Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents: Difference between revisions

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

User:Fasach Nua

This user has already been discussed at AN here, but no real solutions were found. After continuing the disruptive behaviour, I issued a block (for full details, see this version of user's talk page). The user has since declared in multiple places that this block was based on lies and bad faith. Out of curiosity, I asked the user where exactly I had "lied", and in return I got a fairly civil, if not cryptic response. I replied, and then again got called a troll. This user has unfortunatly learnt nothing from their block, but I have: it appears that critisism towards this editor is often met with acusations of trolling, lying, and buckets of bad faith. This is in addition to the root problems this editor has, namely the constant removal without discussion of images they feel fail NFCC - a perfectly valid cause at first glance, but destructive when you consider that it is often done without discussion, repeatedly (thus violating 3RR), and abusivley (in my case at least). There are two issues here: this editor's behaviour and interpretation of the NFCC rules; and this editor's abbusive response to any challenges. Any help or input from other sysops would be appreciated. _TalkIslander 15:45, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

User notified of this thread here, notice very, very promptly removed here. Without an accusation of trolling, suprisingly enough. _TalkIslander 15:49, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I would add that the user has tended to taken an extremely narrow interpretation of fair use and run with it, IfD'ing a lot of images for removal. He has specifically noted his opinion that essentially, certain types of articles don't deserve images. Were this hyper-deletionist editing behavior to occur in article space, the user's pov edits would likely draw the attention of numerous RfCs, AN/I complaints and resulting blocks. The sheer number of IfDs across a lot of articles allows the user to escape cursory notice, though the user was in fact blocked for this sort of behavior before. Fasach Nua has not learned from it, and continues to edit as before. I affirm Islander's comments that the user seems intent on a razor-thin interpretation of NFCC that consensus has not intended. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:15, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I also have to say that FN has repeatedly shown himself to be disruptive despite broadly based condemnation of his approach. His interpretation of the use of non-free images is excessively narrow. He refuses to engage in meaningful dialogue with other editors and will not consistently afford them a fair opportunity to challenge his views in open forum or through established process. There is a clear disdain for other contributors and frequent references to the process of developing concensus as being little more than "mob rule", which is incredibly anti-community. He plays the rules that suit him and ignores the rest. Its appalling to have to watch one petty duel after another and the ongoing assault on other editors views and contributions. Anyone who has to consistenly accuse such a large number of others of trolling, wikistalking, lying, etc. should really be taking a hard look at what it is they are doing. I'm not sure what can be done, but its something that I suspect will be an on-going nuisance, because although its papered over by a veneer of correctness, at its core there is an unhealthy and distasteful well of disregard for others. Wiggy! (talk) 22:39, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I wonder how long it's going to take for him to get banned. I think he's had ample time (six months) to change, and he's not. Sceptre ^(talk) 00:41, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I guess I share Wiggy's frustration over what can be done concerning FN's behavior. Maybe a limiting of the behavior, so as to protect the project might be part of that resolution, such as a limit as to how many IfD nominations he can make, while at the same time attempting to counsel the lad as to the more accepted interpretation of our image use policy. However, that is me, trying to give someone the benefit of the doubt. As evidenced by the dust-up over at WProject Football this last May, FN has shown himself to be an adept editor who is not some newbie. He has a history of repeatedly engaging in pointy behavior and failing to follow consensus. If we give him the strongest warning possible regarding an impending ban, it just might help to rein in his more extravagant efforts to push a pov. I am not entirely convinced that the user is irredeemably beyond our assistance. He clearly knows how to edit, and I am of the impression that, if properly guided by someone FN can respect, he may yet be a positive editing influence in the Wiki community. Thoughts? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 14:35, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

My thoughts are that, judging by previous behaviour, anyone who tries to warn him will just be instantly labled a troll, and I see no way around that. _TalkIslander 16:07, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

The alternative is to remove him, and thus avoid the need to warn him. I think that's a bit much, but he has served to piss off just about everyone who comes into contact with him. We are a community, not his parents; if he doesn't think he needs fixing, then we can't parent him. We can kick him out of the clubhouse, though. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:02, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

(untab) Not sure I entirely agree with what your saying, but it's undeniable that something needs to be done, and I cannot do anything, as I'm too involved. I don't wish to give this 'editor' any more ammo. Help from another administrator needed. _TalkIslander 22:52, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Anyone? Someone's else's input would be greatly apprecaited... _TalkIslander 20:09, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Disruption by GoRight

GoRight, a civil POV pusher on global warming related topics, recently returned from a 6 month hiatus. Since coming back, he has proceeded to disrupt numerous global warming related articles. He's already been warned by myself and R. Baley, however, he continues in his pattern of adding specious or fringe theories attributed to less-than-reliable sources, and then edit warring when they are removed. Can someone please look into this? Raul654 (talk) 03:40, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

This is particularly concerning, but the remainder is something that should be sorted out through civil discussion to the point that there is consensus. Edit-warring when there is no consensus isn't helpful - if he doesn't cease with that, then please leave a note as I think a topic ban would then be warranted. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:13, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

In my defense, here, the edit you note above was a direct verbatum quote from the cited article. In general I prefer to let the original author's words speak for themselves rather than my trying to paraphrase and thereby potentially introduce nuances into the meaning that would be unwarranted. In retrospect, I agree that I could (should?) have been more sensitive to the direct naming of names ... but still the words are those of the article's author and not my own.

I have since moved on from this specific edit and attempted to provide a much more neutral version, [1], that conveys the important aspects of the charge with the contentious aspects having been removed. I have also provided an extensive discussion of why this particular source should be considered WP:RS even within the context of WP:BLP. See [2] and [3].

I am a GW skeptic. I do not try to hide this fact. But this fact makes me unpopular with the GW alarmists that frequent the GW pages, of which Raul is one. Anyone who frequents these pages will quickly recognize that there is a small group of editors who work in concert to prevent the addition of material that is counter to their personal POV by taking turns reverting changes from editors they disagree with (thus easily overwhelming an individual's ability to respond under WP:3RR), which effectively gives them a pocket veto to push their POV by simply disclaiming consensus (many times without any discussion). In his short time here, [4], Solomon quickly faced this group when he was merely trying to correct what he knew first hand to be false and misleading information. His experience was that of any GW skeptic here and he recounts those experiences acurately, IMHO, in [5], [6], and most recently [7].

This case is a prime example of their modus operandi. Raul simply comes in, reverts my edits, provides no discussion or justification for why he did so on the talk page or even in the edit summary, yet tells me on my talk page that I am not allowed to use the article described lest he block me. There are extensive on-going discussions on these points yet I believe that Raul has yet to comment there even once. Personally, I find that behavior to not be within the spirit or the intent of how Wikipedia is supposed to work. Feel free to review my edit history. I am confident that it will show a consistent record of making extensive attempts to reach consensus on the talk pages of the articles I have edited, as well as the proper use of dispute resolution mechanisms such as RFCs and the Noticeboards to bring in outside perspectives.

I freely admit to being WP:BOLD about adding material to these pages, but being WP:BOLD and edit warring are not the same thing. It takes two (or more) to edit war. Again, review my record of reverts and take note of the names on the other side of the "war". I think your will find a great commonality among them. Since my one and only block here I have lived within the limits set forth in the policies and gudielines. In fact, please note that I have thus far respected the demands of User:R. Baley and User:Raul654 as they apply to WMC yet both keep expanding the scope of their demands so as to prevent me from making any contributions related to the Solomon articles. Is this particularly reasonable on their part? --GoRight (talk) 14:53, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, he may cease with that particular edit, but that's not going to stop his general disruption on GW articles. I like the idea of a topic ban, though. Raul654 (talk) 14:57, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Note - since he's continued to edit war on the Fred Singer article (adding a hitpiece written by ex-Wikipedian Lawrence Solomon about that article) I've warned him that the next time he does, I'm going to block him. Raul654 (talk) 15:48, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I see that this editor has engaged in extensive discussion at Talk:William Connolley and gone on to reference those remarks to similar issues at Talk:Fred Singer. Blocking is not justified in this case unless the editor violates 3RR. I suggest you use dispute resolution instead. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 01:07, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

You are incorrect. Disruptive article editing - which he is doing in spades - is blockable. As for the talk page, he only started engaging on the talk page *after* R Baley told him (on his talk page) that is made another edit like it he'd be blocked. (And while he was simultaneously edit warring on William Gray, Global Warming, and Fred Singer). And, if you actually read what he says on tah talk page - he's talking *at* people, not too them -- he has yet to convince a single other person of anything except that he has no desire to abide by our rules. Raul654 (talk) 05:57, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll add that I also disagree with your threat to block GoRight if he makes the same edit again. You are involved in these articles yourself and you should not use your admin position in this case. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 01:11, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but as the arbcom has stated a number of times, the three revert war is not a license to revert war within limits. If he cannot edit within the expect norms of behavior - and so far, he has not - then he's going to be blocked. Raul654 (talk) 05:57, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Raul, I have myself had occasion to recently remind you of our long-standing norms against threatening to block users you are yourself in a dispute with. ArbCom has now made the non-involvement requirement more explicit, in two recently closed cases. --Relata refero (disp.) 21:11, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Raul, first of all, as I see it, GoRight is within our expected norms, has engaged in thoughtful talk page discussion and has some support for some of his edits. Second, you are in an editorial dispute with him and your blocking him would be very inappropriate; you know that, I know that and so do 1000+ other admins. If this editor needs blocking, I suggest you ask another admin here rather than take it on yourself (this also protects you from hassles over admin abuse). Third, I think our traditional forms of dispute resolution are called for, not sanctions.

