(←) Makes sense. I do remember this editor from some months back when he edited as an anon. Trying to fix up science (biology?) articles, an area in which he has expertise. If memory serves Fisher Queen was trying to help him. I think he's on the level as far as sockpuppetry goes, but CU will resolve that. As for the other stuff, well greater minds than mine will have to judge. Crafty (talk) 05:47, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

The user is almost certainly not a sock. While editing as 69.226.103.13, the user revealed an enormous blunder whereby a bot had created thousands of error-filled articles in a highly technical area (the user is one of the few available who could recognize the errors). Most of the background can be seen here. The two barnstars on User:IP69.226.103.13 are genuine. The user took a tremendous amount of flak while trying to alert people about the damage performed by the bot. Unfortunately, the user has shown signs of damage from those skirmishes and is highly critical when potentially dubious statements are made at WT:Bots/Requests for approval. I have no idea what the current dispute is about, but some firm counselling may be all that is required. Johnuniq (talk) 09:40, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes! That's it! It's a shame he's had such a rough trot here. Crafty (talk) 18:53, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment by apparent newbie block permanently without diffs without warning

Most of my most recent IP addresses are simply listed on the mistaken register-user name I thought of using for a while. Other ones are in the Anybot clean-up. And still more are in the User:Kurt Shaped Box anybot clean up pages, where I went through a couple of thousand bad redirects to save some of them from a love of eating seaweed.

1. I sure won't be editing as a registered user anymore.

A user puts a notice on my page saying an AN/I post may be about something I was involved in. The user accuses me of stalking her for disagreeing with half a dozen of the many AfDs she has posted with bad justifications for deletion. All articles about academics. Certainly not about minor fictional characters. She offers no proof.

A user who has been before arbcom twice, is sanctioned from editing, gets his rights back, calls me names and stalks me at bots supports the unsupported initial accusations. I get permanently blocked on no evidence whatsoever. No diffs required to kick me. Betacommand gets to continue his personal attacks on me. One of his mentors who allows him, while supposedly mentoring him, to call me a 13 year old and say I can't follow instructions, in other words allows personal attacks by a user who is supposed to be on probation comes by and supports his buddy.

So, 0% proof by anyone. But, the damning evidence is there in my edit history, the exact reason, by the way, that Betacommand assumed rightly that personally attacking me would be a freebie: I appear to be a newly registered editor, and I can go to hell without the least bit of consideration.

Don't bite the newbies, just permanently block them based on nothing, allow Betacommand to stalk and personally attack them freely, then be done with them. That will teach new editors to think they can edit wikipedia.

Let's see, if I wasn't a newly registered user what would you have done, asked for evidence? Required a notice that says I AM the subject of a post? Require diffs? Give me a warning? Any of that?

Well, it doesn't matter, does it, because I appear to be a newbie, so you can just shoot me. --69.225.9.98 (talk) 06:26, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

The block and the like have been questioned; please don't let this take you off WP, at least as a registered user. You've done some damn good work, and I'd hate to see you go. Can we all just start from a clean slate here? You edit, Betacommand edits and everyone stays the hell away from one another? Ironholds (talk) 13:12, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I note that the actions above were immediately questioned by other, more reasonable members of the community. Registering an account would get rid of future issues such as this one. Ironholds (talk) 13:14, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I think Ironholds raises some darned good points here; upon more further review, I concur that this user has done nothing at all wrong. The biggest problem appears to be the lax attitude towards using his registerred account. It highlights the problem with editing for a long time with anonymous IP addresses, and/or being lax about logging in. This is no way excuses anyone from failing to follow WP:AGF and WP:BITE; a problem I have been guilty of as well here. We all should work towards taking a little more time to investigate allegations of sockpuppetry and the like, especially for situations like this, myself included. IP69... should still work towards using his registerred account exclusively to edit. This does not absolve those of us who overreacted to this situation, but by doing so it would be an intelligent move towards avoiding the overreaction of others. My hope is that all sides of this issue can learn from it, and that everyone, the accusers and the accused, will learn a bit about how to avoid situations like this in the future. I know that I have. --Jayron32 16:22, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

The opening sentence above, which started this discussion, is discussing the User's behavior, not sockpuppetry. 99.166.95.142 (talk) 16:34, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

It's only because my account was newly registered that everyone felt it was fine for an admin to indef block me, even to request an indef block, with no supporting diffs, and no warnings on my user page. I have learned that lesson about being a registered user. It's not worth it. The hostility, especially from admins, toward newly registered users on wikipedia is rampant.

No admin would have fallen for this set-up if I had been a long time user on wikipedia. Abductive would have had to provide diffs and would have had to notify me that I was being discussed, not notify me that there was a discussion about "an issue with which you may have been involved."

Betacommand's comment would have been discredited for what it is, since he is stalking and attacking me, or he would have been asked to provide diffs, and his mentor MBisanz might have thought twice about asking for an immediate indef block in support of Betacommand, considering MBisanz's personal antagonism toward me, or maybe would have been asked to provide diffs. Talk about appearance of impropriety. IMO this was clearly abuse of power on MBisanz's part.

But none of this happened. No diffs, no evidence, no benefit of the doubt for the accused, no assumption of anything but the absolute worst bad faith without any supporting evidence, simply get out here, and attack me without diffs, a community sanctioned user with 2 arbcoms and dozens and dozens of complaints against him suggests something be done, his mentor suggests without diffs or evidence, just unsupported accusation, that I be indef blocked, and almost immediately an administrator jumps in and does just that.

It's stupid to edit as a newly registered user. You are treated worse than shit on wikipedia. Certainly you are treated worse than an IP as I have always contended.

Yes, I've learned something: don't edit as a newly registered user. Don't piss of MBisanz. And post the request for enforcement the first time Betacommand personally attacks you. --69.225.3.198 (talk) 16:41, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Anon IP ongoing problems on euthanasia-related pages

There is a Colombia-based IP (dynamic IP, can't be blocked without using a range) who has a long history of editing pages on subjects related to euthanasia disruptively. At one stage, he reduced the entire talk page at Action T4 to a shambles see what it looked like. On Talk, notice how he repetitively added the text:

PEOPLE ARE BEING MASSIVELY AND COERCIVELY KILLED UNDER THE GUISE OF EUTHANASIA, THE CURRENT WIKIPEDIA VERSION IS PROPAGANDA PRO EUTHANASIA, therefore [Wikipedia's page is a] CRIME APOLOGY

Currently, he is targeting Involuntary euthanasia, and now has started in on Euthanasia in the Netherlands.

The problems with this person are

1. He is not natively English-speaking and most of his edits are garbled.
2. He does not really understand how wikipedia works and puts off-topic details into articles.
3. He edit wars everything and doesn't know or care about 3RR or any other rules.
4. He has an obsessive religious objection to euthanasia and is determined to edit hostile and sometimes incoherent comments onto pages.
5. He is immune to arguments. Admin TeaDrinker (talk · contribs) tried long and hard to reason with him at Talk:Action T4 to no avail. Only page protection stopped him at Aktion T4, but my recent request for page protection of Involuntary euthanasia failed because (apparently) there is only one person involved.

Small selection of his IPs:
190.25.97.110 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
190.27.152.60 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
190.25.192.2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
190.25.104.148 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
190.27.99.85 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
201.244.200.44 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Would appreciate input on how to handle this ... ► RATEL ◄ 09:57, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Revert, block, ignore? Maybe have someone try in his primary language first? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:58, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I'd say, block the IPs without warning, since it's most likely the same person and warnings would just waste time. A range block doesn't appear possible since, other than the 190.25's everything else is different.--Giants27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 20:35, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

New Account

Resolved

Query answered ϢereSpielChequers 19:00, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Hey there, I have a question. "Nezzadar" has been good and all, but I want to distance from the account on account of my reprehensible beheaviour. Is it possible to create a new account? I am willing to agree to some standard terms to prevent sockpuppetry, including staying away from using my old account, not voting on things I already voted for, etc.

I don't know where else to put this. Advice? Nezzadar ^[SPEAK] 14:38, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

WP:RTV might be what you are looking for. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 15:23, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't think WP:RTV applies, as this user is not talking about vanishing. How about WP:CHU? As for "willing to agree to some standard terms", hopefully you understand they are policy and not something you can "agree to". They are enforced for all users, not only those who change usernames or get new accounts.  Frank  |  talk  15:25, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Of course, I was just implying I knew about them. Poor wording apology. Nezzadar ^[SPEAK] 15:27, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I think you might be looking for wp:CLEANSTART, but personally I would advise against it. You have kept your block log clean for more than three years now, and whatever you've done recently I would suggest apologising where appropriate, withdrawing from things that agravate you and concentrating on areas of the pedia that you enjoy without aggravation. ϢereSpielChequers 16:53, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes that was what I was looking for. Here is the problem though. This account has problems. I've been dragged into fights, including one with an admin, that I wish to forget. Also, this account has been Twinkle blacklisted, something I do not think I deserve anymore. Nezzadar ^[SPEAK] 16:59, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Well Cleanstart does say "This is permitted only if there are no bans or blocks in place against your old account, and so long as no active deception is involved, particularly on pages that the old account used to edit." So in my view it would be deceptive to use Cleanstart to get round the Twinkle blacklist. Have you contacted the admin who blacklisted you from Twinkle three weeks ago and asked them how long you need to edit for before they would consider unblacklisting your account? ϢereSpielChequers 17:16, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Ha ha, yeah, umm remember when I said that I got into fights, including with one admin? That was the admin. I had accused him previously of harassment and hounding, and this didn't help the situation. Nezzadar ^[SPEAK] 17:19, 2 November 2009 (UTC) for the record, it was User:Hesperian

Apart from checking your block log I haven't reviewed the incidents that got you into conflict, and have no view as to your recent edits. But since you regard your recent behaviour as reprehensible I would suggest saying so to Hesperian, and asking how long you would need to edit constructively for before Hesperian would be willing to unblacklist you from Twinkle. ϢereSpielChequers 17:30, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Nezzadar, just keep up the solid good work and you'll be fine. OK, you've a history but 3 years block free suggests that you've learned from that and have improved as an editor. Twinkle is probably a bit like being a admin, an extra button but no big deal (OK, we admins get 2 extra buttons but you see what I mean). Mjroots (talk) 17:35, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I never use Twinkle, myself. It makes the job too easy. HalfShadow (talk) 17:36, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

[undent] The block was because I told an admin my account was compromised. I had left it logged in at a public place. I was unblocked when I got the situation fixed. As for Twinkle, I really liked having the drop down menus, as I have a hard time memorizing the templates. Nezzadar ^[SPEAK] 17:45, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Posted at Hesperian's page: "Quite frankly, my behavior has been reprehensible lately, and I want to make amends and restore my good name. After recently being verbally assaulted by another user, I came to realize how uncomfortable I must have made you. I am deeply sorry, and I hope you can come to forgive me. Thank you Nezzadar ^[SPEAK] 18:11, 2 November 2009 (UTC) "

As for the Twinkle thing, I'll worry about that later, when I feel I have done enough to deserve getting it back. Thanks everyone. Nezzadar ^[SPEAK] 18:12, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

User talk:Pezzy

Supposedly blocked yesterday. Two declined unblock requests. Keeps editing and gets a new warning. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 21:32, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Toddst has now indeff'd --Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:39, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Restrictions on Troubles articles (was: Another bad block on BigDunc)

Could someone have a look at the latest bad block on BigDunc here. This is getting beyond a joke. Thanks --Domer48_'fenian' 18:22, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Elonka's reasoning is faulty, as the 1RR/week restriction in WP:RfAr/The Troubles clearly doesn't apply unless the probation notice would apply. She claims there's a 1RR/week community restriction, but I can't find it. (Disclaimer: Elonka and I do not see eye-to-eye on much of anything, but I didn't research this because Elonka was involved. ) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:34, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Elonka has lifted the block, so no further action needed here. Discussion as to the precise nature of the 1RR probation going forward would probably not be amiss, though.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:42, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Is ANI that forum, though? I'm not sure. Agree that more discussion is necessary, if only to clarify what restriction kicks in when. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 18:45, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

To compare, I recently blocked two editors on Kosovo for 1RR/week violations. The talkpage there clearly states that there is a 1RR probation in effect, and the box includes a link to the precise definition of 1RR in this case -- "I am hereby placing Kosovo under 1RR sanctions for ALL users editing this article. This means that you are only allowed one revert per week to this article, except in cases of obvious vandalism. In addition, you will be required to discuss any content reversions on the article talk page." There is also an editnotice setting this out.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:46, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree that there appears to be good faith confusion about the definition of 1RR in the Troubles case. So, this situation would benefit from a community discussion on the matter, to clarify the remedies. As a summary:

• There was an ArbCom case in October 2007, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles, in which the remedies required that editors first be placed on probation, and then limited to 1RR, one revert per article per week.
• The remedies of the case were then extended in October 2008, by community discussion[113] to include all articles related to the Troubles (British/Ireland article), with blocks of 1 week for even the first offense, to be extended to 1 month, and then discuss ban options after that. However, unfortunately, "1RR" was not clearly defined in the October 2008 discussion, so there is ambiguity as to whether the "all articles" restriction meant "1 revert per article per week", or "1 revert per article per day".

It is also unclear whether an editor still needs to be placed under formal "probation" before they can be blocked, or whether it is sufficient to announce that the article is under probation (In the case of Irish Bulletin, a clear notice had been placed on the talkpage that the article fell within the scope of October 2008 consensus).

Going forward, what are people's thoughts? For Troubles-related articles, how should 1RR be defined, and how much warning is required to an editor beforehand? --Elonka 18:51, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

The wider problem here is the unreasonably wide interpretation of what constututes a "Troubles related" article. "When in doubt, assume it's related" is simply not a sensible basis to on which to operate. "The Troubles" are generally understood to have begun in 1969 (or 1966 by some reckonings) and to have ended, for the most part, with the Belfast Agreement of 1998. BigDunc's block was for editing an article about a rather obscure publication from the 1920s! To tar all of Irish history and indeed all contemporary Irish and Northern Irish politics with the brush of the Troubles is effectively to place unusual and unacceptable restrictions on editing articles about whole swathes of the national life of the Irish Republic and indeed The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. This whole ArbCom ruling on the Troubles needs to be rethought, refined and clarified.Irvine22 (talk) 18:54, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Without re-reading through all the existing discussion, it seems to me that 1RR per day would be reasonable, unless a particular editor is placed under 1RR/week.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:58, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Maybe a standard template to be placed on Troubles-related articles would help here?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:04, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

There's already a template, which was used at Talk:Irish Bulletin#Notification, though it could probably be expanded. --Elonka 19:08, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Or at least moved to the top of the page, where it would be more visible. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:10, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

• (to Irvine22) Yes, but when it's the usual Troubles crowd fighting we can safely assume that nationalist WP:BATTLEGROUND lies behind it, even on a somewhat obscure article that's not obviously linked to the Troubles. Moreschi (talk) 19:00, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Agreed: "Troubles" should be interpreted widely (after all, the grievances of the Troubles didn't materialise out of nowhere in 1969, or vanish overnight in 1998). The aim here is to prevent edit warring on a series of related articles, not to be legalistically precise about what "the Troubles" as a historical episode was. Rd232 ^talk 19:25, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, as you know, that can be so widely applied as to mean that just about any article related to Ireland may be so tagged. And Ireland is so much more than just The Troubles, don't you agree? Irvine22 (talk) 20:15, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Troubles issues may spill over into many Ireland-related articles, including ones seemingly somewhat distant. To repeat myself, "The aim here is to prevent edit warring on a series of related articles, not to be legalistically precise about what "the Troubles" as a historical episode was." Rd232 ^talk 22:09, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting legalistic precision. Just common sense. Irvine22 (talk) 23:44, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

• Could Elonka please remove this. BigDunc 19:32, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Amended, yes. It was in the queue to handle, though I was mulling whether to replace it with a formal probation notice or not. But I've definitely marked it for now as the block being lifted. --Elonka 19:39, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
    • Thank you. BigDunc 19:40, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

The only confusion about 1RR in this matter is with the admin with the trigger happy block finger, I warned her that 1RR creates nothing but drama and a few days later look were we are. 19:37, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