For what it's worth, I probably agree with you much more than with GoRight on many broader scientific and policy issues off-Wikipedia. Nevertheless, I think GoRight is a civil editor with much to contribute. His talk page comments are well-written with reasoning is supported by our policies and guidelines (more so than some but not all of the opposing comments). We have time-proven dispute resolution processes and rules and we need to follow them.--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:39, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, his talk page contributions are mostly form without content, fluff-pieces propped up by cherry-picked sentences from our policies. It's most obvious in the "global warming causes earthquakes" discussion here, where he insists on adding patent nonsense (or maybe he insists that he was right to add nonsense albeit not insisting on actually adding it any more? Or may be he insists that his insistence is justified?) based on an MSNBC story that apparently he knew had already been withdrawn by other news outlets and that is based on a crank article in a crank "journal". --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:54, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, that which you call "cherry picking" I call quoting the relevant portions of the text as a means of communicating effectively. I have never claimed that the policies don't apply in their entirety. If you feel that there are portions of these policies that I am violating then please, by all means, "cherry pick" them with some discussion of how my material violates them so that we can objectively evaluate the merits of your claim. --GoRight (talk) 16:16, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

This is nothing more than a content dispute. The text GoRight added was well sourced, even though I probably would not include it. But threats to block by an involved admin are way over the line here. When exactly did civility become a blockable offense? ATren (talk) 14:13, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

It's rather more than a content dispute. The edit cited by Ncmvocalist at 05:13, 24 June 2008, for example, raises serious Biographies of living persons concerns. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 14:30, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

It was a cited opinion piece from a large Canadian newspaper. I do happen to agree that it doesn't belong, but it's not so clear cut as you would make it and it's certainly not blockable. I've seen content disputes over blog-sourced criticisms in BLPs by respected editors; this claim sourced to a Canadian newspaper is tame by comparison. ATren (talk) 14:45, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

What it amounts to is that one person writing an opinion piece has made a very serious charge about another person (which happens to involve a characterization of the latter's interactions on Wikipedia, but that's neither here nor there). There are serious BLP concerns (one guy's factual and potentially defamatory statement is not normally to be given such weight in that context) and even without BLP it contradicts the general tenor of mainstream reporting on the matter (see WP:REDFLAG)). There are enough concerns that, if the writer persists, and moreover if he has a history of pushing this line or similar ones, administrator action may become necessary. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 14:53, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

We typically don't make such judgements about reliably sourced claims, you know that. BLPs are littered with criticism from ideological opponents from published sources. If you keep acting naive to this fact, people might start accusing you of civil POV pushing. ;-) ATren (talk) 15:06, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Please note that we are discussing the BLP of Fred Singer NOT William M. Connelly in this instance. The edit I provided was only meant to highlight the fact that the page in question is considered to be unfair and inaccurate by an independent 3-Party source as published in a reliable news outlet. I have explained above (subsequent to your comment here) the rationale behind including the verbatum quote. Given the desire of Raul and R. Baley to "protect" WMC I have offered a much more neutral statement ([8]), yet Raul still objects ... without following the customary rules of discussion by commenting on the Talk page I might add while accusing me of not abiding the rules.

With respect to WP:BLP (as it applies to the subject of the article, namely Fred Singer) and WP:RS I have provided an extensive analysis on the relevant talk pages to jutsify my position. If Raul or others disagree with that assessment let them offer substantive rationale on a point by point basis as to why. A pocket veto of no response followed by a revert, a threat, and now action here is not what I think any of you would consider "within the norms of behavior" on wikipedia, and most especially not for an admin. Do you disagree?

Raul labels me a Civil POV pusher, which I take as derogatory BTW, and which I find particularly ironic since he is doing exactly the same thing only he has the benefit of adminship to boot. Using techniques such as we see here to effectively silence his opposition, especially when such opposition is properly cited, is just as effective of a POV pushing technique as anything I am doing ... not that I agree that I am POV pushing in the first place. Indeed, this is the entire point of the Solomon piece as it relates specifically to the Fred Singer BLP. It is effectively being skewed by Singer's critics here at Wikipedia by preventing his supporters from making appropriate corrections. This discussion is a case in point.

And I likewise object to the characterization of myself as being "disruptive". I am only being "disruptive" to the extent that I seek to add material, properly sourced, which is in point fact within the bounds of Wikipedia guidelines but does not align with Raul's agenda here. Apparently I may be "disruptive" from the perspective of Raul and others advancing their personal agendas on the GW pages, but I am most certainly NOT being "disruptive" from the perspective of attempting to bring a proper balance to the GW pages. Merely posting things that Raul personally disagrees with does NOT equate to disruption. --GoRight (talk) 15:33, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

GoRight, BLP applies to all material about living persons regardless of article. Please familiarise yourself with the policy. In general, a single opinion piece is usually considered insufficient for an over-the-top claim like "second most powerful man in the world in the GW debate." --Relata refero (disp.) 21:07, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

More to the point - nobody said he's been uncivil. He's a a POV pushing edit warrior who doesn't understand or abide by our basic policies regarding reliable sources, but nobody said he's uncivil. He has, however, been highly disruptive, and that is most assuredly blockable behavior. Raul654 (talk) 14:43, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

No, re-read what I said - I never said you called him uncivil - quite the opposite, in fact. I object to the link to Civil POV Pushing as if civility is some sort of a violation. The implication seems to be that you object to his civility in this dispute. As to the claim of POV pushing, his text was reliably sourced (even if I agree with you that it didn't belong) so it comes down to a judgement call between editors on two sides of a contentious topic. If repeated attempts to add sourced material is considered POV pushing, then repeated removal of that sourced material would seem to be POV pushing as well, no? ATren (talk) 14:52, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Raul, assuming what you say is true (and I don't buy it), you are not supposed to block editors with whom you are engaged in editorial disuptes. The community's rules on this are very clear: please see WP:BLOCK#Disputes. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:49, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Raul, as for a topic ban, which you mention above, I think only ArbCom can institute one of those; I suspect they would want to see you pursue other forms of dispute resolution first (as I have already suggested). --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:54, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I believe the BLP allows for emergency action by involved administrators. In this instance I don't expect that Raul654 will have a problem persuading an uninvolved editor to act. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 14:55, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I have provided direct and specific references to both WP:BLP and WP:RS with justifications for why my reference is applicable. All I get in return is hand waving assertions that I have somehow violated WP:BLP with respect to Fred Singer but with no specific substance or rationale to back up that side of the discussion. It is blatantly unfair to just say, well, "because I think so" as Raul, and thus far yourself, have done. Please quote for me the specific text from either WP:BLP or WP:RS that I have supposedly violated along with a direct discussion of how my contribution violates the indicated point. Perhaps then we can atually discuss the merits of your argument as opposed to simply bickering endlessly. --GoRight (talk) 15:43, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Just noticed the update here.

• I don't think it's advisable for a block to be imposed by an admin who is considered involved - none of us want a very avoidable controversy and drama to follow.
• This does not overlook the fact that edit-warring is unacceptable - it just means the tools should be used by someone else, regardless of the end result.
• If the editor can control himself in his conduct (at least), then that's that. If he can't, then either a short block will need to be considered by an uninvolved admin. If it's something more, then as the community, we can institute a topic ban.
• Please keep up with any updates here - I think we can afford to keep this open for about a week. Will ask an uninvolved admin for help if there's any major problems.

Hopefully, the matter ends here. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:55, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The, I don't see a clear-cut BLP violation. I see criticism of one notable figure by another quoted in an article. We have tons of that in our BLPs -- just look at articles like George W. Bush --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:59, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

As the statement in the op-ed is factual in nature, being an accusation of misconduct by a third party, there's no question about it: it's a BLP matter. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 15:02, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Are we talking about the edit I'd cited earlier? There's no need for emergency measures at this point - I'd cited that 2 days ago, and it hasn't continued since...has it? Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:04, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

It would help if Wikipedia: Reliable Sources were to adopt the rule almost all wikipedia science articles use: Non peer reviewed sources are not reliable sources when reporting about novel scientific results. GoRight, Blue Tie and some other editors know that this is the rule used on the Global Warming article, but they will nevertheless add text from non peer reviewed and will then start to argue that it is consistent with official wiki policy. :( Count Iblis (talk) 15:14, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Ncmvocalist, this is the William Connolley material that I am writing about:^[9]

• In a May 2008 editorial, Lawrence Solomon, a critic of the accepted theories on global warming, called Connolley's influence on the global warming debate second only to that of Al Gore as a result of his position at Wikipedia.^[10]

As for the Fred Singer diff you provided earlier, I agree with your assessment. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:20, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Lol...that was not the sort of thing we drafted the BLP remedy for, but if an admin takes an emergency action under the BLP remedy based on that edit, they should expect to be squarely bonked on the head.

At this point, if the edit-warring is not contained on that article, then stronger measures may be needed. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:40, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree. While I was not the author of that piece above, I have tried to defend it both through reverts and on the relevant talk page, and extensively so. This serves as an example of the lengths to which the GW alarmists will go to censure even the mildest of criticism. They find themselves in the position of arguing that WMC is NOT, in fact, influential which I suppose calls into question his notability ... although I have no objection to the William M. Connolley BLP but I would seek to have it treated comparably to the BLPs of the GW skeptics to which WMC himself frequently seeks to add negative material and in some cases from his own WP:SPS sources. Prior to my recent actions on WMC's BLP it contained literally NO criticism or negative content which I contend is clear POV pushing by the editors there in light of the fact they are are aware that such information exists. --GoRight (talk) 16:05, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Personal attacks and general disruption by User:Furtive admirer

[[::User:Furtive admirer|Furtive admirer]] ([[::User talk:Furtive admirer|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Furtive admirer|contribs]]) has been POV pushing on Jonathan Pollard. I reverted his mostly unsourced additions and gave him a {{uw-npov2}} warning. He then reintroduced his POV edits, this time introducing blatant vandalism[11] (notice the last part about "cause of global warming"; Furtive admirer later claimed that this was to prove a point[12]). This time I gave him a {{uw-vandalism4}} and included that diff in the warning.[13] His response was to accuse me of being paid to edit.[14] I then warned him not to make personal attacks, and expanded on my reasons to revert him.[15] He also was warned by another user against making personal attacks.[16] And yet, he choose to once again attack me[17] ("You should go to law school and then you will be paid for your attempt to intimidate and impeach witnesses", "Go find someone else to bully. You enjoy it a lot" ...)

What can be done about this user? Rami R 10:01, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Based on this, it seems Furtive admirer is going to step back from the article. If she does so, then this is moot. If she continues ro POV-push and add deliberate misinformation, please bring this up here again. Neıl 龱 10:11, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I sent my revisions to Carol Pollard, Jonathan's sister last night after responding to Rami's threats. I did not log on here to have such difficult interactions and verbal abuse. I thought this was a credible source; obviously, you can't handle the truth (Jack Nicholson).

Carol's response is: "I wish you peace and thank you for such a nice job you did on the entry.

XXX Carol"

FYI: If you want verification of any of the additions I made, her email address is: <deleted email>

I have also contacted Dr. Morris Pollard, Jonathan Pollard's father, and though he is in his mid-90's, I suggested he deal with you directly, and/or have author, Mark Shaw correct (see footnote #24 on Pollard Page: ^ Shaw, Mark. Miscarriage of Justice, The Jonathan Pollard Story. St. Paul, MN: Paragon House. 2001.) your errors with his sources. Obviously, you have serious issues here with writers and regretfully look at the glass half-full. I didn't realize how skeptical you are; you appear to alienate anyone with a triple digit IQ; it obviously reduces the quality and the integrity of your project, which now bears no weight in my ongoing acquisition of cultural literacy. My brother did warn me in advance about your treatment of contributors.

Rami, it is obvious you did not realize i was a female. You probably would have behaved better. First impressions are lasting. My dad always said, "You can catch more flies with molasses than vinegar."

This is definitely a waste of time and energy...

Furtive admirer (talk) 15:43, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I have a real problem with Rami R's "rvv" edit summaries, and the general treatment of Furtive admirer. While a lot of the stuff FA added to the article had severe bias and style problems, there was also some relevant and cited information mixed in -- and in any case, it certainly was not vandalism. When I see cases like this, I feel more sadness than I do anger... FA is clearly trying to do the right thing by protecting the reputation of a friend and making sure the "real story" (as she sees it) is told. The fact that her edits go against numerous Wikipedia policies is due to a lack of knowledge, not malice.

I'm going to see if any of her edits from yesterday can be salvaged. -Jaysweet (talk) 16:19, 24 June 2008 (UTC) On a side note, you may actually be able to catch more flies with vinegar, but we get your point... ;)

Well, okay, less of the edits were salvageable than I thought. Still, I really don't like people throwing around the V-word, especially in a sad case like this. I'll leave it alone for now, but what it with that, please? --Jaysweet (talk) 16:26, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I've added a note on FA's talk page (I didn't realise until today that she had left me a message as that was on my User page) hopefully explaining the issues. I agree with the comments about vandalism - I am prepared to assume good faith, and labelling those edits as vandalism is not helpful. It was full of bias and undue emphasis, but I doen't think she was deliberately disruptive or trolling. StephenBuxton (talk) 16:37, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

To add to the article "Currently in his cell, Jonathan Jay Pollard continues to control the Earth's satellite weather system which is the primary cause of Global Warming." is clearly vandalism-- for whatever purpose it was added. DGG (talk) 17:49, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but that was added by an IP, and Rami reverted a dozen edits by Furtive admirer along with that edit in the "rvv" edit summary. Even though FA later admitted the IP was her, I don't think that was known for sure by Rami at the time. So I still don't care for the edit summary. I'm not asking for admin action on it or anything, I'm just saying I wish we were nicer to users who are clearly trying to do the right thing. --Jaysweet (talk) 18:16, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, unless I read the diff wrong, that bit of vandalism was added by Furtive admirer, at [18]. a few edits earlier, at [19], she added the edit "Following Pollard's arrest, Prosecutor Joseph DiGenova boasted to Jonathan that he would make it impossible for any Jew in America, let alone anyone, to support him.", an unsourced BLP accusation. I'm looking at the edits under her name, not at Ramis. Anyone who would add those two edits, let alone all the other violations, should be prevented from further work on the article. DGG (talk) 18:36, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Bah, you are right. I got confused because of this, which re-added the WP:POINT-y joke from an IP. I did not realize it had been already added earlier.

I have struck a number of my comments above, in accordance with this. Perhaps I should strike more, I'm not sure... I have been imagining what I would feel like if I knew someone who was sentenced to life in prison under circumstances I felt were unfair, and I admit that may be clouding my judgment in how this user ought to be treated. Because of events in my personal life right now (nothing major, just some property fines I feel are ludicrously excessive) I may also be particularly susceptible to the image of a "hanging judge" messing up someone's life for no good reason. If I'm in the wrong here, I apologize. --Jaysweet (talk) 18:44, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Atten: Jaysweet and StephenBuxton--- Thanx much for your rational sensibilities. Your parents brought you up with a PMA ! (positive mental attitude) Having been involved with the Pollard Case for more than 18 years, I happened on your site and was appalled by the typical mess the contributors have sourced. I didn't realize the technical requirements were so copious --- beyond my scope. so... i have enlisted author Mark Shaw, author (see footnote # 24 on the Pollard page) to review and make corrections. His book was neutral, written from the Defense and Prosecutorial points of view. He will take up matters. If you edit him out, you just might as well shut the site down!!! He will clarify with his sources many of your omissions and errors. For example, that in fact: "From March 6, 1987, until June 10, 1988, Pollard was held for all practical purposes incommunicadoo in the hospital wing of the center set aside for the Criminally Insane" in the U.S. Medical Center for Federal Prisoners..."According to a communique from Michael Quinlan, director of the Bureau of Prisons, the order to transport Jonathan Pollard to Springfield was directed by 'Attorney General Ed Meese, the Justice Department, and the Office of Navy Investigations'."(see Pollard page footnote # 24 p.148) or that "while in prison Jonathan could have won his freedom if he had singled out certain jewish leaders as coconspirators". (same footnote , p.157); or the Alan Dershowitz affidavit attesting to an exparte conversation with Supreme Court Justice Goldberg and Judge Robinson (p.123);or, "Joseph diGenova encountered the media on the courthouse steps and continued his venom-filled tirade against Pollard. 'The sentence imposed reflects the severity of the damage...It is likely Pollard will never again see the light of day.'"(p.143) I read the history of the page and it seems you have been struggling with this page for more than 5 years. That is unreasonable. It may be in part because it appears none of you are American Citizens and haven't realized or perhaps are now beginning to with the treatment of the prisoners held without charges since 911, that America treats selective prisoners much like the KGB. Wikipedia can be a great source for the Truth rather than sourced material contracted out by the Federal Government, especially the CIA, which is how the notorious Seymour Hersh receives his primary earned income. I really think there are too many chiefs patrolling this website and not enough Indians, if you get the US metaphor. Perhaps, you might want to insert the sourced info above and salvage some of my efforts. Finally, I strongly recommend you remove Rami from this patrol assignment and reassign him to a less controverisal page. He is negative, volatile, suspicious, and very immature. he does not know how to handle people. he could have seen i was new to the site, simply based on my entries. he does not teach; he dictates. best regards for a postive outcome to this issue, both on your site and for Pollard's sake. "The Truth is on the march and nothing shall stop it." Emile Zola Furtive admirer (talk) 17:47, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, as you can all see, User:Furtive admirer clearly does not understand Wikipedia's purpose, and continues to make personal attacks against me. This cannot continue. Rami R 22:08, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Furtive admirer, you are doing it again - please assume good faith! First off, Rami was not doing anything wrong in reverting your edits that you made, as they were adding a lot of undue bias and opinion to the article. Ok, maybe the wording used in the edit summary was a little harsh (but only a little), but there was nothing wrong in his actions. He had seen that the edits included something about controlling satellite systems to control global warming or some such nonsence. That would ring alarm bells in any editor that spoof info had been added and so all the rest of the information could well be suspect. In that instance, reverting all edits is appropriate.

Might I suggest the following course of actions. First one is to you, Furtive Admirer. Please stop assuming that people who are removing your edits are out to get you, and please stop labelling such people as "negative, volatile, suspicious, and very immature" as this sort of behaviour is unnacceptable. Please read all of the policies that I told you about on your talk page before you make any further edits.

Secondly, to Rami and FA. Let what has gone on before pass, and start afresh.

Thirdly, allow FA to make her edits, citing sources (see WP:CITE for help there). Rather than others automatically reverting them, go through them instead and edit them to remove bias, point of view and original research (by original research, I mean information without references).

Fourthly, if the changes are not to everyone's satisfaction, please follow the dispute resolution process (see WP:DR) until you reach an article that is going to satisfy everyone.

Finally, FA, please do not post email addresses or other personal information on Wikipedia. See WP:OUTING for further information.

Everyone happy with that? StephenBuxton (talk) 09:34, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

One other comment here, and this is assuming good faith edits regarding controlling the satellite system. If you look at the section it was added to, you can see that it was regarding a novel that was apparently based on the character of Jonathon Pollard: Pollard's story is frightening. It calls up images of a shadow government, totally inconsistent with the American concept of a Democracy whose elected leaders are subject to laws they are pledged to uphold. His story inspired the movie Les Patriotes (The Patriots) by French director Éric Rochant in which US actor Richard Masur portrayed a character resembling Pollard. Currently in his cell, Jonathan Jay Pollard continues to control the Earth's satellite weather system which is the primary cause of Global Warming. It is possible then that rather than stating Jonathan is a Blofeld-type character, the edit was meant to imply that he is being portrayed as such. It does of course go without saying that any unsourced comparrisons are original research and should be reverted. Please note that this is only an assumption. StephenBuxton (talk) 11:40, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MKR (programming language) (2nd nomination)

I try to avoid this page, but seems this is the only option. I speedy closed the above AfD, as a previous discussion was closed four days ago. However, "Killerofcruft" has disagreed, and reverted my close, twice now. I find this to be highly inappropriate, and would appreciate help in the matter. Thank you. Al Tally ^talk 12:53, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Can you answer the notability questions he has posed? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:04, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Let's be clear about this - I became aware of the article after reading about it here on AN/I today, before that I had never heard of, edited or had any connection to the article. I carefully reviewed all of the sources and found that there is not a single mention that is not either a listing, by the author itself, trivial or entirely unconnected to the subject matter. There are literally NO Reliable Sources for this article - it is not notable in any way shape or form. It exists and that's it. Generally there is a gentleman's agreement (and as far as I'm aware that's all it is - a suggestion not a policy) against re-opening AFD so soon (and I'll confess I missed the fact that it had been AFD's so soon) but my understanding is that is to stop involved parties using the AFD process as a weapon to hit each other over the head with. I have come to this article cold, I have reviewed it, I have searched for reliable sources. I cannot find any reliable sources, I cannot find any non-trivial sources. On that basis, I have made a good faith use of process. If this is closed, I'd like someone to be specific about the minimum period I'll have to wait because as soon as that is up, I'll just AFD it again - again in good faith, because of the lack of notability and the lack of reliable sources about the subject matter. --Killerofcruft (talk) 13:09, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

You'll list it, without regard for the current state of the article? Assuming that it currently fails RS now. That hardly sounds like a good faith nom to me. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 13:21, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry - obviously I meant with the qualification of if the sourcing remains the same. apologies for any confusion caused by my brevity on this matter. --Killerofcruft (talk) 13:29, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Although I don't typically care for rapid re-noms.. and even though IMO KoC's username has a dash of implicit bad faith, which I also don't care for... my inclination would be to let the AfD play out. The article has major notability concerns, and the previous AfD only really dealt with the COI concerns.