One thing to consider is the impact[114] of ad hoc constraints. I'm not an editor involved normally in this area, nor has anyone suggested that I am (specifically I surfed the broad subject after a discussion here, edited maybe 3 articles) - indeed I was just working on an interesting stub that seemed to have easily accessible ref's to expand upon. But one of the unique things I've noticed here is the high degree of interaction between a tight knit group of editors focused solely on this broad area who edit as a group and are quite openly discussing cooperation amongst themselves in numerous locations or possibly seeking out[115] supporting editors. The problem may be as much an abdication by neutral editors due to the stresses involved in contributing in this area as anything else. Artificial limits - without consideration of the associated gaming consequences, should be fully discussed before implementation as broad official policy....-99.135.174.186 (talk) 19:40, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

To the IP above - exactly right. Irvine22 (talk) 19:43, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Just as a note, the IP, 99.135.174.186 (talk · contribs) has been steadily hopping from one IP to the next in this topic area and other areas of conflict, accumulating a steady history of warnings (and some blocks). So when they say that they are "not an editor involved normally in this area", that's not entirely accurate. For more info, see User talk:99.135.170.179#Multiple IPs. --Elonka 19:55, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

This link[116] may be more informative as to the source of tension indicated above. _-99.135.174.186 (talk) 20:27, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

NB: created {{Troubles restriction}} to aid communication. Rd232 ^talk 19:51, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

That helps, but only if it isn't too widely applied to articles that are clearly not Troubles-related as the term "The Troubles" is properly understood. And didn't you recently try to tell me that Birds of Ireland was somehow Troubles-related? You see how silly this can get...Irvine22 (talk) 20:00, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Not exactly. I told you to exercise common sense and caution, asking if in doubt, and when you claimed inability to do that, I told you how you could be sure of avoiding the issue. Rd232 ^talk 22:09, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm all for common sense. Caution, not so much. Irvine22 (talk) 23:46, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

While Rd232 is happily adding his new template to articles can someone tell me where breaches are to get reported to? And also are we going to have a situation were some admins will block and others won't, as Sandstein refused to block for 1RR previously, while other admins were blocking. BigDunc 20:03, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Breaches should be reported at WP:AE, just as the blocks should be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles. Judging by the arbitrators' comments on the talkpage there, they are aware that this means that the original ArbCom decision and the followup community consensus decision are a bit mushed together, but they seem to be okay on that. --Elonka 20:07, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I’m happy enough now that the BAD BLOCK was lifted, however suggestions that it was based on "confusion" as to what 1RR is, is nonsense. With this little flurry of activity I must of missed the apology that Dunc had coming?--Domer48_'fenian' 21:15, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

• @ Elonka 1RR is not part of the arbcom remedy it was community consensus we had a situation I mentioned before were User:Sandstein refused to block at AE for 1RR breaches this will happen again. BigDunc 22:29, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
  • That was more Sandstein saying that he was hesitant to use the AE subpage as an adjunct to Community Sanctions, but that seems to have been resolved satisfactorily with recent issues. I'd still use AE, myself, but I can understand where you're coming from, Dunc. SirFozzie (talk) 23:11, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Fozz I said it then and I said it on the page I got the bad block (in fact I was the only one who agreed to it) I have no problem with 1RR as long as it is universal and we wont have situations were one admin blocks and another admin comes along and doesn't block. All this does is open up the whole can of worms about bias. And as an admin that was involved you have got that from both sides. BigDunc 23:19, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Dunc, here is a link which should help. --Domer48_'fenian' 23:36, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Could someone give me a quick summary of what went on here?--Tznkai (talk) 00:27, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Admin Elonka was under the impression that there was a one revert a week condition on articles related to WP:RfAr/The Troubles and under that supposed restriction blocked user Big Dunc and IP99 both for a week, there was some suggestion from other involved users that there isn't a one revert a week condition and so quite swiftly Admin Elonka unblocked them both and since then there has been continued discussion regarding the situation around the one revert condition. Off2riorob (talk) 00:37, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Concur with Off2riorob's summary, nice job.  :) I'd also add that BigDunc and IP99 were both very clear that there was a one-revert-per-week restriction on Irish Bulletin. In fact, I'd even mistakenly said one revert per day[117] when I first started monitoring the article, but errors were pointed out in my post,[118] so I struck out the "once per day" part.[119] BigDunc even repeated the 1RR restriction back to me,[120][121] because he had strong concerns about it. So it's clear that he knew about the restriction ahead of time. --Elonka 01:48, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment: one issue is that the template {{Troubles restriction}}, like the notices it replaced, tells users "If you are a new editor, or an editor unfamiliar with the situation, please follow the guidelines laid out in the above link" (the link being Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/The_Troubles#Final_remedies_for_AE_case). What effect is that link likely to have on the average user wandering by, never mind the average newbie? It's bad enough to have scary restrictions imposed, it should at least be presented clearly. Otherwise the restriction is contributing unnecessarily to deterring new people from getting involved. Rd232 ^talk 07:55, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

No question it's a deterrent. But then there are editors working in this area who quite clearly want to deter others from editing articles over which they feel proprietorial, and admins who seem willing to appease them. This sort of thing will drive people away from Wikipedia. (Not me though. I'm here to stay.) Irvine22 (talk) 14:05, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

@Rd232: I agree that part of {{Troubles restriction}} seems a bit confusing. How about changing it to, "If you are a new editor in this topic area, please follow these restrictions. If you have any questions, please post a message on this talkpage. If you get no reply, and no one else is editing the article, then you may assume that there is no immediate objection to any good faith edits on your part. If administrator attention is needed to enforce restrictions, please post a request at WP:AE." --Elonka 14:50, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

@Elonka: Do you really think the tortured formulation you are proposing above is at all welcoming to new users?Irvine22 (talk) 16:36, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree that we should be as welcoming as possible to new users. However, we should also be fair and let them know what kind of drek they're going to be in for. I'd support new editors being given a different template going something like "Please be forewarned that controversial editing areas may invite extra scrutiny. Please make sure you're making every effort to comply with Wikipedia's policies, including editing restrictions that are in force on articles in this area.". (Please forgive, I'm typing quick, and just came up with that off the top of my head.) SirFozzie (talk) 19:34, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Mandatory registration is inevitable. GoodDay (talk) 20:18, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

@SirFozzie: Hmm, are we talking about the same thing? I'm in agreement that new users should receive as gentle and welcoming a message as possible. But my impression for {{Troubles restriction}} is that it's a template which is to be placed on article talkpages, not user talkpages. So we can't modify it to display one message for new users, and another for established users (though such an option would be very handy!). --Elonka 20:32, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Ah, my bad. fundamental disconnect, I have no problem with your message for talk pages. Perhaps we can produce a version of the welcome template to give to new users editing in the troubles area. Eh. Let's see... (I see that Dunc has already brought up a user over on AE as requested.. do you want me to handle it?). SirFozzie (talk) 20:37, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Go for it! It's always good when there are multiple admins monitoring a controversial topic area.  :) --Elonka 21:02, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

(de-indent) Darn it, I was afraid you were going to say that ;).. needless to say, I have history in trying to resolve this dispute. History. that's a good word for it :P :) SirFozzie (talk) 21:04, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Well your both looking at it and Fozz has been on the talk page so is anyone going to do anything? BigDunc 21:58, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Holy smokers. Some kinda stronger protection is needed at BigDunc's userpage. Things are getting ridicules. GoodDay (talk) 22:13, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I was asking if Elonka or other AE admins familiar with this wanted to make a go at it, I will be giving it a shot shortly. and I'll see what's going on at Dunc's userpage *sighs heavily* SirFozzie (talk) 22:14, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

So it's warnings for breaching 1RR great stuff, I don't breach anything and get a week block, another bad one to my list, but as I said it depends on which admin comes along whether you are blocked or not which is BS, either all get blocked for 1RR or none get blocked. BigDunc 22:31, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Also for the record I didn't want the editor blocked but it just proves the point I have been making. BigDunc 22:35, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Dunc, You know my style. I give one warning before taking action in all but very egregious cases. I very specifically did not close it, I added sections for further discussion, and if any administrator wants to overrule me, place Jdorney on probation or issue a block, I have no problem with that. Do you want me to state as such on the AE request? SirFozzie (talk) 22:39, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

No as I said I honestly don't want to see any editor blocked except for the blindingly obvious trolls and disruptive editors, but I wonder if it had have been some other editor would they have been blocked, maybe not by you but possibly another admin. You are well aware of the situation Fozz not all admins are and this is where the trouble begins with blocks for some and not for others. BigDunc 22:44, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, human nature being what it is, you ask different people they have different opinions. And as volunteers, no one person could ride herd on a topic area as far ranging as this because of the amount of time it takes. (and in my opinion, you couldn't pay me enough to make it a full-time job :D) SirFozzie (talk) 22:46, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I would give me a mop and I would clean it up ;) BigDunc 22:49, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

It just illustrates how some editors have block logs and others don't. One editor get a warning another get a block which all depends on which admin you get. --Domer48_'fenian' 11:07, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Dealing with IP editors in this area

Relevant discussion at

→ WP:ANI#Join or be banned? → Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Troubles → WP:ANI/IncidentArchive573#Request for Second Opinion - Administrators interpretation of consensus RE: RS status

I'm setting this section apart slightly to separate this from the discussion of the block of BigDunc to discuss a corollary situation to this one. There are numerous long term blocked/banned users in this area, who continue to disrupt Wikipedia even after they've been formally disinvited. (see: This link for only one such editor's path of disruption). What I think we're seeing is some of these disruptive users moving to IP addresses in an attempt to continue to effect the area without quickly being restricted out of the area.

I know, in general, that we Assume Good Faith with unregistered editors, but with the amount of disruption in this area (including the above IP-hopper), perhaps it would be advisable to put forward a request that any IP who comes in and shows signs of being a single purpose account, be immediately made aware of the probationary terms and have them applied ruthlessly (including blocks, etcetera).

I would also request that checkusers be made aware of current IP addresses to see if this is indeed block evasion, and to determine eventually if range blocks are necessary. SirFozzie (talk) 22:03, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, and this can certainly be done, but my impression was that Checkusers weren't supposed to be contacted unless we had a rough idea of who we thought the IP might actually be, per "CheckUser is not for fishing expeditions". Forgive me if I'm misunderstanding Checkuser policy, I don't use it very often. But is there some sort of exemption for ArbCom enforcement areas, or what is the best way to request a Checkuser in these situations? What code letter would we use? --Elonka 22:10, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

It's happened before in ArbCom related areas where greater scrutiny is necessary, for example, Mantanmoreland, etcetera. Perhaps a formalclarification with ArbCom asking that in areas where there is significant amounts of IP disruption is happening, that checkusers be given greater latitude in rooting out problematic editors. Basically, there's just way too many articles that could be considered "Troubles" (ie, Republicanism/Nationalism, name of the island vs the nation, etcetera) related to consider lowering the threshold for semi-protection. I would also file a SPI (naming the Troubles as the representative case), for the IP, to determine if a range block can be done (ie, what is the collateral damage)). SirFozzie (talk) 22:20, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip! I have filed a case: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Troubles. --Elonka 22:43, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Geez people

To quote Rodney King, can we all just get along? Or in wikispeak, why do we have these years long edit wars by the same users who simply care more about their own POV instead of building a good or great NPOV wiki article? I know the answer. The answer is that they see their POV being "perverted and distorted" and that hundreds if not thousands of years of real life ethnic wars render them unable to edit otherwise. Well, it's time to get over and stop this nonsense. And what's all this arguing about 1RR being a week or not? We all know that 3RR/1RR/0RR etc means PER DAY unless otherwise specified. As to "Whether an editor needs to be placed under formal *logged* ArbCom probation, before an admin can do anything", NO THEY DON'T because The Troubles editors have all been on notice FOR A LONG TIME. If I come upon this problem again, I'll be out of patience. Get on with building articles instead of all this incessant bickering. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:03, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

• applause* SirFozzie (talk) 22:07, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Hear, hear. Like one of my heroes said, "Nationalism is racism". We're all created equal here; let's try not to always see any disagreement in nationalistic terms. --John (talk) 05:34, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Addendum to community sanction

To help clarify when 1RR means "per day" or "per week", it's probably best to spell this out. How does this sound?

• 1RR may mean 1 revert per article per day, or 1 revert per article per week, depending on context, as follows:
  • A limit of one revert per article per week is a restriction which can be placed per the original wording of The Troubles case from 2007. This is a per-editor restriction. The affected editor must be formally warned by an uninvolved administrator on their talkpage, with a link to the case, and an indication of how long that the editor is on on probation for, up to a maximum of six months. The notification and terms of the probation must be logged to the Case page. After an editor has been formally placed on probation, they are restricted to 1 revert per article per week, for the duration of the probation. If the editor is blocked while on probation, this automatically resets the length of time of their probation to the original maximum.
  • Per community consensus from 2008,[122] there is also a 1RR per day restriction, on all Troubles articles. This means that any editor who reverts on a Troubles-related article more than once in a 24-hour period may be blocked immediately, for up to one week, even on the first offense. However, administrators are still advised to use good judgment, to assume good faith, and to avoid biting genuinely new users. So, at the administrator's discretion, they may choose to issue a warning rather than a block.

Thoughts? --Elonka 23:25, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

• Sounds good. Nobody should be blind-reverting anything but cock and willy-type vandalism on any article related to Ireland, as there has been so much friction. I remain undecided if we merely need to clarify and enforce the existing sanctions more rigidly, or if new sanctions are needed. Let's try Elonka's suggestion anyway. --John (talk) 05:37, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

If the sanctions are enforced uniformly on all editors there will be no problems but already we have had 1 editor myself wrongly blocked for a week and a day later and editor who certainly breached 1RR get a warning. So either all get blocked or none get blocked, or we are going to have a lot more threads here from disgruntled editors complaining that they were blocked and X wasn't. BigDunc 15:38, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Domer: That was because the terms of the editor probation (1RR/Week, up to one week block) and the article probation (1RR/Day, normal size blocks) were mixed up. I will try to keep an eye on AE (as well as talk with a couple of the other AE regulars on this), so we can keep things moving smoothly. And I have no problem with what Elonka says up above. SirFozzie (talk) 18:41, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

SirFozzie, I think you meant "(1RR/week, normal size blocks) and the article probation (1RR/day, up to one week block)", yes? Just want to make sure we're clear, so we don't run into enforcement problems in the future! --Elonka 17:11, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Agree Dunc, if the sanctions are enforced uniformly on all editors there will be no problems but that not going to happen! [123] [124] [125]. Now if it were you or I, it would be a different story. --Domer48_'fenian' 15:35, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Domer, I have looked at those three links, and am not seeing your point. Could you perhaps try to explain it more clearly? --Elonka 03:38, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

IP capitalizes everything in sight over a ton of pages with a new ip each day

Starting in about August, I began to revert edits by an ip address that capitalized lots of words like "best-selling", "platinum", "hit", "b-side", etc throughout the Anna Vissi article. For example: [126], and [127]. After numerously notifying the user that he was wrong and violating the mos [128], [129], [130], [131], [132] to no avail, I decided I would just have to keep changing everything back and hopefully he will give up soon. Sadly he has not and soon began to carry out his edits on numerous other related pages such as Vissi's discography [133], [134], her videography [135], and almost every page related to her on wikipedia [136], [137]. More recently, he has expanded to edit Despina Vandi pages as he did here [138]. It would be painfully time consuming to provide diffs for every wrong edit he has made, but these same edits have been repeated almost daily for the past 3 months and I have had enough. I've discussed the concern with some admins I know and they are clueless on what can be done. Page protection wouldn't work since he edits 20+ articles and last time the Vissi article was protected, the edits just came back when its protection expired. He edits using a 79.107.... ip and the end numbers change with each day/visit, never repeating, so an ip range block would wipe out half of Greece. What is there that can be done to permanently solve this problem? I don't have the energy to keep going around and reverting small capitalization errors day after day. Please help. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 15:10, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I believe that a rangeblock is possible, probably no large than a /20. You could help if you would enter all the IP addresses you have seen in the rangeblock calculator and post the result here. Either that, or list all the individual addresses somewhere, perhaps on your user talk. A tool such as rangecontribs can then be used to check for collateral. EdJohnston (talk) 15:22, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

A list of the ips from the Anna Vissi page can be found here. The result of the rangeblock calculator was "Range 79.107.192.0/18 (up to 16384 users would be blocked)". Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 15:37, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