However, DilligentTerrier should weigh in before any decision is made. He has been involved with the cleanup of the article and his opinion would definitely count for something. --Jaysweet (talk) 13:24, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

This prior AN/I section re Killerofcruft should be noted. Similar behavior is continuing; the issue is not notability of the article but incivility, which is particularly a problem in AfD where tensions tend to be high. Koc acknowledged being a "returned user having exercised his right to vanish" which explains how a new account is suddenly so active in such a manner. --Abd (talk) 13:42, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Can you point to my incivility in that AFD? please be specific and provide diffs. Your constant accusations and bad faith attempts to slur my name are getting tiresome. If you have problems with my activities here - open a RFCU, if you have a problem with any particular edits of mine - bring it up on the relevent article talkpages. in all cases, provide diffs and don't throw around accusations you are unwilling to back up with specifics. --Killerofcruft (talk) 13:46, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I didn't claim that it was in that AfD, though I have not reviewed it. It's here in AN/I and elsewhere. Example: the response immediately above. The effect of my post was

• (1) To connect this report with the prior AN/I notice,
• (2) To separate the issue of conduct from that of notability, which is not an issue to be resolved with AN/I, ordinarily, AN/I being designed for dealing with editor behavior, not content issues, but some are easily distracted. I.e., an editor might (this is not necessarily a present claim against Koc) be grossly uncivil or disruptive in, say, proposing an AfD that is a proper AfD, i.e., the article is actually not notable. More to the point, an editor might close an AfD in a manner ultimately found to be improper, which is then reverted by another instead of (a) discussing it or (b) going to DRV. The second is considered to require the first, and both are preferable, and sometimes even required, in lieu of using reversion. Edit warring is a conduct issue, not a content issue. *Any* revert without discussion, where the reason is debatable, is arguably edit warring. and
• (3) The editor has been uncivil, repeatedly so. My response is a graduated one, which has not yet reached the level of requiring proof; however, everything I've said could be backed with diffs, and will be if I come to the conclusion that it's worth the effort. At this point, I'd only suggest reading the prior AN/I report, which contains examples, and the User's Talk page and contribution history. Next step is to formally warn the user on User talk:Killerofcruft, that the user had not been formally warned was one of the arguments against block in the prior report; I'm refraining from doing that myself, at this point, but I will if any reasonable editor suggests that I take on the task.

At this point, my comments are discussion, of user behavior, not a formal attempt to sanction the user. Koc narrowly escaped being blocked in that last AN/I report and I had nothing to do with that; in fact, my comments probably helped reach the conclusion that action against the user was not yet warranted.

So that's a "no I'll just keep making accusations" --Killerofcruft (talk) 16:19, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Accusations, no. I'm not making accusations, generally. I point to evidence, sometimes I present obvious conclusions from the evidence, typically quite solid ones (though I make mistakes from time to time, and I try to apologize for them promptly when they are pointed out). However, what Koc considers "accusations," yes. Consistent with policy, guidelines, and the welfare of the project, I will continue to comment on what I observe, as part of the essential process by which Wikipedia regulates itself. There are now two AN/I reports in as many days over Koc behavior, involving different users, with no sign to me that Koc recognizes that his behavior is at all problematic. The first AN/I report, referenced above, was closed with a comment that it should be sufficient as a warning regarding his edit summaries (though more was mentioned in the AN/I report than that).[20] Subsequently, Koc commented that it was closed "because it was a lot of crap."[21] I would call that defiant disregard of a warning.--Abd (talk) 17:20, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

just so people don't think I left this hanging - I will make no further comment to abd - it just seems to feed ... well whatever this is suppose to be. --Killerofcruft (talk) 17:28, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

The first AFD was handled improperly, as it resulted in a keep but without a discovery of whether adequate sources exist. The second one should probably run- the first one wasn't useful. Friday (talk) 13:49, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd say it was procedurally correct. It just so happens that nobody had much to say about the notability and verifiability. I still feel uncomfortable with starting an AFD so fast after the last one was closed. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 17:08, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Too many aliases in this discussion. In addition to KoC, Al tally (talk · contribs) is a redirect to Majorly (talk · contribs). Unclear what that means. --John Nagle (talk) 17:15, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

As for the article, I've made my comments on the talk page and in the AfD. There's no third-party confirmation of notability. I've tracked down the unlinked citations in the article. (See the talk page and AfD page for links.) The cited articles are on line, and they're very, very brief mentions of the article subject. This is self-published original research by a new editor writing their first article. The article looks better-cited than it is until you find and read the citations, and discover there's almost nothing there. I was planning to send it to AfD in a few weeks, after allowing time for it to become clear that it's not notable. --John Nagle (talk) 17:15, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

There are now at least 3 editors on that second AFD who are saying "too soon to renominate", totally ignoring the point that the original AFD ignored notability. Thus, this apparently self-promoting and dubious article will likely get retained. Wikipedia at its finest. NOT. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:42, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

The inventor of the language and the main author of the article seems to bang the lid down on this one --Killerofcruft (talk) 18:16, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Without commenting on the RS or notability issues, the 2nd AfD should be procedurally speedy closed. The first AfD had its chance at the article and to renominate four days later is disruptive as it takes time and energy better spent on writing and improving articles. This also points out the need for policy on a minimum interval between nominations. A collaborative project the size of WP has to have process, or it won't work. Keeping an article that may, or may not, be notable enough does infinitely less harm than violating process, in spirit or letter. The editors voting to keep in the 2nd AfD (due to unseemly haste to renominate) understand that problem and are correct. If the article is still believed to be inadequate later on, come back in three months and renominate. Also, Killerofcruft as a username seems to display an inherent bias toward deletionism. — Becksguy (talk) 18:50, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Getting the right answer is more important than some arbitrary time limit between AFDs. As pointed out, the first AFD ignored the sourcing issue, for some reason. Friday (talk) 18:58, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

If sourcing was so important, it should have been included in the 1st AfD. It had its chance at the right answer. It's not about arbitrary time limits, it's about minimizing the disruption to Wikipedia. We have an overwhelmingly large number of AfDs, more than anyone can keep up with, even in their areas of expertize. Renominating because someone wants a second (or 3rd, or 4th, etc) shot at an article, especially within short time periods, just adds to that massive problem. And four days just boggles the mind as disruptive. — Becksguy (talk) 20:08, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Becksguy. The proper procedure to initiate a review of the previous AfD is to go through the deletion review process. This whole re-nomination is a disruptive abuse of process. Gandalf61 (talk) 20:45, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Killerofcruft has it right. If the subject is self-promotional and not notable, then the first AFD is irrelevant. The "you had your chance" stuff is childish. Getting it right is all that matters. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 20:51, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

And according to my count, the previous AFD had a grand total of TWO "Keep" statements aside from the original author. Hardly a ringing endorsement of the article, and the "you had your chance" argument doesn't hold water. Even without bringing up notability, it was teetering on being deleted. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 21:06, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree that we should take the time to get it right. That includes working on the article to find reliable source, sometimes it isn't obvious, and, in fact, it may not be obvious to the original author. The claim, above, that the inventor isn't aware of RS and therefore it does not exist, is a non-sequitur. Now, for me to find out the truth of this, myself, could take hours of research, on a topic where I have no knowledge. This is a community project, and we take advantage of community resources. It takes time. For this reason, when an AfD closes without consensus (which was the case here, in fact), immediate renomination disrupts the process of improving the article. Yes, it was "teetering on being deleted." Should we keep it teetering? I'd say we should give it a month. It survived AfD, and debating notability doesn't find sources for the article. Patient work does. Sometimes RS exists and is not googleable. If no RS appears in a month, nobody would be questioning the renomination. It is only that it was done a few days later, by a newly registered "returning user who exercised his right to vanish," an apparent deletionist from the user name, that is the problem. That user edit warred to keep the 2nd nomination openm which was the cause of this AN/I report, which got distracted by the notability question. User:Killerofcruft -- who has now changed his name -- may indeed be right about the article, but what's the hurry? What's the problem with taking the proper time and following the proper process, which does not include edit warring? --Abd (talk) 22:02, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't argue for "speedy" deletion. But if the author himself can't find a reliable source for this article, then what likelihood is there? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 22:25, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