It seems like we only have a couple of options: (a) we keep doing the same thing, (b) we give up, (c) we block up to 16,384 users, or (d) we semi-protect 20+ articles for a while, possibly as long as it takes him to get bored. Given the extensiveness of disruption, it seems (a) isn't possible and (b) is undesirable. Out of c & d, I think I'd put my backing on d. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:48, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I support the suggestion by Moonriddengirl. It's likely to be the least disruptive. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 15:53, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Appears that semiprotecting 20 articles is the best option. Since he's doing this for 3 months, I suggest that we use 3 months as the length of the protection. EdJohnston (talk) 16:03, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Alright, if page protection is the best way to go then I'm all for it. It would be best to semi-protect all articles in {{Anna Vissi}}, including the template itself. There has also been some on and off again changing of Elena Paparizou's album count (ip believes that the English language album doesn't count), but I have not determined if it is the same editor or not and the ip range seems to be a tad lower, so I'll wait on those pages. [139] and [140]. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 16:57, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Fun! I'll get working on it now. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:13, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Just so I know, are "gold" and "platinum" certifications supposed to be capitalized? I looked at an FA and they weren't in the prose, but it would be nice to have a clear answer. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 17:18, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

No reason for them to be capitalized; they aren't formal names. And there's my ride! I'll pick up again when I get back, unless somebody else takes care of it. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:42, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

←Just to note I'm working on the linked template from the top row down but am waiting for a ride and will be having to leave abruptly. If anybody else is interested, I've made a very temporary template of explanation for the talk page that can be used: {{subst:User:Moonriddengirl/temp}} Like all my templates, it creates its own section and automatically signs the user's name, because I'm lazy like that. :) I haven't added protection templates to the articles themselves. Is there a bot that will do it? (I hope?) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:30, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't think so. User:Steel359/protection.js can make the tagging of pages quite simple though. NW (Talk) 19:03, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Anonymous IPs in general

Collapsed discussion of a perrennial issue which has nothing to do with WP:ANI. If people really want to rehash old arguments, the proper venue is WP:VPP. MickMacNee (talk) 18:36, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

This points to a greater problem within more than just these articles. I've regularly had to request that pages get semi-protected. Anonymous IPs don't often contribute to the articles I watch. Why not semi-protect all of Wikipedia permanently? Why do we allow anon IPs to edit at all? Once these 20 articles are blocked, then the anon IP moves into another set of articles that Gk1011 isn't watching. (Taivo (talk) 16:05, 31 October 2009 (UTC)) See discussion in #Join or be banned? above on just this question. Peter jackson (talk) 16:21, 31 October 2009 (UTC) Speaking as someone who has made considerably more than 125000 vandalism reverts, the majority of IP edits are not unconstructive. J.delanoygabsadds 16:24, 31 October 2009 (UTC) That does not square with my experience, but maybe I only notice it when they're not constructive. In any case, it's a core principle that "anyone can edit", which is not literally true, but wikipedia does its best to try and accommodate that axiom. Until that basic philosophy changes, we have to work around it, by only protecting articles that are consistently under siege, such as the subjects of recent news stories. Which doesn't explain why articles like banana and penguin get attacked so often. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:30, 31 October 2009 (UTC) This discussion won't change policy (obviously). But as long as it's being discussed at all -- allowing IP editors is idiotic. It encourages vandalism and game playing for no net benefit. If the 2 minute hurdle of creating a username and password is too much for someone, they're not really worth having. Most IP edits are vandalism.Bali ultimate (talk) 16:32, 31 October 2009 (UTC) I don't know if that's actually true, but it might be worth having a bot review to determine what percentage of IP edits were reverted for vandalism over a specific time period. Then we would have hard numbers to back up or refute the claim. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 16:37, 31 October 2009 (UTC) And having that same bot review good faith, and calculating a ration my opinion in my vandal hunting career (no where as extensive as some others here) I'd guess maybe 1 out of every 15-20 is constructive.--SKATER Speak. 16:53, 31 October 2009 (UTC) I guess one of the problems is that even though an IP edit may be constructive, usually there is some work that someone with knowledge of wiki policy must fix after the edit like formatting, linking and stuff like that. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 16:59, 31 October 2009 (UTC) IPs are human too? NW (Talk) 17:06, 31 October 2009 (UTC) I've just made some edits to the IPs are human essay, and explained my reasoning on that talk page.Bali ultimate (talk) 17:32, 31 October 2009 (UTC) Yes on articles like Eurovision Song Contest 2010 the edits IPs make are usually in good faith, but usually they need to be fine tuned or in some cases reverted if they violates policies/guidelines. The problem is it often takes a long time for inappropriate edits to be fixed which damages article quality and has now resulted in this page being protected. This and similar pages would be a good choice for flagged protection in the future so IPs are still welcome to make edits but they can be checked before going "live". Camaron · Christopher · talk 17:41, 31 October 2009 (UTC) This is of course one of Wikipedia's perennial proposals. The fact is that a large majority of anonymous edits are helpful (anyone sufficiently interested might find it fun update that measurement with 2009 data). Typo fixing is probably the most common beneficial IP edit type, and I doubt most people would be interested enough to register an account just to fix a typo. It's not something you notice when you patrol edits looking for vandalism though. henrik•talk 17:08, 31 October 2009 (UTC) I've just checked out a couple of dozen IP edits at recent changes. As expected most are good edits, only a minority were vandalism. Personally I suspect that Huggle is responsible for the IP=vandal myth, as Huggle preselects for probable vandalism based on warnings etc. If you judge IPs by the edits Huggle is interested in you will take a dim view of IPs. ϢereSpielChequers 17:45, 31 October 2009 (UTC) Likewise, most if not all of our registered editors started out as IPs. I dare say that most of us registered accounts only after we discovered that participating here was fun. Inhibiting the abilities to IPs to get hooked on editing Wikipedia would dramatically cut back on our infusion of fresh blood into the project. — Kralizec! (talk) 17:51, 31 October 2009 (UTC) Constructive IPs should be encourage to pressure the disruptive IPs to mend their ways. Non-hoppers should encourage hoppers to keep to 1 IP account. GoodDay (talk) 17:53, 31 October 2009 (UTC) I personally have always held the belief that school-IPs should be soft-blocked, but this is because school-IPs more often than not end up being more trouble than they are worth. Random IP edits can often be helpful, but school IPs invariably degrade into random and continual vandalism. HalfShadow (talk) 17:55, 31 October 2009 (UTC) I guess it depends on the field. Mostly editing physics-related articles, I estimate that about 80% of the IP-edits are vandalism. DVdm (talk) 18:04, 31 October 2009 (UTC) It the Copper article is anything to go by, that applies to chemistry articles too. Mjroots (talk) 18:06, 31 October 2009 (UTC) It's not just that many IP edits are helpful (although that's true). Many constructive Wikipedia editors started out as IPs before becoming regular enough editors that they felt the need to create a login. Preventing IP edits would create a barrier to entry that would threaten the project by cutting off the supply of new long-term editors. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:27, 31 October 2009 (UTC) How silly, why bother banning IPs? If an IP user is unable to vandalise wikipedia, they will simply make an account and vandalise wikipedia with the account that took them 30 seconds to create. 119.173.81.176 (talk) 04:44, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

You big collapser, you. GoodDay (talk) 22:30, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Join or be banned?

Resolved

 – Per SPI report, IP has been range-blocked. --Elonka 15:21, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Relevant discussion at

→ Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Troubles → WP:ANI/IncidentArchive574#Dealing with IP editors in this area → WP:ANI/IncidentArchive573#Request for Second Opinion - Administrators interpretation of consensus RE: RS status

I posted this at the Jimbo Wales talk page, but A: He may not be around. B: It may not be the appropriate Venue.

I have been ordered to create an account:

As judging by the discussion at WT:SOCK, the unanimous consensus is that you should create an account and only edit while logged in. This is your last chance to comply voluntarily. If you choose not to comply, technical means will be instituted to prevent you from editing anonymously. Please do not make that necessary. Just login, create an account, and then only edit while logged in. Thanks, --Elonka 20:55, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Is this appropriate? I looked at posting at ArbCom on this issue but it is locked. I seem to be in the crosshairs[141] at the moment as User:Elonka and I are currently in disagreement[142] over an interpretation of a WP:RSN discussion[143] which itself was started, by me, but at the request of User:Elonka. I'm also not comfortable with Elonka baiting with leading questions editors engaged in a content dispute with me. [144] which interestingly may have produced this response[145] to my edit here:[146]. Further my participation on the page at the heart of this issue began recently when it was at this stage:[147] as a stub without references. This was my work:[148]. I don't believe that my edits are disruptive, I believe my contributions to be civil, well referenced and supported with clear, concise reasoning.

As an IP I have received some very quick blocks, the most recent was for a week because I made a revert after 6 days. (I reverted an Editor on patrol making multiple edits a minute[149] - and who never returned to the article, or any other page) Apparently Elonka thought I shouldn't make two within 7 days. This was immediately reversed[150] under pressure from the community, but is being used to label me as a troublemaker. As is this edit discussed here[151] for which I was also blocked and which was quickly lifted. No attempts to evade have ever been made, nor have I ever shown anything but the utmost regard for community rules and respect for sanction. That I've been blocked is without question, but I have done my time so to speak and moved away from the source of the tension. That blocks come quickly and easily to IP's puts me at a disadvantage on paper, the black marks are there. A previous discussion on the Wales page regarding IP editing can be found in this edit history[152] (not sure how to link to the archive of the section). I realize it's a narrow question, my thoughts regarding IP can be found in the section noted and also here[153]. I also realize that the debate over IP's is quite significant, many make no attempt to hide their contempt for non-reg users - and discrimination is simply a reality. But as anyone can see by my contributions they are the serious and well supported work of a dedicated Wikiauthor. And although I make a reasonable attempt at discussion I have always left articles if too contentious. None of my work shows any signs of being poor research, bias, SPA or deception through the artificial illusion of multiple personality's (Sock). I had the temerity to believe myself equal to my fellow editors and attempt to participate on administrative forums such as RSN and the like. It would appear that this has caused a great deal of strife as my mere presence as an IP is quickly referred to as all manner of bad things. Thank you for your time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.135.174.186 (talk) 16:52, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

"None of your work" shows such signs? Seems that the way that Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Troubles is going, that statement seems a bit doubtful. Tarc (talk) 17:18, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

99.1x has been using dozens of accounts, has accumulated countless warnings, and been blocked several times. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Troubles. 99.1x, sorry, but we're onto you now. The disruption must stop. The only debate now is whether to completely block or ban you from Wikipedia, or give you a chance to start over fresh on a logged-in account. --Elonka 17:23, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)X2: From reading the entire section, WT:SOCK#Dealing with a disruptive user on changing IPs, things are apparently not as innocent as you'd have us believe. There are personal attack blocks, edit warring blocks, etc., etc. Since we can't tell when the IP is you and when it is someone else, we have to assume it is you. Low-key editors doing low-key activities in low-key areas over a range of IPs won't even be seen, let alone cause consternation. You apparently are not doing low-key activites, nor are you doing them in low-key areas. You need to register an account. Otherwise, you appear to be changing identities to obscure your record here. That is the part of WP:SOCK that you are violating. Wknight94 ^talk 17:24, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Here is a discussion over Polanski[154]. I was accused specifically , as you can see by the blocking admin, of adding "fugitive" , and "convicted" and changing an S to lowercase s. As I said, it's pretty easy to get blocked. But I have respected the sanction and removed myself from the source of controversy. The discussion linked to is ample evidence of Ip editing issues, and my moving away is a positive that is being re factored into a negative. One can only imagine the accusation if I had not moved away but become entrenched in the article. -99.135.174.186 (talk) 17:32, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Even now, you're sugarcoating. The nature of that discussion began as you said, but then moved on to contentious changes at other articles - inserting text saying that Anjelica Huston was present when Polanski raped a girl, almost as though she were involved somehow. I'll repeat what I said: low-key dynamic IPs in low-key areas are fine - neither apply. You're editing subjects apparently include pedophilia and The Troubles - what's next, war in Iraq, 9/11 conspiracies, and Holocaust denial? It's as though you are looking down the list of closed WP:RFAR cases and editing only those areas! If you're going to do that, people need to see who they are fighting, so you need a stable user name. Wknight94 ^talk 17:56, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

My edit at Anjelica Huston is still the stable version. I alone added each and every word of this and the supporting ref's:

...and included an incident in which she became a witness for the prosecution at Roman Polanski's 1977 trial regarding the rape of a 13 year old girl in Nicholson's home.http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/09/27/zurich.roman.polanski.arrested/ Her testimony, in which she arrived unexpectedly at the residence she had just recently shared with Nicholson, was used to place Polanski definitively in the bedroom with the victim.http://books.google.com/books?lr=&id=ZkjtLnkozWQC&dq=roman+polanski+anjelica+huston+rape&q=+anjelica+huston+who+place#search_anchor

And although I was criticized mercilessly for "disrupting" Huston, that - and my Talk page comments, are the entirety of my edits there. Feel free to revert them if you feel they are still disruptive and inappropriate. I honestly believe them to be GF additions to the Encyclopedia. -99.135.174.186 (talk) 18:07, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Your original content was worthy of criticism. Your cleaned-up version was after being reverted and discussion - and even an RFC - on the talk page. Regardless, you're missing my original point - you're in contentious areas so you need an account. Wknight94 ^talk 18:24, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I did not add the incident, this was my first edit there[155]. I improved, wikified and ref'd the mention. My editing there lasted about 60 hours, a handful of edits and one sentence.99.135.174.186 (talk) 18:39, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I see I'm also being accused of disruptive at Black and Tans. Here is the section as I found it:[156]. Here are my changes:[157]. Still the version. Added to this piece of supposedly disruptive editing in which I arrived at a dormant [158] stub without references and brought to this stage:[159]. Which again is still there and has been added to by others now.99.135.174.186 (talk) 18:34, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Get an account, get an account, get an account. Wknight94 ^talk 18:41, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Folks, you're wasting your time, trying to persaude the editor to 'create an account' & 'sign in'. If he/she wants to be blocked or banned, that's his/her choice. GoodDay (talk) 18:51, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

There is no precident to block an ip simply because the person using it will not log in. If there is vandalism, then block, but no one should "rewrite" policy to require a person using wikipedia to log-in or be banned.--Jojhutton (talk) 18:55, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, we as administrators lack the authority to compel someone to edit while logged in. Indeed, as was pointed out elsewhere, Special:CompelUser seems to be broken. We can treat this IP user (and the IPs connected to him/her) as one user, per policy, and block them from editing through technical means. If they choose to then acquire an account and begin editing while logged in, that is their decision. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 18:59, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not requiring, just strongly suggesting. S/he is going to be viewed with far less suspicion if s/he were at a constant identity. The more s/he protests with pointers to contentious areas, the clearer it is that s/he needs a constant identity. It would work out better for everyone. Wknight94 ^talk 19:02, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Based on the wording of your "suggestion", it sure did sound like you were giving the person a choice of creating an account or being banned from editing. Perhaps a nice WP:Trout would be in order. We don't like it when the police tell us not to do something thats not against the law, nor do some of us like it when admins decide to rewrite policy to ban people.--Jojhutton (talk) 19:51, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

It's not "a protest with pointers to"... - and I didn't mean to leave the impression that they were being introduced without cause. I'm rebutting the charges that Elonka has directed at me and that are referred to above.99.135.174.186 (talk) 19:08, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Note:(As a nod to the genuine sensitivities of the community at large, should I regain my privilege to edit I shall refrain from any discussions here or at other administrative forums for 3 months. If this requires some sort of formal direction and attachment to a neutral admin for probation oversight and ip id - that's fine.) 99.135.174.186 (talk) 19:24, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Nobody's explained it to me yet, as to why it's so difficult to 'create an account' and 'sign in'. What's the point of refusing to do so? is it out of spite? GoodDay (talk) 19:27, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

allowing people to edit without requiring them to register an account is a founding principle. So, really, you need to re-word the question to "Why is it a problem that someone decides to edit without an account?" - it isn't; problem editors still get blocked, pages still get locked, etc. NotAnIP83:149:66:11 (talk) 19:58, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Why does the IPs 99 prefer to go through all this hassle? It's so easy to 'create an account' & 'sign in'. GoodDay (talk) 20:01, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

My earlier concerns were indirectly linked here [[160]], you'll see that I felt that IP editing had become quite difficult around two years ago, things had just changed. In a related discussion more recently[161] I said. "It may not honestly be possible much/any longer to contribute effectively without an account. Neither right nor wrong - just reality.". I accept that it's now time to part company with the project, "anyone can edit". Good luck on achieving your goals, whatever they may be. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.135.174.186 (talk) 20:14, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Note: The editor-in-question, was given the option of creating an account & signing in, nobody prevented the person from being able to. Regrettably, the person chose not to. GoodDay (talk) 20:42, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

@NotAnIP83: To answer your question, the problem isn't that someone is editing anonymously. The problem is when someone is IP-hopping to continually reset their warning and block history. This is a violation of WP:SOCK, which states that alternate accounts "must not be used to avoid scrutiny". If an anon is making non-controversial edits in non-controversial areas, there is no problem with editing anonymously. But as soon as they're editing in such a manner that they're accumulating warnings and blocks, while using a dynamic IP to then mask the fact that they have those past warnings and blocks, that's where they're violating policy. --Elonka 20:46, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I didn't ask a question. There's some beans around the effects of IP hopping editors, whether they're logged in or not. Someone deliberately hopping IPs to avoid block-logs will continue to do so, they'll just use different accounts when the do. You mention "non-controversial edits in non-controversial areas" - what about "non controversial edits to controversial areas"? NotAnIP83:149:66:11 (talk) 11:08, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Indeeed, the anon would've helped him/herself, had it stopped hopping from IP to IP. GoodDay (talk) 20:52, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment: Let's remind ourselves of WP:IAR: we're here to build an encyclopedia, not to protect the rights of people to edit using IPs rather than with a free, equally or more anonymous, alias. This crops up often enough that I'm inclined to say it should be written down somewhere (if it isn't already). There are good reasons to give users the right to edit via IPs, but editing from a dynamic IP can cause particular problems, and a user consistently refusing to solve those problems by getting an account is being disruptive and should be treated as such. Rd232 ^talk 22:35, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

No one is telling you not to block IP editors when they're being disruptive. Editing from a dynamic IP without an account is not disruptive. I have no idea how you come to that conclusion. NotAnIP83:149:66:11 (talk) 11:08, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

From long experience editing from IP addresses, those of us who edit without using accounts get a little more scrutiny on each edit, which is appropriate and is generally good enough to handle most issues. And as Rd232 says, users exposing their IP addresses are less anonymous than users with made-up account names. It is also harder (though not impossible) to manufacture IP addresses in large quantities than usernames. In general Elonka is right to have decreased AGF towards the activity of IP addresses (or named accounts) in battleground topic areas, and as she is an experienced admin her judgement towards that particular IP should be taken seriously.

Regarding GoodDay's query about not signing in, all I can suggest is trying editing from IP's for a while. If your edits are mostly of good quality, nobody will bother you much about not using an account, and you'll probably find that there are things to like and dislike about it. For some of us, the "like" outweighs the "dislike". If on the other hand your edits are persistently of poor quality, you should find something else to do instead, whether or not you use an account. 69.228.171.150 (talk) 23:38, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Uh, many people can tell you that editing from an IP will get you accusations of socking, trolling, bad faith, etc, even if you're making good edits. Suggesting an IP is bad faith *just because* they're making edits to battleground topics without being logged in is not a good thing. Obviously, as soon as any of their edits are bad faith (even borderline BF) all bets are off.

It sounds like you're doing it out of spite or to make a point, to be honest. I have never seen one good reason given for why unregistered editing could be considered a positive thing. If you think it gives you more anonymity than a registered account, it doesn't. Tarc (talk) 04:34, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

It really doesn't matter whether you think it's a good thing or not - it's a founding principle. Supposedly that means it's not up for discussion, but meh. NotAnIP83:149:66:11 (talk) 11:08, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

The idea behind allowing unregistered editing is that it allows users to make their first edits to Wikipedia with minimal effort; a person doesn't have to do anything besides click "edit this page" to fix an error, and that is a Good Thing for most people, since such drive-by edits are how most editors start off. The idea is that, for your first few edits you edit anonymously, and once you get "hooked" you create an account, and then spend the rest of your life commenting at ArbCom cases and voting at RFA... erm, I mean improving the encyclopedia. Anyhoo, the idea is that most people won't jump through the hoop of creating an account just to fix a spelling error; however the ability to fix that spelling error is the bait that gets most people to create an account in the first place. The downside is that people can continue to edit forever anonymously, either to game the system and avoid scrutiny or to Make a point about something or other. The deal in this case is we should probably take the good with the bad; there would be a drop off in good registered accounts if we disallowed anonymous editing, not an increase, since its the ability to edit anonymously that gets a person interested in the first place. --Jayron32 05:48, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, I said "There are good reasons to give users the right to edit via IPs, but [long-term] editing from a dynamic IP can cause particular problems, and a user consistently refusing to solve those problems by getting an account is being disruptive and should be treated as such." Thanks for spelling out the good reasons, but that's not really relevant to my point. To clarify, my point is that we should have a policy that explicitly says something like "when a particular user's [long-term] use of a dynamic IP causes problems in communication or behaviour monitoring, that user may be required to get an account and edit logged-in." Rd232 ^talk 09:15, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Yup. Totally agree with Jayron. --John (talk) 05:58, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

All I can say is that Jayron and Tarc are both wrong. 69.228.171.150 (talk) 08:23, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Well you could explain your thinking, instead of making cryptic remarks. Rd232 ^talk 09:15, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not trying to be cryptic. m:exopedianism discusses some of the motivation, though hanging out at ANI like I'm doing right now wouldn't fall under that category, unfortunately. 69.228.171.150 (talk) 17:49, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Well if you'd mentioned that, I wouldn't have complained about making cryptic remarks. However I don't buy exopedianism as a good reason not to get an account if you're making long-term contributions from a dynamic IP. It just makes communication and monitoring easier, which aid the purpose of creating an encyclopedia. You don't have to create a userpage or do anything else you consider non-relevant. Rd232 ^talk 18:38, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

The only reason monitoring is important is if someone is making bad faith edits. It is trivial (easier) for a person to sock with logged in accounts than with IP hopping. I'm gently worried that the desire to force people to log in is yet another example of the pettifogging overarching bureaucracy that engulfs WP. NotAnIP83:149:66:11 (talk) 11:08, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

The only reason I've heard anyone give for editting Wikipedia without an accounts was from Ward Cunningham, who once told me it is "because I can". However, he makes few edits, to the best of my knowledge none are controversial, & he has since created an account for himself here. The point here is, however, that we have an instance where you need to create an account so that other editors can have (to use the phrase as a metaphor here) a face-to-face talk with you -- which is essential in controversial subjects. Your refusal to create an account gives one the impression that you have little interest in discussing your edits -- beyond an exchange of anonymous notes. -- llywrch (talk) 19:02, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Communication on troublesome articles can (should?) take place on that articles' talk page. It's then easier for editors to hold a conversation with someone who's IP is changing. An editor that doesn't discuss anything anywhere is disruptive, and thus blockable. An editor who doesn't return to the pages they've edited isn't disrupting those pages (their changes either stick, or they get reverted, but if there's no revert war what's the problem?). NotAnIP83:149:66:11 (talk) 11:08, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Good points. Wikipedia is a community that works because of collaboration and transparency. When a user sets themselves outside the community and lays impediments in the way of collaboration, as well as refuses to edit transparently, they are being disruptive and don't deserve to be here. Editing is not a right, so get an account or find some other hobby. If you don't do it now, I move that you be blocked, and that all articles where you edit have semi-protection as their default status. In fact, all controversial articles at Wikipedia would benefit from such permanent/default semi-protection. -- Brangifer (talk) 01:43, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

The key to editing controversial topics is exactly the same for named and IP editors: write from the neutral point of view, and source every disputable assertion carefully. If everyone did that, there would be no purpose to having user accounts. And feel free to identify any edits of mine that you think are improper, and to request default semi-protection for articles like Fundamental theorem of algebra, Decision problem, Prime number theorem, and San Francisco – Oakland Bay Bridge, all of which I've edited in the past day or so. I think such a request would be more POINTy than anything I've ever done. I therefore don't feel like discussing this any further. 69.228.171.150 (talk) 02:22, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

(End indent): Actually I'm an admin who performs roughly 90% of his mainspace edits from an anonymous IP, and I have done so quietly for the last seven years. I obviously don't think there should be any attempt to deny IP's access to editor rights.

My reasons for editing anonymously are because I personally believe that "edit count scoring" is wrong and harmful and that edits should be judged by the content and not by the author. But rather than make any noisy protest over it, I choose to just edit away quietly and prove my point with actions rather than noise. (And apart from an impressive collection of "Welcome notices" and some trivial reversions by a handful of slightly over-zealous hugglers, I've never had a problem in all my years of anon postings.)

The issue here is someone (allegedly) attempting to use anonymity for bad faith purposes. That is a VERY different state of affairs. Manning (talk) 02:21, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. If Elonka is correct she should (gather and present evidence and then) just block. No one cares if someone is blocked for poor behaviour. NotAnIP83:149:66:11 (talk) 11:08, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm also editing as an IP and getting demands that I register. I'm not doing because I was once burned by violent, extreme nationalists as I think can be seen operating here. As long as the community seems unable to control such people I'll not go back that way and I've since discovered the problem is severe in other nationalist topics. 86.158.184.158 (talk) 10:30, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Then edit in a truly anonymous manner, by registering. Your IP is telling where you live! -- Brangifer (talk) 14:47, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. A reverse lookup on your IP number (a free service you can find through a Google search) shows you are posting from London, UK. While there are a lot of people in that city, someone with sufficient time on her/his hands could narrow this area even further, perhaps as closely as the street you live in. -- llywrch (talk) 16:39, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

The only "anonymity" afforded by editing from IPs is the hiding and scattering of edit histories, and THAT is forbidden here. The basic rule is ONE person/ONE account/ONE edit history, and since every IP is counted as an account with its own edit history, it is not allowed for one individual to edit in that manner. Register an account and use it, then it makes no difference where you happen to be when you edit, or how many hundreds of IPs you happen to be using. It's all collected in one edit history, so there's no problem. -- Brangifer (talk) 02:27, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I told myself I'd stop posting here, but Brangifer is quite confused: editing from IP's is not forbidden and has never been forbidden, and it has never been limited to newbies. See m:founding principles item 2. While there have been some proposals to change the practice, they have not gotten anywhere. Brangifer, please stop posting incorrect information. If you want to post your opinion that things shouldn't be as they are, that's fine, but label it as such. (Better do something about all those enrolled users running multiple accounts, too.)

To 86.158.184.158: Brangifer and Llwrch are correct when they say using a pseudonym makes it harder (though not impossible) to track you down than if you disclose your IP address. 69.228.171.150 (talk) 08:18, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

??? I never said it was forbidden, and I'm well aware that multiple accounts are allowed when it's done properly and openly. It's the hopping and disruptive use of multiple IPs/accounts that's the problem. That's why I wrote the "basic rule" is... That principle still stands, even though there are exceptions that are allowed. -- Brangifer (talk) 22:24, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Suppose you opened an ccount and did most of your editing from it, but some anonymously. Even if checks confirmed it was you, how could they tell a computer glitch hadn't logged you off without your noticing? This happens quite often. It's happened to me a number of times. In other words, an order to edit logged on might be very difficult to enforce. Question: is it a good idea to have unenforceable rules & orders (e.g. NPOV &c.)? Peter jackson (talk) 16:19, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

You misread policy. Nothing forbids editors from having multiple accounts - indeed, there are some very valid reasons to do so. Nothing forbids an editor from editing from an IP address. It does become disruptive when being used to circumvent policy (ie if your account was blocked, and you went on editing as an IP), vote multiple times in AfD's etc, play good hand/bad hand, and other similar issues. Using an account and IP address disruptively is enforceable quite readily. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:16, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

What I said was that it could be difficult to tell whether anonymous contributions had been made deliberately or accidentally. Peter jackson (talk) 17:24, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

That's usually solved by going back and signing your accidental IP edit. If one has malicious cyberstalkers who make your real life miserable, you might not choose to do so because you'd be outing yourself, but if you have your PC settings right, it should be a rare occurrence. I've had it happen when visiting friends and using their PCs, and forgetting I wasn't logged in. -- Brangifer (talk) 22:24, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

IMHO, anon-editors who don't hop from IP account to IP account, should encourage those who do hop, to stop. It's the hoppers who are causing problems. GoodDay (talk) 17:31, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

At the substantial risk of yet another false accusation, I'll respond to that invitation, GD. The previous WP:ANI report about this problem editor and this article revolved around accusations of sockpuppetry and assumptions of bad faith, which only intensified when LotLE was reported here. In the flurry of accusations against well-intentioned IP editors, LotLE got away with his misconduct. All users need to stop assuming that every IP editor is a sock, or editing in bad faith. Many of us have been here several years and have racked up thousands of edits. We have no control over the frequency with which our IP addresses are changed by our service providers; but usually that happens about once a year. Wikipedia was founded on the principle of individual freedom. We are free to edit under an IP address, or choose to create an account. That personal freedom is fundamental.

When an editor edits from a dynamic IP address, however, it creates opportunities for mischief. In my opinion, that pushes the situation over the line. The community requires some form of accountability for past editing history. If you can walk away from that history every 24 hours, you aren't submitting to that accountability. I suggest a voluntary change in service providers to a more static IP address, if the user insists on continuing to edit as an IP address. Then there will be an editing history (and other histories) for review, which should satisfy everyone. I hope that helps, and best regards all around. 71.57.8.103 (talk) 12:26, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

That block is hitting random editors in the same geographic area. It looks like those rules no longer exist. According to the report above the user claimed all of his IP's in writing more than a month ago[162] and no one ever said he violated any rules or evaded any blocks or engaged in any sock puppetry. But a block has been done anyways, it looks like a dinamic ip is now itself blocakable.99.151.160.21 (talk) 21:11, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Just a reminder: having a dynamic IP does not sockpuppetry make. (my own address never seems to last more than a couple of days) Additionally, there's no reason to assume that choosing to edit anonymously is "for spite" any more than you'd want me to say you only log in to inflate your 'edit count'. Some people prefer to make constructive changes without committing themselves to headaches of constant drama, bureacracy, and abuses.

And yes, we know it isn't as 'anonymous'. Bullying IP's (including reverse-lookups followed by "I know where you live") isn't unheard of.

And sometimes I wonder why being 'anon' somehow condones a double-standard wherein we can be accused of anything willy-nilly, insulted randomly, and nobody else has to follow the same rules when dealing with us.

This case in particular is absurd. He (she?) was essentially told, "there's no grounds for blocking you if you have an account, but there are if you don't." I realize that IPs are always treated differently from 'regular' users, but it isn't usually so blatant. And then it's flagged as "resolved" as though the original issue was ip editor, and not the issue over whether or not a person can be compelled to register. (of course, it should've been moved to the pump anyways, as it's really about policy, not a specific incident) There's no such thing as 'sockpuppetry' when the editor freely admits to being the same person, but that doesn't stop them being being blocked without cause.

For my own part, I used to have an account. I saw too much crap here and left. I eventually came back occasionally for fixing typos, dealing with BLP and media copyright issues, and offering the odd bit of technical expertise. But I still don't feel like logging in because I don't want the temptation of a 'watchlist'. Because then I'll check that watchlist. This is cleaner. Whatever pages I can remember to check back on, I do. Everything else, I let go. 72.88.55.196 (talk) 22:59, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Mario1987: implied threat of real life stalking etc.

Resolved

 – Checkuser completed, all known socks indeffed.