In the last two days something like (and this is from skimming) >80% of Abd's edits have been a) about me or b) have involved subjected I was already editing or discussions I was already involved in. At least 3 of those edits were removed as personal attacks. People asked me to tone down the edit summaries - I did that. People said my name could cause problems - I changed it. I have no problem with people querying my actions - when asked on my talk page, I have answered. To be honest, I'm starting to feel like he's out to get me. Maybe it's in my mind but I honestly feel he's following me around try to cause trouble. --Allemandtando (talk) 22:19, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Why is this content dispute on ANI? People have a right to bring a rightful AfD if they so wish, they are entitled to their (IMHO rightful) opinion that this should be deleted and IMHO no-one should ever be on ANI for creating an AfD in good faith, just because the complainer on ANI disagrees with it. If Crufty's name is ensuring he's harassed, then maybe he should be encouraged to change it, but apart from that leave Crufty alone!:) Sticky Parkin 22:42, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps Sticky Parkin should look at the beginning of this discussion? It was brought here because User:Killerofcruft -- who has now changed his name to User:Allemandtando -- was edit warring with an administrator. The discussion, which was originally and properly about user behavior, was sidetracked into what should have been a question resolved through ordinary process (discussion and, in this case, DRV, if discussion fails -- but discussion wasn't tried -- unless an AN/I report is "discussion"), that is, whether or not the article is notable. Above, Allemandtando dashes some hopes that he is going to change his behavior as well as his name. He's done a number of things worthy of comment. The appropriate thing, when comment is made, isn't to challenge the comment but to examine the behavior. He claims to have done that, and we can hope that he does, but what do I have to do with this AN/I report? Or, for that matter, the one filed yesterday? If I were "out to get him," the number one thing I would have done would have been to warn him, so that his behavior would then have been promptly blockable. I'd have, by yesterday, filed an SSP report, just in case, and I'd have taken several matters to AN/I. But I didn't. I see now that he has also withdrawn the problematic AfD nomination, and a compromise seems to be in the making. Good move. I haven't pursued him and I have no plans to. However, given what's come down, I do plan to keep my eyes open. I'll grant, it is not easy to recover from the level of negative attention he has drawn in the few days since he registered; offenses that might not raise an eyebrow otherwise can result in a block. But he's not in danger from me, personally, only from the consequences of his own actions as seen by the community. Which I do not think blockworthy, yet. As was the conclusion from the last AN/I report, he can be considered warned. User:Arcayne may have played a role in calming the waters, for which he is to be commended; let's hope they stay calm.--Abd (talk) 01:21, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Note that Killerofcruft/Allemandtando has withdrawn the AfD nomination, but reserves the right to renominate in eight weeks, pending the addition of sources. I endorse that compromise. Will a uninvolved admin/editor close as withdrawn by nom, without prejudice to renomination. — Becksguy (talk) 23:27, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, as there are other delete or delete/userfy votes, it isn't automatically closed if withdrawn. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:30, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

If I were to adopt a "negative" kind of username, it would be along the lines of "Killerofcruft" -- something like "Death to spam". Several of us will be watching that article, so its author had best come up with some sources, or he'll be hearing about it again soon. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:43, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

It's not up to the author alone to come up with sources. This is our project, not his. In any case, if the original attempt to close the AfD had not been interrupted by edit warring, there wouldn't have been those delete or delete/userfy votes at this time, and we'd either see an adequate article down the road a bit, or another AfD, this time a proper one. AN/I didn't work this time: properly, seeing the rapid renom after close, without going to DRV instead, the user involved should have been warned about edit warring, and the AfD promptly closed by a new administrator, avoiding a whole lot of wikifuss. Next time, please, administrators, don't allow a proper AN/I report -- and this one was proper on the part of User:Al tally, who reported instead of edit warring, himself, -- to be derailed over content issues, as this one was from the beginning by Baseball Bugs, who asked Al tally a question about notability that was, for our purposes here, irrelevant. The user could be right as rain about the notability of the article, and the edit warring still not permissible.--Abd (talk) 01:31, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Sometimes the spammers and self-promoters win. So far, they've won this one. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 03:30, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

A note on the players in the AfD:

• Al tally (talk · contribs) is a redirect to Majorly (talk · contribs).
• Killerofcruft (talk · contribs) is a redirect to Allemandtando (talk · contribs).
• TotientDragooned (talk · contribs) has been blocked indefinitely pending a name change.

Have I missed anyone? --John Nagle (talk) 03:51, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not blocked. TotientDragooned (talk) 04:49, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

← I think things are getting too muddled here. Really, the 2nd AfD isn't out of process. The nominator was unaware of the first nomination and, in good faith, nominated an article with no reliable sources for deletion. Now, if we want to be slaves to process, the correct procedure would have been to close the 2nd AfD, file an appeal at DRV stating that the 1st AfD did not have enough participation to get a result and that it should be relisted to gain a consensus. Which would wind up either re-opening one of those AfDs, or creating a 3rd one.

Rather than tying ourselves up in red tape, I'd say it's more effective to simply let this AfD run its course. The final decision could be appealed at DRV if you really wanted, but I'd say it's frivolous. If the article is kept, it should stay for at least a couple months before being renominated. If it's deleted or userfied, there's no reason it can't be written (or undeleted) later with proper sourcing. Process may be important, but we shouldn't let it get in the way of improving the encyclopedia. I rarely invoke WP:IAR, but I think this is a case that calls for it. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 22:21, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Even now, the article's defenders are working feverishly trying to prove notability, i.e. trying to find some shred of evidence that anyone besides the article's author has ever heard of this computer language. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:22, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Ummm ... at 15:29, 25 June 2008 (UTC) you said on the AfD page "Every minute the defenders of this article are spending defending it, could be better spent looking for information that the subject is actually notable". So now some folks are actually trying to improve a Wikipedia article. Whatever perverted mischief will they think of next ? Gandalf61 (talk) 14:56, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Excellent. They must have heard me, then. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 15:03, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Sigh. As it stands, article neither passes notability or sourcing areas. When the creator of the language is struggling on that area, surely the common sense answer is just to delete and userfy, some experienced admins helping the creator of the language to work on the areas of concern. If those areas are addressed then put the article back into mainspace. Or would that upset peopleby removing the lolzdrama? Minkythecat (talk) 07:19, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Ongoing vandalism by fraternity members

Camden, New Jersey could use protection against IP edits. It's currently the target of an ongoing campaign of vandalism by multiple unrelated IP addresses, as its history reveals. It's apparently a coordinated effort by members of the Tau Kappa Epsilon fraternity according to this comment on Cooper University Hospital, which has been the target of similar, persistent mischief over several months. See Talk:Camden, New_Jersey#Ongoing vandalism by fraternity members for detailed information about similar vandalism on other articles. This has been going on for months and continues to escape serious administrator intervention because the edits are coming from so many different IP addresses. &#151;Whoville (talk) 00:54, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Confirmed. I've semi-protected this article, with an expiry time of 3 months. -- The Anome (talk) 01:00, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

In the future, please place such requests at WP:RFPP. Thanks. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:01, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

The vandalism campaign is more complex than can be addressed by protecting one article, which is why I posted it here. Perhaps my comment above wasn't clear enough. It's a campaign of ongoing vandalism by multiple unrelated IP addresses on multiple articles; Camden, New Jersey just happens to be the latest target. It's disheartening that past appeals for administrator intervention against these vandals have gone nowhere. Instead, the typical response is a quick scold on a minor procedural point, which ignores the bigger issue. &#151;Whoville (talk) 01:14, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

What other action were you looking for? Is there a pattern to the IPs? Or to the targets? Or something else? —Wknight94 (talk) 01:17, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

There's no obvious pattern to the IPs. Some of the targeted articles involve Camden, New Jersey, but not all. The frequent edit-summary taunts about "the Network" and references to "TKE" are what suggest it's a coordinated campaign by fraternity members using different PCs. Background information is here and here. The action I'm looking for is an administrator's guidance on how Wikipedia handles this kind of persistent vandalism. There must be a more effective way to respond than just blocking IP addresses one at a time and protecting individual articles, right? Especially when there's ample evidence that the vandalism is coordinated, has been occurring for months, and almost certainly will continue on other articles from other IP addresses. &#151;Whoville (talk) 01:48, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree that more steps need to b taken so I have decided to void the "resolved" tag since its not really resolved per se. Smith Jones (talk) 02:05, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

As a user formerly named "Teke", I'll take further action. Keegan^talk 06:20, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm giving the chapter in question a call in the morning. I spent two years as a TKE president, and I'm quite ashamed as a proud Wikipedian. Keegan^talk 06:28, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I suspect external action will need to be taken. This "network" is not going to be stopped by simply blocking IPs. Enigma ^message 06:48, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Contacting the university should help.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 13:41, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Uh, what university or chapter would that be? The TKE Chapter Map doesn't show a chapter in Camden and the disruptive edits don't suggest an obvious geographic origin to me beyond Camden. &#151;Whoville (talk) 14:02, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Pretty sure it's Rowan University. Keegan^talk 14:33, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Alright, I contacted the prytanis of Rowan chapter as well as a couple others in surrounding areas and told them if they heard anything, please ask them to knock it off. Other than that there's not a lot much more we can do. Keegan^talk 20:08, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

(undent) most of the TKE stuff is because Wikileaks has posted their manual. ThuranX (talk) 21:36, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Ah. And, of course, all websites using MediaWiki are actually just secretly subsites of Wikipedia. Makes me glad there are no fraternities in Australian universities. Confusing Manifestation(Say hi!) 00:06, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

• Unless I'm wrong Wikileaks published Kappa Sigma's manual, not TKE's. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 16:51, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

DYK poor fact checking issues -- does it matter when articles on main page are wrong?

Does it matter that the articles in DYK are often plagiarized and wrong? Today's list has a fact from Deux Balés National Park which maps the Black Volta River in far eastern Burkina Faso--it's not. The river on the map, in far eastern Burkina Faso is the Oti. The Black Volta is just west of center. I don't think that complaints about problems on the main page are welcomed. But DYK appears to be out of control. Do editors earn rewards for DYK contributions? There is not much time spent fact checking. Even Wikipedia could have been used to fact check this article, and see that it's wrong. --Blechnic (talk) 02:18, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Maybe it's not quite the Oti, either. In fact, I think the location marker puts the park in Benin on the wrong side of a divide. --Blechnic (talk) 02:28, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I have felt for quite some time that our obsession with keeping DYK featuring only Wikipedia's newest articles results in a sacrifice in its quality. I really think we should drop or substantially alter the five-day limit. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 02:29, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I do recall a suggestion to use facts from recently listed Good Articles but I don't recall the outcome. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:17, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I like that idea--reward articles that have had people work on them and review them. I started a discussion at WP:Did you know, talk.[[22]] I would like to see more people care that the encyclopedia doesn't get its facts straight, and then highlights the incorrect facts along with plagiarized material on its front page. It's something I think the writers who get their facts straight and the writer who don't plagiarize would care about a lot. Because someone of the other kind may be editing along side you discrediting your work. --Blechnic (talk) 05:37, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I think we should only do two updates a day, and require articles be 2500 characters. Daniel (talk) 06:03, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Please don't insinuate Blechnic that the people currently working on DYK don't care to "get the facts straight". I just spent three hours singlehandedly vetting DYK submissions for eight viable hooks for the current update. I don't recall seeing you there trying to help, nor in fact have I ever seen you trying to help on the submissions page. But you seem quite keen on criticizing the actual contributors who you claim don't "care" enough about the quality.

As for your criticisms - you claim that plagiarism and mistakes are rife on DYK but have only up to now provided a single example. So there is no evidence that this is a serious problem. We only have your word for it. But I must say I haven't actually seen you doing anything to correct any of these alleged problems, so again it appears to be a problem you want somebody else to fix. Gatoclass (talk) 06:15, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

A single example? No, they are all over the place. I just read one article, it's plagiarized.

Beth Wambui Mugo is plagiarized from this page.[23] Maybe it's in the public domain, but it doesn't say that it is. --Blechnic (talk) 06:21, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

All of the articles written by Carol Spears that appeared on DYK were plagiarized. The article Deux Balés National Park moved one of Africa's major drainage basins to the other side of the divide. I haven't seen a single article on DYK that wasn't plagiarized or wrong. Are you going to correct Beth Wambui Mugo or shoot the messenger? I'm betting Wikipedians will continue to shoot the messenger--it's much easier than finding a solution. Actually, I tried to correct it the first time I found plagiarism in an article on the main page, I got attacked viciously by half a dozen editors and three admins, blocked for a week, and threatened with a ban if I ever tried it again, so don't tell me I haven't done anything.--Blechnic (talk) 06:26, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay, the Beth Wambui Mugo is plagiarized, I have to take the rap for that one, I didn't check it thoroughly enough and it should be pulled from the front page and the DYK removed. But I can't do everything. We simply don't have enough people on the project, and while I've picked up many examples of plagiarism, one or two are bound to slip through. But I don't think we get that many.

As for Carol Spears, I didn't know about this case but we do rely to some extent on the good faith of our contributors, and if someone is routinely plagiarizing material it's not unusual on wikipedia for someone to take a while to pick it up. I can't actually recall Spears submitting any articles to DYK but maybe she did. So again, one or two examples do not prove there's a chronic problem. But anytime you do find plagiarism at DYK, by all means inform us so that we can deal with it. Gatoclass (talk) 06:48, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't think Carol was the one promoting or suggesting the articles she wrote be put on DYK. I don't know who did. --Blechnic (talk) 07:06, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I have pulled the Beth Wambui Mugo article from the front page as a possible copyvio until further notice. Thanks Blechnic for picking that up. Gatoclass (talk) 06:59, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for removing it. --Blechnic (talk) 07:06, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

This a direct product of DYK's current format, the fact that articles appearing there are usually 2 - 5 days old precipitates the ammount of these situations. If DYN is supposed to attract interest to articles, then we should try to rotate it towards Stub/Start class articles that we already have, those are becoming more ignored by established users. - Caribbean~H.Q. 06:32, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Under the current system, any article expanded over 5 times is eligible. That is an incentive to work on start and stub class articles. For instance, I took Christopher Smart to 50k and submitted it to DYK. There are many people like myself that do such work. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:06, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I've seen plagiarism in DYK articles before as well. I feel fairly confident that I could create an article based on plagiarized content and submit it to DYK and it would pass. --Akhilleus (talk) 06:39, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Caribbean H.Q., find a way to reward responsible contributors: those who don't plagiarize, who spend the necessary time to write an article, and wind up with just a stub or start class article. It takes me five days to write an opening paragraph for a brochure on a plant pest, and that's after every else has done the research, and I've read their research. Yes, Akhilleus, it would be pretty easy. --Blechnic (talk) 06:42, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I guess one step we could quickly take would be to formulate sanctions for those who submit copyvios to DYK. First offence - three month ban from submitting articles to DYK. Second offence - indef ban from DYK. Something like that should help deter users who are tempted to take short cuts in order to gain a DYK award. Gatoclass (talk) 07:45, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that the DYK medal by itself makes much difference to article-writing incentive. If a person thinks purely along these lines, they would have to write 50 articles to get 2 medals. It's much easier to get barnstars by grandstanding, etc. Writing articles is not an efficient way to get barnstars, in the case of a person who planned their wiki-routine on optimising their barnstar count, they would not write articles. As for things being on the main page, a lot of FAs with blogrefs, non-RS, COI references have made it on the front page. That's not to say anything about articles with deliberately concealed POV pushing etc. A lot of articles are only of interest to the author, or people from a certain country or ethnic group, in which case the person/group can do whatever they want to. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 08:10, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I think we both know that elides the question of misuse of DYK. The star is used as a relatively low-cost way of attempting to demonstrate "productivity" by otherwise disruptive SPAs. This is not to say I don't submit some of my own and others' articles to the template myself, but to overlook the the incentive structure here would be inappropriate. --Relata refero (disp.) 21:01, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

DYK are supposed to include hooks that are cited in the main body of the text. With that in place, there should be no copyvios (as cited) and it should meet verifiabiltiy (as cited). As such, there really is no problem with DYK, and there should be no alterations to it. The admin who work DYK put a lot of effort into it and perform a thankless task. Perhaps we should instead take the opportunity to actually thank their contribution that dramatically helps Wikipedia as a whole instead of bringing up issues that aren't actually issues. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:50, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

As the creator of both articles, I apologise for any inconveniance I have caused. The park coordinates was a mistake, and I completely messed up on that one. As for Mugo, I automatically assumed Kenya was the same as the US in terms of government sources, and I would like clarity on the issue. I was on a wikibreak while all this occured, and I am not cutting corners to work for the 50 DYK barnstar; instead, it is simply an area that I work a lot in. I'm an Editorofthewiki^{[citation needed]} 20:10, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't know Kenya's copyright laws, but why not always state clearly that it is copied verbatim from a source, or simply rewrite it? It wasn't particularly well written, which is how I knew it was a copyright violation or plagiarism or just plain copied and pasted.

Ottava Rima, are you saying that any crap that winds up on the main page to the shame of Wikipedia should be left there? Interesting since not a single person responsible for the crap agrees. Thank you Editorofthewiki for simply apologizing for the park coordinates mess up and saying you blew it. If you need help in the future on West African geography, or fact checking on west African geography, geology, or natural history, let me know. I can usually add some specific details, and link appropriately. I also know some of the geopolitical boundaries, like Black Volta Province is called Mouhoun, and can verify information like this, and often source it. --Blechnic (talk) 23:20, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Certainly, I appreciate what the DYK admins do, but that doesn't mean the system can't be improved. I don't blame the admins, but I do find fault with the system. And just to clarify this: I've been opposed to the five-day limit for quite some time; not just because of this incident. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 23:31, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Using pejoratives to describe pages does not mean that there is a problem. DYK is there to supply interesting information to draw people towards a new page so they can start editing. All that is required is an interesting fact that is provided in the body of the text and cited. If it is cited, it cannot be a copyright violation, unless it is a quote over 300 words (aka fair use). Regardless, your problem seems to be with the pages that happen to be on DYK, not the hooks which are displayed on the main page. DYK does not cover the pages. It only covers the hooks. If you feel that there is a copyright violation, please go to WP:CP. However, it is the article, and not the DYK, that would be the problem. Your anger is misplaced. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:51, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I'll write the word shit 500 times in an article, then put in a good hook, well-referenced, and researched: this meets your criterion for a DYK. No, you've made assumptions that have no basis in actual Wikipedia policy. I could be wrong, please do provide me with a link to the policy that says any crappy article that has a single good line, well-reference can be a DYK. Oh, look, when describing the hooks, here's the language: "While we strive for accuracy and neutrality in all articles, articles dealing with living persons are especially sensitive. Please keep the Biography of Living Persons policy in mind." Notice it doesn't say "accuracy and neutrality in the hook," but rather, "accuracy in all articles." This is what an encyclopedia strives for: accuracy. Keep dismissing its importance all you want, but it just makes Wikipedia look like shit. --Blechnic (talk) 23:59, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Spamming content into an article is a disqualifier for DYK, and it is one of many things checked. Each article is reviewed before being processed for something as obvious as that. However, it is not the job of the DYK admin to search for every sentence in order to find an unattributed citation. It is not the place of the DYK, nor should it be. DYK deal only with hooks and the size of an article/content needed for such. There is a forum for copyright violations. If you feel that you have found some, please take it there. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:10, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Then, by all means, remove that sentence about article content from the DYK page, so that their idea of the requirements conforms to yours, rather than letting readers think the page describe the DYK process and guidelines, instead of you being the only one that describes it. --Blechnic (talk) 00:32, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Blechnic, I am at a lost to see what you are actually asking. I can quote directly from the page, if you wish, but I am sure that you can easily scan over the page and see that my information conforms to what is said here. Now, I believe your only problem is with the articles themselves, and that you cannot put forth an argument that directly links the DYK process to the copyright violations. So, I suggest that you work with the WP:CP investigators and you can patrol the DYK candidate list hunting them down if you prefer. Heaven knows that Wikipedia needs eager volunteers willing to scan for copyright violations, and you have made it abundantly clear that you have such desire and eagerness. Your contribution would be a great boon for the encyclopedia. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:41, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not an expert in copyrights. What I do is something few people do on Wikipedia: I write articles about African agricultural pests and about tropical African vegetation and geography and biodiversity. I think that moving from working in an area where I have knowledge that almost no one else on Wikipedia has, to an area where I don't have knowledge but a lot of people argue against me as if they are experts, is not a situation that would have a positive benefit for Wikipedia. This is a chronic suggestion to Wikipedia editors with any type of rare knowledge: why you don't join in some general pursuit, where many people have knowledge, instead of focusing on that narrow area where we're missing hundreds of major articles? It's curious.