Durova³⁵² 00:49, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Mario1987 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is not new to wikipedia. Originally blocked for using sockpuppets and only allowed back with the message "last chance" (see his block log). He was afterward the subject of this AN/I thread, where I brought up cases (acknowledged by Mario himself) where he had been disrupting wikipedia by providing false or misleading info in articles or DYK hooks, and that he had responded to my concerns with racist attacks. He was ultimately blocked for one month for the racist comments.
No sooner had he returned that, having started an FL application where I evidenced some problems (note: without even voting on the matter), he produced all sorts of renewed accusations and claims that I'm out to get him. I would have not especially minded were it not for the follow-up on my talk page: 1) this message in Romanian, where, among several subtle threats, he proceeds to ask me how old I am; 2) this message in English, after I deleted his original post, where he poses the question yet again; 3) after I tell him no, this post where he repeats the claims that I have an agenda against him, and again persists in making this look like a personal problem; 4) after I answered (trying to let him know yet again that he is walking down the path that got him blocked, and urging him t stop and reassess his position), this most disturbing post. I would like to administrators to assess the nature of this statement: "Keep in mind that i know some things from where one can find many more information about another." And: "I told you before and i tell you again that i know you have friends that tend to follow your oppinions and i know that i don't have any chances but i'm willing to fight to the last man just like this guy." Dahn (talk) 19:24, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

• You're a real joke aren't you. I mearly reacted to ironical and demeaning comments like your loose interpretation of norms, and the irresponsible "devil may care" editing style that you posted at the same FL project, where you further threatened me. Regarding the FLC you should read what issues this user raised and than you should read the post of User:Geraldk who incidentally supported my claims. Regarding the supposed threat i don't know what to say, if he understands "Keep in mind that i know some things from where one can find many more information about another." as a threat that i willingly request to be blocked forever. Mario1987 19:49, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Beginning your defense with a personal attack is not the best of strategies. Chillum 19:53, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I know but this has lasted as long as it can and i am tired of it. Mario1987 19:58, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

• Whoa, Using this diff as an important example, I think this needs to either a) be oversighted, or b) be taken really seriously. Comments like that should not, and I repeat not happen. It is not a smart decision to ask people their age, as this can be taken in WP:STALK, which may or may not constitute other problems.Mitch32^{(The Password is... See here!)} 20:28, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Gimme a B! Gimme a L! Gimme an O! Gimme a .. so on, so forth. You were up here before for similar problems, obviously haven't learnt your lesson and as the cherry on the cake added some lovely extra threats into that "most disturbing post". "miss, miss, but he started it" is not a valid excuse; if you are tired of it, just walk away. If you refuse to do so, my suggested remedy will make it mandatory. Ironholds (talk) 20:33, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
    • Ugh. Anyone who would allude to that travesty of a movie deserves what's coming. (Alluding to the actual incident is a far different matter.) -- llywrch (talk) 20:55, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

That's not all, folks

Mario1987 was previously sitebanned for running a vote stacking sockfarm at featured picture candidates and for dozens of copyvio uploads--one of which was even promoted to featured picture (until his scheme unraveled). See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive131#Votestacking_at_WP:FPC. He was unblocked by a single admin without discussion. Time to reinstate the community ban. Durova³⁵⁰ 20:31, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

And would anyone please explain how the copyright mark on the lower left corner of one of Mario1987's uploads from yesterday is anything other than resumption of the copyvios that contributed to his ban in the first place? Proposing that the admin who unblocked him be personally tasked with the cleanup. Durova³⁵⁰ 20:39, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Why is this fellow not indefinitely blocked already? He basically said he has "people" who could track down and bring harm to an editor he doesn't like? (I mean, you'd think the serial copyvios would be enought, but this? What on earth is there to discuss?)Bali ultimate (talk) 20:44, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

It mystifies me that he was allowed back, considering the seriousness of what he did before. Durova³⁵⁰ 20:46, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I've just been reviewing his uploads, and 9/10 of them are without doubt copyvios. Sadly only a few can be directly proved though. ninety:one 20:51, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

The burden is on the uploader to demonstrate legitimacy, not vice versa. Durova³⁵⁰ 20:52, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

• "We're sorry, Mario, but your copyvio uploads are in another castle."? HalfShadow (talk) 20:56, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I've deleted several of the images that Ninetyone tagged and pulled Mario1987's autoreviewer status. --Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 21:01, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Hm, yes, a random example: The "own work" File:Lotus Market Oradea.jpg, allegedly made yesterday (like about a dozen other photos from very dispersed locations) but with no camera metadata, is found on the Web at [163], on the website [164]. We do not accept serial copyright violations. I have indefinitely blocked the user.  Sandstein  21:02, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

He was never unbanned at Commons (thank goodness) so my ops have limited value to fix this. A couple of copyvios got bot-transferred and I've deleted them. Basically, everything that doesn't come with full camera metadata (as opposed to Photoshop data and scanner DPI notes) should go. He's trying to claim that Romanian Government material is under CC license, trying to claim that anything which looks 'old' (of ambiguous age) is under copyleft, and sourcing material to copyrighted websites with false attributions of GFDL license. Even the nonfree rationales need examination: they're supposed to be low res, but one was nearly half a gigamegabyte. Durova³⁵⁰ 21:09, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

How the hell can you have an almost half-gigabyte photo? HalfShadow (talk) 21:13, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry about the typo. Am working with a composite offline which will be in the 1 gigabyte range when it's finished. Thinking of the wrong figures. ;) Durova³⁵⁰ 21:15, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

• Thank god for that; you scared the christ out of me for a minute there. HalfShadow (talk) 21:18, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Durova, being a good manager, always keeps an eye on the Big Picture. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:58, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't know, the Phase One P65+ medium format digital back ([165]) produces files which are 340 Mb or so - I wouldn't breathe that sigh of relief quite yet... :) --Xdamr^talk 00:01, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Note: TinEye is a helpful tool to identify image copyvios (but it will only find byte-identical copies).  Sandstein  21:16, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Unless something's changed recently, TinEye will find byte-identical copies. But it will also find scaled copies, copies with certain types of watermarking or other modification (eg. it can sometimes find the original of a lolcat), copies where the image you're searching for is cropped from or which are a crop of the one you've got, and more. --Carnildo (talk) 01:30, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

• Support block / reinstation of ban. Found immediately two blatant copyvios, one with camera data. The one above (ec) and File:Plaza-romania.jpg deleted by another admin. Not to mention the other stuff above.--Tikiwont (talk) 21:11, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
• Support indef block/de facto ban. There were a total of 14 images so far tagged as F9s. Every one of them he claimed was his own work. All but one had a good link to a commercial website where they'd come from. The other one had a great big copyright tag on it.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 21:19, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
• Agree with Sandsteins' block - if the editor has a problem with it, they can provide the rationale (like they are supposed to with the images...) for it to be overturned. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:28, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
• Heading out for a bit. If any other probable copyvios turn out to have been bot-transferred to Commons, please leave links at my user talk and I'll check in on them. Thanks all for resolving this swiftly. Durova³⁵¹ 21:39, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
• Support indef, generally per LessHeard vanU. Ironholds (talk) 22:21, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Mario, Wikipedia is a free content encyclopedia. That is, "free" meaning "free content" and not "free beer". MuZemike 22:34, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

• Support ban per above. Infrogmation (talk) 22:53, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
• A little late as the block has already happened, but I support an indef block in this case. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 00:18, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
• Per that second diff Dahn provided, I'm not only endorsing reinstating the community ban, but I'm readding his listing at WP:LOBU as well. Even without the copyvios, it's not likely anyone who wants to keep his or her bit will unblock someone who makes that kind of veiled threat. Blueboy96 00:21, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
• My only question is this: are we sure File:Hotel-Astoria-Satu-Mare-1.jpg, File:Nisco City Center final.jpg, File:Calvaria Satu Mare.jpg, File:Palatul administrativ sm.JPG, File:Prestij.jpg, File:Ikarusbus.jpg, File:Irisbus vechi.jpg, File:Irisbusnou.jpg, File:Traian Plaza 01.jpg, File:04 - Hotel Aurora.jpg and File:Palatul administrativ sm.JPG are all copyvios? The reason I ask is because, yes, he did have a persistent tendency to violate copyright, but those pictures are all from his home city of Satu Mare, so there's at least a greater chance some of them may be his. I suggest an administrator double-check with this in mind. - Biruitorul ^Talk 00:25, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Even in the unlikely event they aren't copyvios (it would be difficult to assume otherwise, given his history), this is beyond unacceptable, and would be an indefable offense by itself in my book. Blueboy96 00:29, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Biruitorul's comment reverses the actual responsibilities here: it's the uploader's obligation to demonstrate beyond reasonable doubt that the uploads are legitimate. When an editor has an exceptional history of copyright violations, all uploads may come into doubt. Our obligation is to comply with the law, and it's best to err on the side of caution. Remember, if this fellow hadn't been caught the last time he would have gotten a copyright violation onto Wikipedia's main page as Picture of the Day. We have no reason to trust him. Durova³⁵¹ 00:50, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

• I also support the formal community ban, just in case the user ever tries to obtain another chance and someone counts !votes. Even without the copyvios and the "last chance" the threats would be sufficient reason. Hans Adler 00:30, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
• Most obvious ban ever. PhGustaf (talk) 00:39, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
• Pile-on support for this ban. Good call. --Jayron32 03:44, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
• Briefly returning from a wikibreak to endorse ban (as original ban proposer). MER-C 04:13, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
• I deleted all of his remaining uploads; those can be replaced. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 04:25, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

  Not quite - Special:Nuke kills only the stuff in the recentchanges table (about 1 month). There are some left from June-August this year (e.g. File:Kolcsei.jpg). See User:Mario1987/Images. MER-C 04:51, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

  Duly noted, snagged the rest using the same edit summary. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 05:13, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

• One more (related) things, ladies and gentlemen. Here is Mario's probable sockuppet. It's inactive, but one is never too sure; plus, no matter its uses, it was created to evade an earlier block. Also note the upload of images under that name, some of which are on commons! Dahn (talk) 06:45, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

• What makes you believe it is a sock of Mario1987?  Sandstein  08:49, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

• Both have an innate interest in Romanian power plants, buildings, football teams and Satu Mare (see latest deleted uploads). Images on Commons that need to be dealt with: File:Calinestihydro.JPG, File:Manastire certeze.JPG and File:Calinestilake.JPG. I also remember that some of (the first batch of) Mario's deleted photos were taken with a HP Photosmart (537?). MER-C 09:01, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) Well, for one he comes from the same geographical region, in the narrowest of senses (his name, "Terra Awas", is the quasi-Latin rendition of Oaş Country, right near Satu Mare). Terra Awas emerged out nowhere very shortly after Mario's second block, and was able to push a DYK entry within for this article that interval (when Mario had developed an obsession with DYK, and when it matched and matches his editing style). The moment I shared with the world my belief that he was a block-evasion sockpuppet, Terra Awas more or less vanished. This is harder to provide diffs for T:TDYK, where I mentioned it, doesn't keep an archive; I did discuss something on the issue with another editor, who seems to have shared my suspicion, and actually brought it up (see here). Of the other edits he made, 100% are in Mario's fields of interest: Romanian football and List of wind farm projects in Romania (for which he created a new spin-off article exactly where Mario had left of). Of the four images on his user page, two were Mario-made. I would keep going, but I don't want to give out all the clues and risk having him come back more subtly. Dahn (talk) 09:08, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

• Sounds quite plausible, plus he has a history of socking. I've indef-blocked the Terra Awas (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) account, but am reluctant to nuke the Commons images that do appear self-made (judging by camera metadata and lack of photographical sophistication).  Sandstein  09:25, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Would it be worth filing SPI? Last time around, CU found more socks than had been suspected. Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Mario1987 Durova³⁵¹ 14:49, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi all, I apparently unblocked him after his last community ban with a last chance warning. I don't remember that situation at all, but obviously his actions here call for a ban reinstatement, and this certainly would qualify as a "last chance" violation. You'll find no objections from me over anything here. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 15:34, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll go ahead and file SPI before deleting the Commons uploads. Best to make sure. Durova³⁵¹ 16:17, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Mario1987 if anyone wants to comment. Durova³⁵¹ 16:56, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Checkuser has turned up an additional account: Player bio. So far Player bio remains unblocked. Durova³⁵¹ 23:18, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

User:Ottava Rima: bizarre personal attacks

Resolved

 – There is nothing to be gained by leaving this thread open. Users are encouraged to pursue dispute resolution. Let's try to avoid another Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents/Ottava_Rima_Bishonen_and_Risker. --AniMate^draw 23:31, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Extended content