I quoted from the page on Did you know, by the way. It didn't seem to communicate anything to you.

It's clear this is not an issue of great concern on Wikipedia: accuracy. Even though the DYK selection criteria, under "the hook," says, "we strive for accuracy and neutrality in all articles" you're here to fight me to the death that "accuracy in all articles" is not part of DYK. They state it. That long quote is a copy and paste, but, damn, you're going to beat that idea out of me. Please, go beat it out of the DYK page you keep quoting from and claiming it doesn't say what I just pasted from it. But, clearly, Wikipedians think that Wikipedia doesn't care about accuracy, and strives to avoid accuracy, and they're going to go all out to sock it to anyone who thinks that it means something when Wikipedia guidelines say "we strive for accuracy in all articles."

I can't fight you. You refuse to read what's there for some reason, or refuse to believe it, or refuse to acknowledge it. I can only read what's there, and can't ignore it willfully like you might be doing. It's there. That's all. --Blechnic (talk) 03:57, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Who said anything about anyone fighting here? If I have a problem reading, then I have a problem reading. You feel that there is a problem with Wikipedia. I offered you a place that deals with such problems. You say it is with DYK, but it has already been demonstrated that they only deal with hooks. What exactly do you want? You claim to be too busy working on pages to patrol for copyright violations, but you are here telling us about all of the copyright violations you have found. Could you at least submit those to the copyright violations board so they can be processed? This is a place to deal with incidents that happen based on users. Is there one user causing a problem? If so, please put up the diffs, explain what the user is doing, and make a case. If its some greater philosophical idea or a change, take it to village pump. If you want to aid with the removal of copyright information, take it there. There are plenty of options and ways to act. You already offered yourself as knowing of tons of problems with violations, so I will emphasis the latter once again. As you admitted, you already put in the time researching about all of the problems. Now please finish by submitting it to the appropriate location so it can be dealt with. Thanks. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:21, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Yawn. I did. I was personally attacked. I was harassed. I was blocked. The problem is not a one incident problem that you can't seem to get beyond, it's an ongoing lack of concern about dealing with the problem. And this needs more widespread attention. Since you're not interested in reading or understanding what I have to say, there is no point in your speaking to me about what you haven't read or bothered to understand. So, please take your own advice and finish by submitting yourself to the proper location, one you're bothered to read and understand. Thanks. --Blechnic (talk) 04:40, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I do not think that if you would have used the copyright violation noticeboard, the above things would have happened. I also believe that your misplaced criticism upon DYK may have resulted from the history you have claimed. Ottava Rima (talk) 12:28, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I give up. Sock puppet hysteria, revisiting years of in-fighting, it's not about the encyclopedia's quality. --Blechnic (talk) 05:45, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

The problem with badly maintained DYK largely stems from a poor admin-corps. It is by far more fun to hang out at drama boards and IRC then update the DYK page and check the articles to appear on the mainpage for compliance with policies. In fact, the entire DYK work is done by a handful of admins, and when they are not around, the page does not get updated for many hours after the deadlines. For a while I tried to check articles within the areas of my knowledge and was often pointing out to their poor referencing, POV pushing, misleading hooks, etc. only to get badmouthed by the article's proponents with DYK admins not getting involved for their being too few. It is never too late for ANI/IRC admins to make their DYK editing debut and concern themselves with content of this project. --Irpen 06:02, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

There does seem to be an administration obsession with drama that interferes with a diversity of needs being well met. What's IRC? Thanks for the post, this was needling me, but I couldn't quite identify it, what is incongruous about Wikipedia: it's stated goal versus the means of actualizing it that has been adopted by many in the community (writing the encyclopedia versus watching the drama unfold). --Blechnic (talk) 06:15, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

IRC = Internet relay chat. It's what we had to use for real-time communication before kids had instant messaging. It's still very useful for group chats. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:54, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

• The problem with DYK is a problem endemic to the project as a whole. In the race to create and catalog as much information as possible, the core principles on certification and citation of all information are almost always bypassed. When these objections are noted, the objectors are treated as pariahs who want to destroy content and tear apart the fabric of the encyclopedia.

• The promotion of DYK articles clearly needs to be overhauled. Everyking's suggestion on slowing down that process is a good one. The rules that govern promotion of articles in DYK should be enforced on all articles in consideration without exception. If an article isn't cited, it shouldn't be promoted. The DYK awards process should be suspended since it does not encourage the creation of quality articles, only the creation of more articles. Anyone who is caught plagarizing articles should be prohibited from making future DYK suggestions (and/or blocked completely). Plagarism has never been treated with a soft touch here and I don't know why DYK is under exclusion in this respect. For an editor to plagarize an entire article from another source -even if that source is in the public domain- and then submit that work as their own to DYK is troubling, to say the least. I don't have much confidence that this practice will end with this thread, so again all suggestions should be scrutinized for copyright violations and this can be most effectively executed by slowing down the process, as Everyking notes below. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 17:52, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

There is no proof to verify that copyright issues are a problem, and based on the limited amount of DYK chosen per day, Admin are selecting the best available. There is no just cause to prompt such a dramatic change. There is a copyright notice board. It is sufficient enough. If you feel that copyright issues exist, be bold and report them there yourself. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:36, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

• There have been several examples cited already. Given how easily these were overlooked, I would call it a problem. Considering the haste in which DYK articles are promoted, I doubt the noticeboard would a very effective tool in combatting plagarism in DYK. Criticizing me for not reporting copyright violations won't be a very effective argument since it doesn't solve the larger problems at DYK. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 18:42, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Please point out any examples that haven't already been addressed, and please point out where on the copyright violation forum these examples have been placed to show that people are putting them through the proper channels. There is no "haste" about any DYK articles, and all copyright violation articles, if they are to such extremes, have been deleted. The hooks are directly cited. That ensures they are not a violation, and the main page has no actual copyrighted material on it. You are attacking DYK without just cause. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:52, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't see why it would be a bad idea to slow down the DYK process and post fewer articles at a time to ensure better quality. Everyking (talk) 06:50, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

There's a recently completed discussion that's a little bit related. DYK is used as a process to add interesting content to the main page, a laudable goal. It's also used somewhat as a process of rewards, look how many DYK's I've got! To the extent that DYK is a reward, it will tend to have the same perverse incentives as the recently-disposed-of Award Centre. I've often wondered why an interesting fact added to any article would not be worthy of a DYK. Perhaps a rethinking of the entire process is in order. Franamax (talk) 07:17, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Because it is not about finding current articles. Its about promoting new articles. It would defeat the whole justification of having a DYK . Its not about something interesting. It is about having something interesting in a new topic that would draw people in to editing it. Ottava Rima (talk) 12:28, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

There's no reason to exclusively promote new articles, rather than articles of all sorts of "ages", in this way. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 23:12, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the main reason DYK was formed was over the fact that new articles rarely get as many views, and would lack editors. That right there is a major reason. Established pages don't need a bump. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:29, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Far from the truth. Long-standing articles frequently languish in obscurity, and could most definitely use a bump.

But anyway, we're a bit off-topic for this noticeboard, I think, as this sort of discussion probably should occur on an appropriate talk page. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 23:54, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

That is just logically unsound. If a substantial article "languishes" then it is a topic that deserves to languish. New topics need a bump to draw in those who wouldn't have known an article on a topic existed. There is a huge difference between a red link turning into a blue link, and a topic that no one really cares about. All topics have a chance to become DYK. If they didn't, then they probably didn't deserve to be, or no one put the effort. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:37, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

DYK Joining threads >>>

There's a more extensive thread at >>> here on the DYK talk page

Please continue discussion there!

--Kim Bruning (talk) 22:41, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Block of Giovanni33

Copied from User talk:Giovanni33 per request. Daniel (talk) 06:21, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I have blocked you for a period of one week per Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement#Giovanni33. Upon reviewing New antisemitism and its talk page, it appears that you have not discussed your changes to the lead since last month. Also, you have been slow edit warring on the article, as opposed to seeking a consensus for your edits by discussing them. This block will be added to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Giovanni33-John Smith's#Log of blocks and bans, and I will make a comment at WP:AE. Khoikhoi 03:56, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

That is not true. I've discussed all my changes, many times, and each time before I make any edit to the page. You are not looking at the right section, even.Giovanni33 (talk) 04:07, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. Can you provide a link to a comment of yours from this month discussing your reversion of the word "controversial" into the lead? Also, can you please explain your slow edit warring. It appears that you have reverted infrequently in order to evade your "1 revert per week" restriction. Khoikhoi 04:20, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Funny, if I abide by the restriction, I'm guilty of evading it? That makes no sense. My revert has not been 1 revert per week, either. As I explained, the last time I made that change was on the 9th, and then on the 21st, which is a whole two weeks apart!Giovanni33 (talk) 04:25, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

In response to your unblock request below: both of those are comments justifying your removal of the image, not your changes to the lead. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement#Giovanni33. You certainly haven't addressed your last two reverts to the lead as far as I can tell. Also, your second link was to a comment made after you had already been reverted. A comment made after your change has already been reverted cannot possibly comply with the requirements of your parole. Khoikhoi 04:35, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

The change in the lead has its own section with three comments from me - and no one else. Am I supposed to have a discussion with myself? No one opposes that change, and I've discussed it as much as possible, logically. It makes no sense otherwise; that I've discussed my change is the only requirement. If someone wants to address any point I've made, I will be sure continue to discuss it. I do not understand how you are able to make up new restrictions for me: Yes, I made a comment right before and right after my edit, true. But where does my restriction say that posting a comment right after I made the change is not valid or does not satisfy the restriction??! It says: "Giovanni33 is limited to one revert per page per week...and is required to discuss any content reversions on the page's talk page." And that is exactly what I've been doing. It doesn't give a specific time period before or after. We do have the ability to use our common sense, right?Giovanni33 (talk) 04:41, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