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Resolved There isn't any use of continuing this discussion, Ottava has been warned to stop the continuing discussion of Chillum's possible use of drugs. --Coffee // have a cup // ark // 07:49, 2 November 2009 (UTC) I've seen a few bizarre personal attacks lately, but User:Ottava Rima is taking it to a whole new level with his behaviour towards User:Chillum. He's presently going from door to door after initially starting this ridiculous thread at User talk:Jimbo Wales. This would be amusing if there wasn't an actual person on the receiving end of his attacks. Unfortunately, there is. user:J aka justen (talk) 05:26, 2 November 2009 (UTC) I've notified User:Ottava Rima. user:J aka justen (talk) 05:30, 2 November 2009 (UTC) Iridescents thread was there long before I posted there. Furthermore, those statements do not violate WP:NPA, but your statements do since false accusations are against WP:NPA. And Chillum has admitted to using drugs and I have emails from him with attacks confirming his use of drugs. He has posted already that I can post them: "Take a hint, nobody gives a shit what drugs I do. The more you harp on about it the more you are going to look foolish. Wikipedia is not the place for people to wage drug wars." The above thread is just more people trying to disrupt in order to protect Chillum from being asked -questions- about his posting that he was on acid and his admittance that he regularly takes Class A drugs. Ottava Rima (talk) 05:38, 2 November 2009 (UTC) I rest my case. user:J aka justen (talk) 05:41, 2 November 2009 (UTC) By the way, User J was involved in disputes with me over at the David Shankbone DRV. Him and another user have been involving themselves in the above dispute while over there and their actions on both are highly suspicious per WP:WIKISTALK. I have defended Jake Wartenberg and this user has made it very obvious that they want Jake to be desysopped. Ottava Rima (talk) 05:44, 2 November 2009 (UTC) this diff shows Ottava Rima's standard MO. He starts an entirely inappropriate discussion, and as soon as other editors call him on it, he starts to give "official warnings" and all sorts of other inappropriate responses. He has been blocked on numerous occasions, and occasionally conditionally unblocked that he would behave in a civil manner. I don't see where he has ever, in the long term, shown the slightest interest in maintaining civility, and I think that his behavior has stretched the limit of community patience to the breaking point. I would support any and all sanctions anyone else would deem necessary to curb this sort of behavior. --Jayron32 05:43, 2 November 2009 (UTC) If my discussion was inappropriate why did Jimbo respond to it in a very serious manner? And Jayron, please don't make false statements about my block log. All of the recent blocks have been overturned as being inappropriate and lacking consensus. The only one seeing incivility are those like you who are acting inappropriately. Ottava Rima (talk) 05:46, 2 November 2009 (UTC) He, in fact, effectively told you to drop it. Instead, you've proceeded to escalate your attacks and harassment. user:J aka justen (talk) 06:05, 2 November 2009 (UTC) "I would prefer that all users, not just admins, conduct themselves with dignity and professionalism at all times. Certain kinds of references to illegal drug use would not be appropriate in any normal workplace, and are therefore similarly are not appropriate for Wikipedia." That negates your claims about the topic being inappropriate. Ottava Rima (talk) 06:11, 2 November 2009 (UTC) Ottava's take on Jimbo's comments is a matter of some disagreement. Frankly Jimmy really didn't say a lot about this and his comments certainly don't offer the clear cut position Ottava claims. More generally, Ottava responds to any criticism of his position with shrieks of "uncivil!!" and "personal attack!!", whilst doing precisely those things to those he sees as his detractors. I believe this is his standard operating procedure in a dispute. I cannot see what objective good will come of Ottava persuing this. More ominous is Ottava's accusation of sockpuppetry against Chillum. He is yet to make good on that and lodge an WP:SPI. Crafty (talk) 06:07, 2 November 2009 (UTC) I have never claimed there was a clear cut position. I claimed that he answered in an honest and straight forward manner, which verified that -I- was not the one disrupting. Those, like yourself, that turned to hyperbolic statements, cried about witch hunting and the rest, were completely inappropriate and highly disruptive. Ottava Rima (talk) 06:11, 2 November 2009 (UTC) The remainder of Jimmy's post, does not seem to verify that take of his serious comments either: "If there's an ongoing pattern of behavior which appears to be disruptive or which would tend to reflect negatively on the project, then it could be addressed - preferably with a minimum of drama and hand-wringing. But based on my experience with hundreds of Wikipedians all around the world, we are in no danger of being overrun by drug fiends or anything. :-)"Synchronism (talk) 06:27, 2 November 2009 (UTC) You must realize that Jimbo was stating that he believed that it could have been a joke or a minor issue. This was before it was made clear by Chillum through email confirming that he is a regular user and sees no problem with drugs interfering with his wiki state. Ottava Rima (talk) 06:35, 2 November 2009 (UTC) The fact that Ottava is still arguing despite stirring up essentially no vocal distrust of Chillium (at least in everyone else's view) can be taken as an implication that nothing will come of his further posting on the issue. If we all stop feeding the fire, I'm sure he'll just burn himself out. And I'm going to pre-emptively respond to Ottava, since I don't wish to forsake my own advice: I'm not saying that you were wrong to be concerned, and I don't mean to make any disagreement with Jimbo's sentiments. However, you must realize that you have been the only one beating the horse for quite some time, so you can take it as a good indicator that no consensus will ever appear to censure Chillum in any way, shape or form because of this. Someguy1221 (talk) 06:10, 2 November 2009 (UTC) Prodego, Malleus, Moni3, and Iridescent have all expressed blatant and open disagreement. Your claim that there was no vocal distrust is absolutely false. I was not the first one to bring up the topic. I merely posted on Jimbo's talk page about it per Chillum's recall standards which are quoted above in a link. Ottava Rima (talk) 06:14, 2 November 2009 (UTC) It is very easy to find comments taken out of context that reflect badly on an editor. However, many editors have been upset by the high standards that Ottava Rima has insisted upon. Can anyone provide an example where Ottava Rima has hindered the improvement of any article or where his actions have damaged any article? The Four Deuces (talk) 06:19, 2 November 2009 (UTC) When was he accused of doing so? I'm not sure what harming articles has to do with an issue of what largely amounts to harassment. Seraphimblade Talk to me 06:23, 2 November 2009 (UTC) Nearly sixty edits in the past day leading a respected administrator to temporarily leave the project is harassment, plain and simple. That does not improve the project, and it's unacceptable. user:J aka justen (talk) 06:25, 2 November 2009 (UTC) Harassment, by definition, is following someone to multiple arguments you werent involved with in order to create a battleground state. You are doing that by entering this other argument in retaliation for me defending Jake Wartenberg, who you have tried unsuccessfully to have desysopped because you disagree with his judgment. J, what you state applies to you and only to you. Ottava Rima (talk) 06:33, 2 November 2009 (UTC) I will respond to this once and only once: I've found your commentary at that deletion review to be most interesting (and sometimes even entertaining) reading, and I don't consider you to be my "enemy" in that discussion. The talk page you originally posted this to is on my watchlist; I only took notice of it due to the frequency with which you have edited that talk page today. What I found when looking into your edits there, and that alone, led me to bring this here. Not your username, not your edits elsewhere. If you wish to believe otherwise, that's fine, but your conspiracy theories don't wash away the fact that your edits here are the issue, not your belief that I'm your "enemy." user:J aka justen (talk) 06:37, 2 November 2009 (UTC) "is on my watchlist" amusing coincidence, because Seraphimblade said the same thing when he was questioned as to posting on one discussion, not getting the outcome he wanted, and starting to intervene with the Jimbo page in a highly aggressive manner which this thread also shows. Ottava Rima (talk) 06:42, 2 November 2009 (UTC) Might you post the diff in which I was aggressive, please? Seraphimblade Talk to me 06:47, 2 November 2009 (UTC) [166] There are your diffs. Your tone up and down that DRV has been highly aggressive. Your following people to other discussions is further sign that the aggression boils into harassment. Ottava Rima (talk) 06:51, 2 November 2009 (UTC) What, precisely, is aggressive or harassing about those edits? Crafty (talk) 06:54, 2 November 2009 (UTC) [167] "Wiki-hounding is the singling out of one or more editors, and joining discussions on pages or topics they may edit or debates where they contribute, in order to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work, with an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance or distress to the other editor" Two users who were disagreed with on one page who were together in the argument have one go to the page and talk about impropriety while the other starts an ANI thread, each with the same explanation is problematic editing behavior. It is revenge editing and wikistalking. Ottava Rima (talk) 06:58, 2 November 2009 (UTC) I anticipated that response, and that's why I implied that you haven't stirred up any vocal distrust. They acted independently of you. Someguy1221 (talk) 06:22, 2 November 2009 (UTC) Um, what? So, the last person to come to an issue should be blocked because they are the last? Is that the next logic? Furthermore, Prodego followed my posting. That is one person that definitely came after me, so your own new logic doesn't work. Ottava Rima (talk) 06:24, 2 November 2009 (UTC) I never said you should be blocked - only ignored (and here I go immediately ignoring my own advice, for the second time). My point is that except for the first four people who looked at what Chillum wrote and voiced a concern, no one else has hopped in, desipte that aforementioned 60+ edits you've made pressing your case. And Prodego never supported you, unless I missed an edit he made; he voiced his belief that Chillum was, in fact, on drugs, but did not judge it in any capacity. Someguy1221 (talk) 06:30, 2 November 2009 (UTC) The argument boiled down to people claiming that there wasn't an issue because it was a joke. Prodego stating that there was drug use verifies that it was not a false and disruptive concern. Ottava Rima (talk) 06:33, 2 November 2009 (UTC) The trouble with disruptive users like this is that although everyone agrees they are best ignored, most of the time they are not – they cannot be, because sometimes they make such an outrageous attack that the person attacked feels compelled to respond. Thus continues the cycle. This just wastes the time of everyone involved. LK (talk) 06:36, 2 November 2009 (UTC) There are times when Ottava cannot be ignored. His recall proceedings against SarekofVulcan spring to mind. How well has that sideshow progressed? Crafty (talk) 06:38, 2 November 2009 (UTC) Crafty, you would do best if you recognized that using processes and following standards is not disruptive. Ottava Rima (talk) 06:43, 2 November 2009 (UTC) Can an admin on drugs be trusted? This is the true topic of the thread, as many of the people here mostly want to push the claim that an admin on drugs as self admitted can still be trusted, and they do not like the idea that they cannot. Chillum has already declared that I am operating a "drug war" in claiming that a drug like acid impairs the judgment and admin judgments should be made only in a clear and objective manner. He admitted to using drugs, and, though people claim it was a joke, he was asked many times and not once said it was a joke. Now, Acid has the effective range of 12 hours. There is only a 7 hour gap. We know he edited to post the original statement about being on acid and he has a secret secondary account which cannot be verified as to having edits or not. His talk page also made it clear that he is a regular drug user and it cannot be known which of his administrative actions may or may not have been altered or affected by drug use. When questioned, he refused to make any answers regarding the matter. Very simple questions brought a very harsh response. Of course, many people who are sympathetic to Chillum or to drug use in general (as many have admitted on Jimbo's talk page) will probably soon declare that questioning such use is disruptive. Such aggressiveness and hostility to question is strong evidence as to how there is a problem with allowing such conduct to happen. Ottava Rima (talk) 07:05, 2 November 2009 (UTC) And the response is "we aren't seeing evidence of on-wiki actions that raises concern", and on-wiki behavior is the standard by which wiki editors gain trust of other wiki editors. DMacks (talk) 07:10, 2 November 2009 (UTC) No - an admin on Class A drugs cannot be trusted if they admittedly use drugs while working on Wikipedia. Drug use should not be made public, nor should an admin operate Wikipedia while impaired in any condition. Such conduct is unsuitable and does not reflect properly on Wikipedia as a whole. Ottava Rima (talk) 07:09, 2 November 2009 (UTC) So if he didn't make it public, we wouldn't be here because nobody would know? At worst, stating it was the only mistake (if indeed it's true). DMacks (talk) 07:12, 2 November 2009 (UTC) Are you experienced? Jehochman Talk 07:11, 2 November 2009 (UTC) I think admins and everyone else should be allowed to self-deprecate as much as they want without fear of it being taken literally. There's no evidence of actual drug use. This is straw-grasping. Equazcion (talk) 07:13, 2 Nov 2009 (UTC) This whole discussion is harshing my mellow. Toddst1 (talk) 07:15, 2 November 2009 (UTC) He admitted to drug use and was asked multiple times directly if he was joking. He refused to. He also has a prominent blog in which he broadcasts his constant drug use. Ottava Rima (talk) 07:17, 2 November 2009 (UTC) (ec) Ottava, you're supposed to be extra civil, man. Like, everybody has told you to drop this. You're giving me a bad trip. Please, won't you drop it. Jehochman Talk 07:16, 2 November 2009 (UTC) Isn't it an oft-repeated credo that we're supposed to be commenting on EDITS, and not editors? Where's the diffs of questionable edits? Dayewalker (talk) 07:19, 2 November 2009 (UTC) Adminship is about trust, and admin who admit to editing while impaired have interfered with this trust. There are many, many people who believe that Chillum has crossed the line and acted inappropriately. Ottava Rima (talk) 07:35, 2 November 2009 (UTC) Mohito anyone? Crafty (talk) 07:20, 2 November 2009 (UTC) Ottava, people have asked you to drop this matter. You made your report to Jimbo, you made your report here. Leave this be, or you might be facing a block for harassing this user. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 07:23, 2 November 2009 (UTC) As I have pointed out, there is nothing harassing about this. Even Wikipedia Review, who hates me, has stated that there is nothing appropriate in his action. Notice some of the respected Wikipedians who responded there. You need to correct your tone immediately. You wont be protecting Chillum's complete abuse of adminship through intimidation and harassment. Ottava Rima (talk) 07:31, 2 November 2009 (UTC) I've left Ottava a final warning, and am now heading offline. Any administrator is welcome to enforce my warning if it is ignored. Earnestly, Jehochman Talk 07:25, 2 November 2009 (UTC) Jehochman has been told by the community he has no such authority and his long history of harassment and proven abuse of tools against me only verifies that he is being disruptive. Ottava Rima (talk) 07:31, 2 November 2009 (UTC) I don't think I've ever seen a more nauseating display of self-righteous obnoxiousness on Wikipedia. I don't know if that's a blockable offence by itself, but you should be ashamed of yourself. Just drop it, OK? -- ChrisO (talk) 07:36, 2 November 2009 (UTC) The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Ottava Rima user conduct. Closing this. One thread is enough. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:21, 2 November 2009 (UTC) The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. (For those wondering what my involvement in this situation is, these are the related diffs: [168] [169] [170] [171] [172] [173] [174]) Yes, i know this topic has the same subject as the other ani topic so yes, perhaps i am beating a dead horse (Though currently it still seems to walk). Apologies for this as i was sound asleep during the last half of this discussion. For those who don't know, the entire situation seems to have sparked when chillum posted a drug reference on his talk page, which sparked a topic at Iridescent's talk page. Eventually the discussion spread to Jimbo wales talk page , Chillum's talk page, ANI and back to Iridescent's talk page. The entire discussion took a good 16 hours. For now i do not wish to focus on the topic of the discussion, but rather on the behavior of User:Ottava Rima during this discussion, which i deem not acceptable under any form of civility guideline we have. Ottava became involved in this topic when posting ..... W.T.F on irediscents talk page, followed 4 minutes later by the starting the topic on jimbo's talk page. During the discussion that followed no less then 4 editors were being accused of incivility by Ottava Rima: User:Hans Adler [175], User:SqueakBox [176][177], User:Jayron32 [178], User:Crafty [179] and Another 5 users were being accused either of not following behavioral guidelines, or threatened with warnings, uncivil behaviour or reports in several sections, including ANI and ARBCOM User:RxS[180] [181] User:Seraphimblade [182] [183] User:Chillum [184][185][186] User:Jehochman[187] User:Zscout370 [188] The result of this entire situation is that Chillum is currently on a wiki break, citing harrasement as his reason for temporally departure. Note that at 21:58 on 1 november (far before even halfway the discussion) chillum stated that he would not use his admin tools anymore. Even after Chilum stated his wikibreak which should have been sufficient to counter any drug related issues (As i assume he wouldn't edit anymore), even that was not enough to stop the conversation. [189][190]. Personally i deem this kind of behavior uncalled for in any kind of situation, especially when an editor already received several other warnings for incivility. Because of this i don't deem the current "Slap on the wrist" an appropriate measure, also because it just keeps going and going. Regardless of this I can easily see that User:Ottava Rima is otherwise an incredibly valuable editor, and i hold no doubts of his or her commitment to the project, nor do i think that that he\she is out to intentionally harm the project. Yet part of the project is working together as a team in harmony, a part which i believe has been compromised to far now. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 14:55, 2 November 2009 (UTC) I have made it very clear and pointed out to our policy that the attacks against me were highly inappropriate and incivil. I have -not- made any incivil comments and you cannot quote any. Any claims about my comments being incivil, especially without any diffs (because none exist) is a direct violation of WP:NPA. Either back up your claims with diffs or remove them. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:02, 2 November 2009 (UTC) Excellent summary, Excirial. However, you were right about beating a dead horse - people still talking about this are just feeding the embers of a dying flame. If somebody wants to RfC Ottava or something, then go and do it already - this issue has devolved far from the original purpose. Let Ottava breathe, let Chillum rest, and cut this off before it gets any worse (I'm talking to everyone involved, just to clarify). Master of Puppets 15:10, 2 November 2009 (UTC) Ottava Rima, do you realize you spent an entire day -- yesterday, November 1, 2009 -- doing nothing but creating drama? That's all you did. Nothing else. Look at your contribs! You were abusive towards Chillum; towards Folantin; towards Seraphimblade; towards Squeakbox; and there are numerous others. I take it from your attitude that "anyone who disagrees with you for any reason whatsoever is behaving inappropriately, disruptively, and committing a personal attack or violating civility". Is that about right? Yesterday, and evidently continuing into today, you have wasted, and are wasting an immense amount of the time of our volunteers. Would you please stop it and go do something useful instead? Go ahead and add me to the list of "people behaving inappropriately" for calling you on your nonsense, as I seem to be in the company of a lot of fine editors. Thanks, Antandrus (talk) 15:07, 2 November 2009 (UTC) You're feeding the flame. Please stop. Take this to the appropriate venue or end it here. Master of Puppets 15:10, 2 November 2009 (UTC) Antandrus, like many others, has been in a long line of personal disputes with me, in which they have followed me to various things. Like Jehochman and others, I took them to ArbCom with it split 3/3 on accepting the case (some thought more time could resolve the matter). I have posted in the above area how Jtrainer had attacked me during an RfC dealing with Bishonen. Many of those involved here are directly linked to that matter. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:15, 2 November 2009 (UTC) (ec)Ottova Rima, would you please explain how you can possibly think (in other words, why) other's comments towards you have been any more uncivil than your own? Looking over the entire discussion at Jimbo's talk page and the diffs provided here, your's seem to be much more like attacks (and some like the comment directly above this seem to border on WP:WL than their's. Ks0stm (T•C•G) 15:12, 2 November 2009 (UTC) I have not made the same attacks let alone any attacks. Users accused me of outright disruption, trolling, etc, for merely asking Jimbo a question, a question that he -responded- to, which verifies that it was not disruption. One such user was asked multiple times to provide diffs and refused to. I have never refused to provide diffs for my statements. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:13, 2 November 2009 (UTC) Ottava, I'm not going to give anything more than pure, honest advice. Get off the computer, go get yourself a drink, and sit down and read a good book for a while. I find that it works wonders when I'm feeling stressed over a situation. At the very least, go take a walk or watch some tv. It'll do some good. Ks0stm (T•C•G) 15:18, 2 November 2009 (UTC) Excirial just provided diffs and you deny there are any diffs, Ottava; given Excirial's well reasoned piece I support a temporary block and then hopefully he can calm down and focus on real editing when he comes back in a week or so; Ottava, as long as you make everyone else wrong you are likely to continue building up blocks until one becomes indef; you should really apologize to Chillum and then focus on editing in the areas where you clearly have specialist knowledge and a valuable contribution to make. Thanks, SqueakBox talk contribs 15:14, 2 November 2009 (UTC) Alright, guys. Stop. Please. Enough with the personal attacks and incivility. I'd appreciate it if this section could die here. Master of Puppets 15:19, 2 November 2009 (UTC) Ugh, this is clearly going no where I stand with Master of Puppets conclusion of beating the dead horse,Straight Edge lifestyle and all.--SKATER Speak. 15:17, 2 November 2009 (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. Possible community ban I dunno if this should be closed just yet. I think a community ban is in order here. Jtrainor (talk) 09:13, 2 November 2009 (UTC) I'd say start a new section if you want, but given his history here, I doubt it'll stick. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:34, 2 November 2009 (UTC) There has apparently never been a WP:Request for Comment/Ottava Rima. Or so I'm told --Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:28, 2 November 2009 (UTC) We seem to always mention that and one never starts. If indeed that's a necessary step, I suggest starting on it now. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 13:50, 2 November 2009 (UTC) If doing so, I suggest including his astonishing behaviour at Talk:George Gordon Byron, 6th Baron Byron and the WQA that followed (I can provide diffs if you didn't see that circus go by), plus this, but not go back months and months. I will sign off on the basis of the Byron/WQA incident as I was directly involved (and contrary to Ottava's apparent opinion, you actually have to be involved to certify one of these things). Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:58, 2 November 2009 (UTC) To clarify: I will not be initiating any such thing as I've no personal dispute here; someone involved needs to take the initiative if this is to happen. I'd probably participate if it happened, though. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 14:31, 2 November 2009 (UTC) Now that I have walked away from Wikipedia for 14 hours or so I can come back with renewed patience. While I will not object to the idea of a community ban, I will also not support it as Ottava has on multiple occasions accused me of conspiring to get others to go against him. I will say that if he stops now then it may not be needed. If he continues then I will leave it up to you folk. Chillum 14:43, 2 November 2009 (UTC) Wikipedia Review even defends me, the people who hate me. If I get banned because I followed every single guideline and questioned an Admin making such a post on his talk page, then every single person involved in this has really proven that they don't care about our policies. The fact that Jtrainor repoened this and no one has blocked him even though he has clearly crossed the line, as with many people here, is so incredibly disturbing there aren't even words to encapsulate these events. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:48, 2 November 2009 (UTC) If you just make everyone else wrong, Ottava, and continue with your pattern of behaviour you aren't going to last very long anyway; I would have thought a week long block and then civility probation would suffice. Thanks, SqueakBox talk contribs 14:51, 2 November 2009 (UTC) Seeing as how Jtrrainor is retaliating against me for posting an RfC against Bishonen, and that Elen and others were involved, there is a very clear reason why the maker of this section made this section. SqueakBox, if anyone should be blocked it should be you for your countless personal attacks and your making of statements with unwillingness to provide diffs to back them up, even though you were asked four times to provide them and not providing them was a direct violation of WP:NPA because you were making claims about impropriety. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:54, 2 November 2009 (UTC) Can somebody remind me please: Jehochman mentioned an existing civility restriction on O.R.'s talk page, which O.R. promptly denied existed. When and where was such a restriction formally installed? Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:50, 2 November 2009 (UTC) There was never a restriction. Jehochman, who has a long history with me and was involved in an incident, tried to claim that he placed me on a permanent civility restriction and would block me if I ever said anything incivil. The community said that not only did he not have any authority in the matter, but that his own statements were highly inappropriate. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:52, 2 November 2009 (UTC) Well, I found the discussion. It doesn't really matter: a "civility restriction" is nothing else than a formal warning connected with a suggestion to other administrators to enforce usual policies on you with a lowered blocking threshold. Every administrator can make such a warning, and that warning was certainly appropriate. Many other people have warned you again today; I'll be the next. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:59, 2 November 2009 (UTC) Warnings without proof of incivility are violations of WP:NPA. Not one has linked a diff that showed any incivil comment. Furthermore, Jehochman was an involved user so his "adminship" does not apply. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:06, 2 November 2009 (UTC) I repeat my comment from below: Ottava, I'm not going to give anything more than pure, honest advice. Get off the computer, go get yourself a drink, and sit down and read a good book for a while. I find that it works wonders when I'm feeling stressed over a situation. At the very least, go take a walk or watch some tv. It'll do some good. Ks0stm (T•C•G) 15:25, 2 November 2009 (UTC) I'm not feeling stressed, nor do I know why I would. The attacks upon me by the same people who have been attacking me for a month, combined with the issue of merely asking a question without any diffs (after being asked for quite a long time now) to prove that I made any incivil comment, only verifies that I am not the one causing a problem. If anything, that is a rather good thing as it only proves that the same people are constantly disrupting and its not me. It is only inevitable that the community ships them out. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:31, 2 November 2009 (UTC) Still, getting off the computer for a while and visiting some coffeeshop in Amsterdam will do wonders. You'll see things in a different perspective and not bother to engage in these sorts of silly disputes. Count Iblis (talk) 15:42, 2 November 2009 (UTC) Seeing the circumstances, isn't this a bit of an bad time to refer to drugs again? Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 15:44, 2 November 2009 (UTC) Actually, since the main problem here is not so much "incivility" in the classic sense, but perennial drama-stirring and vendettas, how about a different form of community sanction: the drama plug? I hereby propose the following: Ottava Rima is to be restricted, by community consensus, in the following way: Whenever O.R. feels he needs to raise an objection against the conduct of some other party, he is allowed to make exactly one single post about it to a forum of his choice, and no more. From that point, he is required to leave the discussion of the issue to others. If the complaint has merit, somebody will adopt it. Note: Complaints arising as follow-ups from such a situation, i.e. complaints about somebody's reaction to his complaint, do not count as legitimising another post. How about that? Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:18, 2 November 2009 (UTC) That's not fair. Ottava should have the right to defend himself. Just because he's got a tendency to attract commotion doesn't mean he should be rendered helpless by the community. And just because commotion annoys some people doesn't mean they should get rid of the source because it's causing them stress. In my eyes, everybody's doing wrong here. I'd sincerely appreciate it if this could stop here. Master of Puppets 15:28, 2 November 2009 (UTC) I agree with Master of Puppets here, any user has the right to defend his or her statement; If we would limit O.R to a single post he or she would never have the chance to defend his or her opinion. Personally i'm more concerned with what i perceive as the constant lack of good faith which results in issuing warnings and threats, alongside with the in my eyes aggressive way of communication. One of the problems is that O.R denies even the remote possibility of him or her being wrong, which makes this subject harder to address. Yet it has to be addressed less this will keep going out of hand. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 15:42, 2 November 2009 (UTC) Warnings don't imply a belief that another is editing in bad faith. Most of my warnings were asking people to stop with certain comments or stop making comments without diffs. People refuse to post diffs to what they claim about my comments. I have checked each and every one of my comments before posting and I am very guarded on what I say or don't say. I have been for a very long time, so when people claim I post incivil comments, they better show it. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:46, 2 November 2009 (UTC) Regrettably, your actions appear to not always be in line with your stated standards: above, after accusing an administrator of stalking and attacking you, you were asked for diffs to back up or back off your claims. You responded with a link to the history of a page and with: "There are your diffs." The bad faith assumptions on your part are, frankly, becoming increasingly disruptive, and every time someone responds with a valid criticism of your behaviour, you obfuscate or begin attacking them as well. user:J aka justen (talk) 15:55, 2 November 2009 (UTC) See the topic i started below, i quoted plenty, yet you immediately discarded them as "Not true" with yet another warning towards of me being in violation of WP:NPA. Similary there have been several other editors cautioning you for being uncivil. If you believe that several editors are all talking nonsense, how can anyone "Show you" that they deem something uncivil, if you immediately discard those concerns as baseless? In other words, if you aren't open for criticism in any way, how can you expect people to show you may be wrong? Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 16:04, 2 November 2009 (UTC) Anybody recall the kids fairy story about the mice voting to put a bell on the cat? That's what we have here. The responses of Ottava to anything that Ottava disagrees with are so aggressive that people simply give up rather than start that RfC/U and put up with the attacks that will follow. A mere suggestion to change the name of an article produces an outpouring of invective, accusations of bad faith, accusations of untruthfulness, and accusations of disruption and general mendacious conduct. Any attempt to calm the situation results in another outpouring, this time usually accusations of working with others one has never heard of to do Ottava down, being involved in things one has never heard of, being a sockpuppet, meatpuppet, or generally not being yourself. It's not worth it to the individual. But this state of affairs really cannot be allowed to continue. I agree with the statements above that restricting Ottava to one post at ANI or whatever is not workable - also it does not address the fact that these dramas are usually only the last act. Conduct on talk pages in content disputes concerns me far more, because of the effect Ottava can have on a debate when he goes off on one. If he could present his arguments without it sounding like a rant he would put forward a more persuasive suggestion a lot of the time, and retain good working relations with other editors. Can a way be found to achieve this? Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:01, 2 November 2009 (UTC) I agree with you on the points you make elen. Simply sounding less hostile and vindicative could have prevented the absolute majority of this issue, as it would less likely have turned into a shouting match. Im against using strong arm tactics such as strait out blocking as this is simply a stopgap measure - it will only set bad blood between Ottava and other people, and it won't have any positive effect in the long run. Likewise ottava has demonstrated (s)he is an excellent editor who actually does excellent work most of the time. A community block would therefor also benefit noone. The major problem, however, is that Ottava seems convinced (s)he did absolutely nothing whatsoever, reinforced by the idea that people are out to get him\her. It is so hard to change a man who made up his mind that i am at a bit of a loss on how to solve this without causing any unneeded damage. Any suggestions? Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 16:14, 2 November 2009 (UTC) "The responses of Ottava to anything that Ottava disagrees" - I have worked with User:Haiduc on Nicolo Giraud while having 100% opposite views of him and got the article to FA. I have worked with Malleus on two FAs and we do not agree on anything personable, disputed quite a bit over grammar and weight issues and the such. I have worked with Ironholds and we have 100% opposite views and dispute often, yet have an FA there. I have worked with Ceoil and got through a lengthy page. Each of these times, there has been heavy compromise, working together, and dealing with people directly. I have no featured credits with anyone who is my "friend" and agrees with me on issues. Most people come from very conflicted backgrounds and have majorly different views from me. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:57, 2 November 2009 (UTC) Support drama plug for this user per Fut.Perf. We have wasted a ridiculous amount of time catering for this user's eccentricity across several forums over the past 36 hours. I would be loath to see any repetition of this. It may be that a block or the threat of one is needed to let this user know how inappropriate their behavior has been. --John (talk) 16:35, 2 November 2009 (UTC) Comment This is just another of Ottava Rima's vendettas against anyone who has ever crossed him (see the recent recall proceedings against User:SarekofVulcan). Chillum's mistake was to refuse a request for unblock from OR on October 27:[191]. Ottava was obviously too busy with the WikiCup competition to pursue the grudge at the time but right after it finished (October 31) he was back drama-mongering. Funnily enough, Chillum was the admin who unblocked Ottava early back in September:[192]. Maybe he was "under the influence" when he made that decision.--Folantin (talk) 16:43, 2 November 2009 (UTC) I object to a community ban at this time. WP:RFC/U might be a next step if people have lingering concerns. Jehochman Talk 16:52, 2 November 2009 (UTC) Ottava's "Seeing as how Jtrainor is retaliating against me for posting an RfC against Bishonen.." posted above is kind of silly. Jtrainor seems to be a very sensible chap/chapess, but I don't actually know him/her. Also, noone should take the trouble of retaliating for RfC Bishonen 4, seeing as I enjoyed it, especially the cupcakes. Pity it was deleted so soon! Bishonen | talk 17:43, 2 November 2009 (UTC). The user repeatedly claimed at the connected AfD that I put up the RfC because "I hate Bishonen" and was asked multiple times to provide diffs or refrain from making such comments and refused. I do not hate you Bishonen, nor have I ever hated you. Do I trust you as an admin? No, but that has nothing to do with you. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:58, 2 November 2009 (UTC) Oppose any sort of community ban at this time. I disagree with Ottava on a wide range of issues, and I acknowledge that he goes overboard quite often, but this is silly. Have a little WP:FAITH that he's doing what he's doing for the right reasons, even if his process is a bit off. The WordsmithCommunicate 18:31, 2 November 2009 (UTC) Support the application of the scold's bridle as outlined by Fut Perf. Crafty (talk) 18:43, 2 November 2009 (UTC) Comment - we need to do something because the amount of trouble and ill will stirred up by Ottava Rima is not acceptable, and it is apparently not going to improve on its own. This is as good a time as any to cut out the waffling and inaction and actually do something to improve the editing atmosphere here. Perhaps a mentoring-style approach would be more a more workable version of the so-called "drama plug". Ottava Rima should be restricted from initiating or participating in editor behavior discussions, or otherwise disparaging other editors' actions, without first getting leave to do so. If he feels that he is personally involved in a situation that directly affects his ability to make content edits or discuss content edits on article talk pages, he can request help directly from an admin who volunteers for the duty on the admin's talk page, and that admin will screen the issue for whether or not it can be mediated or quickly resolved, whether it should be dropped, or whether it is worthy of a wider community discussion. Conversely, he should not participate in behavioral discussions that do not affect him personally, until and unless he has demonstrated to the community's satisfaction that he can get along with other editors here. It's a shame to close off Wikipedia's normal dispute resolution venues to an editor, but as an alternative to an outright ban, it only makes sense that if someone repeatedly abuses the forums here they need to take a break from them. - Wikidemon (talk) 18:56, 2 November 2009 (UTC) I see the editor has been blocked repeatedly recently, then unblocked. Maybe that would help diffuse things for the moment. Right now he's in a war of words with several administrators who he accuses of harassment, abuse, personal attacks, etc., for describing his behavior as uncivil. He certainly has not gotten the message that he needs to stop advocating against Chillum over Chillum's drug use comment. - Wikidemon (talk) 19:20, 2 November 2009 (UTC) Please provide a diff where I have ever advocated about anything. There is no such statement as I have not made an advocation. I asked a question. There is a major difference. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:51, 2 November 2009 (UTC) Just ban him. He's proven that he can't or won't work cooperatively and reasonably with other editors. Everyking (talk) 19:57, 2 November 2009 (UTC) This proves that I have multiple large DYK hooks in which I worked with others, and I have 9 FA pages in which I co-nomed with another person, all of which I do not share a similar background with and have been able to work with that individual to get the article up to FA. There is no evidence to verify Everyking's claim, but there is a lot of evidence of a long history of him making such attacks against me that have been proven as baseless. His comments over at Wikipedia Review verify the problem with his edits. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:03, 2 November 2009 (UTC) I have never seen you do anything that did not involve an attack, insult, or provocation. I'm sure you've done some good article work, but the level of disruption and malice is simply unbelievable. If you can work cooperatively and reasonably with others, then why on earth are you constantly getting into some kind of fight? Everyking (talk) 20:16, 2 November 2009 (UTC) Seeing as how most of the fights are caused by the same group of people following me to places, you might want to re-evaluate the problem. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:28, 2 November 2009 (UTC) Wait, I thought Chillum said that on his userpage. Was that "following you"? Thinksme you might have it bass ackwards ;-). --SB_Johnny | talk 21:22, 2 November 2009 (UTC) 1. The fight here was started by User J, who followed me. 2. Many participants in the fight, such as Antandrus and others who responded were part of the Bishonen dispute, part of the Oscar Wilde dispute, part of the Persian Empire dispute, part of the Ludovico Ariosto dispute, part of the Christopher Smart freemasonry dispute all the way back to being part of the Geogre DRV dispute. I was not referring to Chillum in the above. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:10, 2 November 2009 (UTC) Ottava, in all due honesty i have not seen you accept even the remote chance you share part of the blame for the current situation. Both Hans and me provided diffs to illustrate uncivil behavior and you whacked them of the table claiming them to be nonsense and personal attacks, while in the same sentence even claiming that RxS two comments warranted a direct warning and ANI threat while yours were all harmless. Similarly you are now pointing to "The same group of people who are always Wikihounding me and are causing all the fights". Sorry, but by now i have the feeling you are using different standards to measure yourself and for the rest of the community. In other words, give me proof that editors are indeed following you around and hounding you, and seeing your "Most / Same Group" comment i expect that the majority of the editors commenting here is actually doing so, so i look forward to some diffs. I got nothing against you personally, but by now i want to know if you are indeed threated so badly by a group of editors that you can put the blame on them. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 20:56, 2 November 2009 (UTC) Ottava has proven no such thing. In fact he's proven quite the opposite. Ottava and I are like chalk and cheese, but we've successfully collaborated on several FAs, and I'd have no reservations about working with him again, even though we'll probably never see eye-to-eye on a whole bunch of issues. Like this AN/I report, for instance. It's no secret that I believe Chillum to be the worst kind of administrator, and I found the posting of his that precipitated this unholy mess to be inappropriate and childish. Unlike Ottava though I haven't bothered to pursue the matter because I believe that the fundamentally corrupt system here at wikipedia tolerates behaviour from administrator it would not tolerate from regular editors. Hence it's just a waste of time to draw attention to it. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:17, 2 November 2009 (UTC) Chalk and cheese, good one. It's a fair point that admins should not be bragging about personal drug use or keeping alternate accounts (with a few exceptions, as has been discuseed at great length). Jimbo agrees with the first, per his talk page, and I think I do too. I would hold administrators to a higher standard of decorum, and of maintaining the trust and respect of the community, at least while they wear their administrative hat. Some might disagree and think it's okay to let it all hang out, so to speak. Anyway, I think Ottava Rima has a reasonable point in the first place about the statement. The problem was how it played out, and turned into an issue over actual drug use. He surely can't be enjoying this either. Looking at this, I stand by my observation that he's most directly responsible for this mess. He's the one whose comments in multiple forums got everyone so riled up, and for whom a changed approach would be the simplest and most likely to avoid further trouble. No need to declare a winner or make anyone feel punished. Ideally we could work out something that minimizes the contention, without impairing his ability to edit productively where he wants. I wish I had a good suggestion. I proposed something above but I don't think it's exactly right. - Wikidemon (talk) 20:50, 2 November 2009 (UTC) Oppose a community ban. Ottava is pursuing something he sees as important and is taking the steps he believes need to be taken. I don't believe he's doing this be disruptive, instead he's doing it because he feels that it's the right thing to do. This discussion and the few following seem to be beating a dead horse, someone should end this discussion since it's not going to get anywhere.--Giants27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 20:21, 2 November 2009 (UTC) Simply believing that you are right doesn't mean that you actually are right. That's kinda the problem with the absolutist approach to problem-solving. Tarc (talk) 20:30, 2 November 2009 (UTC) But it doesn't mean he should be blocked, which is kinda the point.--Giants27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 20:43, 2 November 2009 (UTC) Sorry, but i'm going to have to call bullshit on this one. Ottava is not murdering thousands of innocent people using hijacked civilian airplanes. He's not harming anyone at all. He sees something he sees as potentially damaging to the encyclopedia, and he is attempting to correct it. Just because other people don't agree that it is damaging, doesn't mean that he's being disruptive. He's only trying to protect us. So next time, pick a better example, please. Hyperbole will get you nowhere. The WordsmithCommunicate 20:41, 2 November 2009 (UTC) Oh please, stop being such a drama queen. Yes it was an extreme example, but the notion of "what Ottava did was OK because he thought he was right" was so patently ridiculous that such an analogy was quite fitting, IMO. Regardless of whether or not you think we need to be protected from acid-dropping administrators, the sheer aggressiveness and vitriol from Ottava's direction while pursuing this is what the ultimate issue is at hand. Tarc (talk) 20:48, 2 November 2009 (UTC) Weak oppose There will not be a consensus for a community ban here and this is no longer productive. However, I think that Ottava clearly is disruptive, as evidenced by this sad episode and the Bishonen RfC debacle. That being said, I do still think a better direction to focus everyone's energy in is WP:RFC/U. Considering the excellent content Ottava has provided, I think pursuing dispute resolution is much more appropriate than any contentious ban, block, or restriction that we come up with here. A centralized discussion that doesn't encourage back and forth sniping would give him a chance to see what users really think of his behavior without him responding to every single criticism. If that doesn't work, taking this to ArbCom would probably be a better forum to enact a ban to avoid any appearance of administrator cronyism (a regular complaint of Ottava's unless I am mistaken). AniMatedraw 20:36, 2 November 2009 (UTC) I honestly don't know about Ottava's content contributions, but I'm willing to believe what others have said about them being good. That does not give him permission to act like the fucking cops and try to force a confession out of Chillum. This has been one of the most disgusting episodes I have seen yet on Wikipedia. It's needless drama-mongering over one tiny little posting on a talk page. Ottava should stick to what he is good at and not try to bully admissions out of other editors and stir up shitstorms for no good purpose. Same goes for Malleus, who actually started all this. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:44, 2 November 2009 (UTC) Asking a simple question as to clarifying what his statement meant when others were repeatedly saying that it was a "joke" is not bullying a confession like any kind of law enforcement officer. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:48, 2 November 2009 (UTC) Honestly Ottava you are utterly shameless. You must know that the "Who me? I just asked a simple question!" defence holds no water in your case. Crafty (talk) 20:51, 2 November 2009 (UTC) Maybe if you had asked just once and then dropped it when you didn't get the answer you were looking for, but you asked repeatedly, and threatened a user who tried to get you to cut it out. Then you quickly began stating that you believed the true answer to the question would lead to Chillum being desysopped if it was revealed. You are a bully and a dramamonger. Statements like these are pretty plainly intended to intimidate others: "This is an admittance of taking Class A substances while editing Wikipedia" " What is the closest proximity of you taking a drug to you making an admin related decision?" "your hostile response shows that it is a question that has an answer that you know would damage Chillum and possibly result in his desysopping" " If you want to continue, please be advise that you are walking off a short pier." "I would like to know if you use drugs while making admin actions. A simple yes or no will suffice." "It was a simple matter of being open about your drug use so we don't have to worry about your judgment." Frankly, you make me sick. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:05, 2 November 2009 (UTC) Again, the horse is dead. Consensus for a community ban is not going to materialize here. Draft an RfC, or let this go. Complaining about and rehashing events here is a waste of energy and is not doing anything to fix the problem. AniMatedraw 21:15, 2 November 2009 (UTC) Support a temporary block as I pointed out at Jimbo's page "...it's time to add a block to your (Ottava's) block history so you have time to calm down and think about the disruption you created today., although I didn't check the editors history (besides his block history) to call for a community ban that might or might not be warranted.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 21:22, 2 November 2009 (UTC) Concur with temporary block if only for his own protection. Else, in 24 hours, he'll just have dug 24 more hours of hole. PhGustaf (talk) 22:19, 2 November 2009 (UTC) Support a temporary block The amount of incivility in this entire debate is just over the top. Also, seeing the insistence that RsX made two comments which were apparently worth both a warning and an ANI report threat while the 25 comments Hans and I linked were apparantly only to be condemned as personal attacks i deem this a also a gross breach of WP:AGF and WP:NPA. I support a block mostly to have it listed on the block log for future reference, as i deem that this amount of disruption warrants it. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 22:29, 2 November 2009 (UTC) You have been asked multiple times to provide a diff of an incivil comment and you have yet to provide any such thing. You have violated WP:NPA over 5 times so far in this very method. Merely throwing out allegations of impropriety is inappropriate. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:34, 2 November 2009 (UTC) "Incivil comment"? I can provide you with a diff about one from you against me if that helps [193] (my response included there for context) , yet, you still didn't provide any diff's you where repeatedly ask for by several editors regarding your accusations against Chillum's "inappropriate and bad behavior" even so you had plenty of time by now to search. find and "put out" as you where kindly asked. Your credibility equals zero.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 23:48, 2 November 2009 (UTC) Yet when you do it, you're striking a blow for justice and the project. Crafty (talk) 23:02, 2 November 2009 (UTC) Time to put down the sticks 1)Bragging about personal drug use on Wikipedia is unhelpful and disruptive. 2) A lot of people have grudges against Ottava and he would be wise to tone down his confrontational approach instead of handing out ammunition. 3) The best way to stop the drama mongering is to stop the drama mongering. Those who keep pushing this along and calling for heads aren't helping anything. 4) There's an interesting discussion to be had about the role of drugs in society, but this isn't the place. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:41, 2 November 2009 (UTC) 1) Who is "bragging"...????? 2) I, like many others, don't have any (past) grudges against Ottava and he should not only tune it down but cut it out. 3) With other words, Ottava should stop pushing and just cut it out. 4) Yes, indeed, this isn't the right place! So again, Ottava should take a deep breath, relax and stop pushing before he will be stopped by the community. The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 21:17, 2 November 2009 (UTC) User:J Something needs to be said regarding the conduct of the editor who began this thread. During the past week J has altered or blanked three different editors' talk page posts without their consent, and responded aggressively to feedback. In fact, it is possible that this thread ostensibly about Ottava Rima may have been an outgrowth of that problem. On October 30 I attempted to play peacemaker at Jake Wartenberg's user talk. Jake had made a mistake that had gotten a few people rankled, and complaints had continued even after Jake had admitted the mistake. Another editor had already archived the discussion and I had taken no part in the dispute. So I collapsed the discussion and announced that Jake had undertaken a new featured content drive.[194] J completely blanked my post.[195] J had been active in the dispute. To the best of my knowledge I had never interacted with J before. Both Jennavecia and I arrived at J's talk page at roughly the same time to ask him to discuss our posts with us if he disagrees with what we write, rather than reverting us unilaterally.[196] J had recently blanked one of her posts from David Shankbone's user talk page.[197] J's response, basically, was to point fingers at everyone other than himself.[198] After three different attempts to communicate I informed him that if the problem continued I would seek outside opinions. His response in edit summaries appears to be angry.[199][200] J's very next post after telling me off was to start this noticeboard thread about Ottava Rima.[201] J appears to have had no prior interaction with Ottava Rima (at least no recent interaction), but it wouldn't be very hard to get to Ottava Rima by checking my recent edit history: it was the only other user talk page where I had been active yesterday. I had posted to Ottava's user page in the attempt to defuse another conflict--suggesting a joint featured picture/DYK drive about the poetry of William Blake.[202] Without taking sides in the Chillum/Ottava Rima scuffle, anyone can agree that the site would be better off putting our energies there. Well, nearly anyone--because half an hour after J expressed resentment of my media contributions, he began this ANI thread. J's behavior related to this thread was also disruptive. He attempted to unclose the discussion,[203] which drew a complaint from Toddst1.[204] J's reaction to Toddst1 was worse than his reaction to Jennavecia or myself: J attempted to strikethrough Toddst1's posts.[205] Toddst1 rightly pointed out that striking through is not okay because it implies retraction.[206] I've seen people get blocked for less than this. We really don't need someone turning olive branches into whipping sticks at the David Shankbone article deletion debate and Ottava Rima's disputes. Durova352 16:27, 2 November 2009 (UTC) You can't honestly believe that I brought my concerns with User:Ottava Rima's recent conduct here because of you, can you? His conduct has nothing to do with the David Shankbone article, and the assumption that it does is just about as bad faith as it gets. I see the tit for tat strategy you are pursuing here, but it's just remarkable to me the extent to which you apparently plan to pursue it. user:J aka justen (talk) 16:34, 2 November 2009 (UTC) Tits? WHERE?! HalfShadow (talk) 16:37, 2 November 2009 (UTC) Fava beans and a nice Chianti, Clarice. Master of Puppets 16:45, 2 November 2009 (UTC) Nonetheless, habitually blanking and altering other editors' talk page posts is blockable. Three separate people have attempted to communicate this to J this week. His reaction has been defiant and disruptive. Durova352 16:40, 2 November 2009 (UTC) "Habitually"? Refactoring personal attacks or (intentionally or otherwise) disruptive edits, which unfortunately applied to the edits you and Lara made, is not "habitually," it's two edits. I note that other editors concurred with both changes: Lara's comments have since been collapsed, yours were since refactored by the owner of the talk page. I struck Todd's poorly considered comments on my talk page and noted that I had done so; he objected and later struck his most inaccurate comment himself (after three administrators agreed his close here was inappropriate). You, madame, are making a mountain out of a mole hill, and I'm afraid your motives speak for themselves. user:J aka justen (talk) 16:47, 2 November 2009 (UTC) Deruva, before i comment on anything else, i would like to point out that i started an identical section below regarding the same topic. I believe we are in no way related par the venture of previous contact to any degree (at least recently) so wouldn't it be more appropriate to move this section to a separate topic as the relation between these two topics in only flimsy? Also, Im not exactly sure what kind of situation i suddenly wandered into; I keep seeing users blaming each other for attempting to ban each other for past interactions. I remember Ottava saying something about "Editors out to get me for something of the past, and we all know why". I also remember chillem voicing the opinion that Ottava may be after him for some kind of block, and now i see you pointing to J for being after ottava because of past interaction with you? Glad my main line of work is vandalism \ new page patrol. At the very least i don't have to deal with these kind of intrigues. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 16:42, 2 November 2009 (UTC) I beg your pardon if this duplicates a thread you started; feel free to move if you think that's appropriate. The sequence here doesn't rise to such eloquent terms as intrigue: problem, three attempts to communicate and solve the problem; problem recurs three times with three different people in short time frame. Manifestation of problem is already at ANI, so articulate the problem with diffs. The rest is spin. Durova352 16:49, 2 November 2009 (UTC) Sorry - that statement i just made was horrible on the grammar part. What i intended to say was that i started a section below as well regarding Ottava - Since it doesn't seem that there is any form of interaction between us in the past i think this means that more editors signal this issue as ANI related. Therefor i would think that J's conduct is more of a separate issue rather then being a sub header towards the current discussion. Since i do not know the magnitude of the situation i leave it to you to decide if these are related or seperate. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 16:56, 2 November 2009 (UTC) I don't wish to diminish anything said in the long thread; but it should be noted that it is possible for two editors to both be behaving poorly, even if they are on the opposite sides of an issue. I am not stating that J. has misbehaved here, but even if he has, it does not absolve Ottava Rima's long history, which was being discussed above. It's entirely possible that everyone is in the wrong here. I am not saying that is what happened, but I also think we need to avoid letting that possibility cause one set of problems be swept under the rug merely because we are faced with a different set of problems. I have no idea what the interaction history between Durova and J. is; but it should be emphasized that there was apparently no interaction history between J. and Ottava Rima; we often complain that "involved" people bringing complaints about other users or acting to sanction them. However, we seem to have had a genuine case of a complaint being brought forward by an uninvolved user. If J and Durova has issues to work out, it would be best not to let such a situation cloud the initial set of problems involved Ottava Rima. --Jayron32 17:43, 2 November 2009 (UTC) Jayron, there is no interaction history. I was unaware that User:J existed before October 30. This is a normal subthread about recent actions. Please put away the wiki-scorecard and review the matter on its merits; I've returned to higher priorities and this is the first time checking the page in hours. Durova355 21:24, 2 November 2009 (UTC) Boy, having read these related threads here & most of another on Jimmy Wales's Talk page, I have to wonder: are there too many editors contributing under the influence of pyschoactive drugs -- or not enough? -- llywrch (talk) 18:30, 2 November 2009 (UTC) Not enough. Count Iblis (talk) 21:35, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Block review for User:hAl

I've blocked hAl (talk · contribs · block log) indefinitely for continued edit warring and disruptive editing at Office Open XML immediately after his seventh block for the same. I've also informed hAl that he can be unblocked provided he consents to a topic ban from this and related articles, and preferably a 1RR restriction on top of that. I'm coming here for review of the block, and community support and consensus for the conditions set forth. Thanks. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 17:13, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

• Support. I've dealt with him before, and while he has some constructive ideas, he seems unable to follow consensus or participate in collaborative article development, only repeatedly edit-warring for his desired article content. DMacks (talk) 17:26, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
• Support Sounds fair to me.--SKATER ^Speak. 18:48, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
• Support. I gave one of the previous blocks. A lot of trouble has occurred at Office Open XML, and given the past criticism of his edits, I would expect hAl to work actively toward a compromise. All I see up till now is a battleground attitude. A sample of his uncooperative style can be seen in his recent responses at the talk page. Another editor sums it up well when we refers to an 'atmosphere of aggression or recrimination.' If this is still not convincing enough, please review his two previous requests for unblock which can be seen on this version of his talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 19:09, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
• Support and also support the topic ban if he wants to come back. I have (occasionally) looked at into these articles, and this is a big problem. Verbal chat 19:55, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
• Support Looking at the history, I'm surprised he wasn't indefblocked earlier. Topic ban is a good idea as well, as in all likelihood it'll have the effect of a siteban. Blueboy96 19:58, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
• Support No problems here. Also support a topic ban if the user chooses to come back.--Giants27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 20:39, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
• Support: I support the indefinite block. User:HAl has been problematic on Microsoft-related articles, articles about Microsoft products, and formats created by Microsoft or related to Microsoft, such as Open Office XML. If he returns with a topic-ban, it would have to include subjects related to Microsoft and its formats.--Lester 23:46, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
• Weakly support: I'm not a fan of indef blocks with conditions on which the block can be lifted, as it seems like we're giving the editor the option to work in an appropriate fashion. Collegial behavior should never be construed as an option. But I see that there probably isn't an alternative in this situation. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 00:09, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
• Support: Sorry I'm late to the table here, but I just want to endorse Lester's point above, that in his day hAl was difficult on several Microsoft-related articles and conditions placed on any possible future rehabilitation should include this, rather than just the narrower OOXML article, which was a hot-spot around the time of his ban. --Nigelj (talk) 22:33, 24 November 2009 (UTC)