If no one allegedly opposes your changes to the lead, why is it that you keep having to revert? Look at [24] and [25]. It is clear that other people do apparently object to your changes. The parole requires that you justify your reverts on the talk page every single time, and you failed to do that. You might have discussed the image, but certainly not the lead. Khoikhoi 04:50, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

That is a good question for them, not me. The later reverts seem to be lazy, sloppy ones, opposing the image removal that also reverted my intro changes. I see no objections on talk by anyone regarding those changes.[[26]] And, no, no where in my restriction does it say I I should copy and past the same justification to a section that no one disputed, after I posted my justification three time, with no response. That is absurd. It would make sense if there was a new change, something different, as that would need discussion and justification. But that is not the case here: I've discussed it and refer to it, and no one has responded with any objections. Again, this is a matter of common sense, and you are making up stuff that is no where to be found in my arbcom ruling.Giovanni33 (talk) 04:55, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

{{unblock|False block. I'm blocked for not discussing my changes. Completely untrue. Even a cursory glance at the talk page refutes this false claim. See:[[27]] The specific edit I made on June 21st, was discussed here by me on the same day:[[28]],[[29]] The only time I made a change it to before that was about 2 weeks ago, in which I also discussed this:[[30]] The section that you refer to brings up a change that no one is disputing, or discussing, so it stands to explain my edit. Surely, I don't have to copy and paste what I already wrote? That would be irrational. Also, I'm not reverting once a week, either. Like I said the last time I did was about 2 weeks ago, plenty of time for editors to comment and voice any objections or suggestions.}}

And why, precisely, should Giovanni33 get the privilege of having his unblock requests transcluded to WP:ANI? What's wrong with the normal channels? Jtrainor (talk) 04:37, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Because he's got an active RfAr. Daniel (talk) 04:58, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

• Good block. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:22, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse block. RfAr is wrapping up. --DHeyward (talk) 05:28, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose block. It appears that Giovanni has been engaging in discussion and has been observing his requirement to not revert more than once per week. Everyking (talk) 05:42, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose block. The Arbitrary Committee is not a legitimate authority. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 16:51, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

• The Arbitrary [sic] Committee is not legitimate? It's a good thing that users of this website have been directly instructed to ignore such reasoning. The Evil Spartan (talk) 00:34, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

• Ridiculously poor block. The fellow kept to his revert parole, and nobody discussed matters with him on the talkpage. If that's an incorrect reading of the situation, perhaps a little more data is required. But on reading the above, I see no reason for the block. --Relata refero (disp.)
• Oppose block: I think he did everything that was required of him, and stuck to the 'parole'. Putting aside the current RFAR, unblocking is in order. - Rjd0060 (talk) 00:17, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
• Comment: if not blocked for this, he will be blocked anyway by Arbcom, and perhaps this plethora of legal threats that keep coming from him and we keep ignoring per WP:DFTT would be enough? The Evil Spartan (talk) 00:34, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
• Good block, of course. Not only did Giovanni33 not discuss the obvious revert, but his block has been supported on his Talk: page by the administrators User:PhilKnight and User:Pilotguy. This is someone who has been blocked so many times that the "older 50" link is actually live when you look at his block log. And why are we discussing the topic here anyway, rather than the usual place, his Talk: page? Why does he get special treatment? Jayjg ^(talk) 01:52, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse block and perhaps lengthen Why Giovanni thinks he can flout policy and from arbcom rulings concerning him is beyond me. I'm suprised he hasn't been indefed yet. Jtrainor (talk) 03:04, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
  • We can impose a community ban for the time-being; but ArbCom are going to impose a stronger and more effective ban soon. So I'll ask the question - is there any admin who'd be willing to unblock? In the absence of a yes, and with even 1 more response of no, I think we're done here - and it could be extended as indefinite. Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:27, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse block. User is clearly disruptive, and per above. Lengthen would probably be a good idea. YahelGuhan (talk) 04:59, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
• Comment - responding to Ncmvocalist: any extension of the block to indefinite is likely to be reset by ArbCom to one year, and then voted on again by ArbCom at the end of that year. That is not a "stronger and more effective ban", it is a fairer and more effective ban, that will discourage appeals to the community or single administrators willing to unblock, but still leave open the avenue of appeal to ArbCom. I presume you have read the remedies they are voting on? The community can impose a ban separately, but please don't conflate the two. In my view, it is best to leave well alone and let the arbitration close without muddying the waters. This feels like rushing to impose a community ban before the case closes. Carcharoth (talk) 05:32, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Editor's identity outed at Open Office XML

An editor has been outed, and his real life identity has been revealed. See the talk page Talk:Office_Open_XML#Conflict_of_interest. It began some days ago with this edit by Ghettoblaster (talk · contribs), which cross-matches external web pages to identify the editor. The particular links have been removed, but the identity of the user is still visible. Warren (talk · contribs) also added the person's real name to his post. The identified editor has not returned to Wikipedia since the outing. Here is a message I sent to user:Ghettoblaster, and a message I sent to user:Warren about the incident.

The article is a hotbed of edit waring. I'm not sure if you also want to deal with that issue, but on my subpage is a documentation of the edit waring on one of many content disputes happening simultaneously. The place is a madhouse! Looking down the article history will show more reverts. I note that HAl (talk · contribs) has already been blocked multiple times for edit waring on this and related OOXML pages. --Lester 10:25, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

As I pointed out in the discussion on my talk page, I was not aware of breaking any Wikipedia policies by adding a conflict of interest warning with proper references to the original discussion. I removed the real name of the editor in question and the weblinks from the discussion as soon as I found the Wikipedia outing guideline. My intention was to inform other faithful contributors that the editor in question in all likelihood had a confict of interest. I have already been informed that I posted my findings at the wrong place and I will add all my findings to the Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard later. Thanks. Ghettoblaster (talk) 10:54, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't think a google search on the user's handle is a big deal. WP:OUTING is a bit of an over reaction, mostly caused by cases of stalking and intentional harassment from the past.

Also, the irony of this situation is that these kinds of posts attract more attention than the situation normally would have. It seems this was already resolved on the article's talk page. -- Ned Scott 11:03, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

The links have been removed, but the guys place of work is listed on the first post, and his real name is still listed on the second post. It's still there now. I pleaded with the authoring editors to remove it, to no avail. I was hoping someone here would remove it. It's a sad way for an editor to be knocked out of Wikipedia by having his identity exposed. --Lester 12:27, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

We have to take things into context. This guy is using the exact same handle for his public e-mail address, and probably other websites, where he lists his real name. This really isn't private information at this point. -- Ned Scott 06:01, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I would indeed like an admin to take notice how several editors aided by quite a lot of anonymous edits repeatly removed information from an article even after 6 or 7 reputable sources to substantiate the information that Office Open XML is and free file format and open format file format were introduced. I would suggest an admin look into the use of sockpuppets by any of the users that were removing the words free and open from the article. I would note that already twice people with a grudge against Office Open XML have been temporarily blocked for sockpuppeting whilst editting the Office Open XML article. hAl (talk) 15:35, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Agreeing with Ned on this. Context is everything. This is a fellow who has been writing his own bio, posting his own photos of himself, posting links to his own workplace and using a username that is directly associated with him. I think he's basically outed himself and I really don't see how this can reasonably be seen as a violation of the harassment policy which excludes cases where an "editor voluntarily provides or links to such information himself or herself". I also agree that posting these kinds of cases to ANI is not the best way to handle it because it's only going to draw heaps of attention to the "outing". I think it's better to deal with it quietly and privately, if possible, Lester. Sarah 02:33, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

The link between the outed editor's real name and wiki name were found externally by Googling, then published on the OOXML article talk page. It could not have been proven without looking at external websites. If that is now acceptable practice on Wikipedia, I will remember that next time. The outed editor seems to have left Wikipedia as a result, which to me is sad. --Lester 02:54, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Lester, you're not going to stop editors from looking people's usernames up on Google. I've done it myself and I know many others have, too. So I'm not surprised that an editor who suspected someone was spamming Wikipedia with external links to their own articles and writing self-promotional content would check Google and then identify the conflict of interest. Sure, they could have identified the COI in a better and more discrete way but I'm still not seeing an egregious privacy violation that warrants the use of admin tools. You seem to think the guy stopped editing because of this but I think you're just assuming that and I strongly doubt it myself. He was never a regular editor and has only ever edited very sporadically and months apart, mostly (though not always) only returning when he has a link to add to another page, so I suspect that he likely doesn't even know about this issue and will be back again when he has another article he wants to spam. The guy has been using Wikipedia for self promotion, adding links to his own off-site articles into articles, including, I believe, the OOXML article. This is a conflict of interest issue, as far as I can see. After originally seeing this report, I went to the OOXML talk page to delete the edit in question from the history but upon reviewing the evidence further I reached the conclusion that this guy has outed himself and never attempted to conceal his identity. He hasn't tried to protect his own privacy on Wikipedia but rather seems to have been quite open about who he is by using this pseudonym and posting his own "self" images and so forth, so I don't understand what you're looking for here. What is is that you're looking for? Please explain what you would like me to do as an administrator. Sarah 04:07, 27 June 2008 (UTC) Also, I do agree with you about the edit warring on that page as listed here User:Lester/free&open and I intend protecting it if it continues. Sarah 04:11, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Gilabrand POV vandalism

Resolved

 – Gilabrand (who was not vandalising, BTW) got fed up and decided not to edit the article (see Talk:Zionism and Racism) --Jaysweet (talk) 15:53, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Gilabrand is repeatedly renaming the article Zionism and racism allegations to Racist allegations against Zionism and vandalizing the article so as to make it an accusation that allegations against Zionism are racist. Strongbrow (talk) 14:27, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

That is utter nonsense. Strongbrow would do better to concentrate on improving the article rather than blanket reverting any attempts to make it comprehensible. This is an article that was slated for deletion and has improvement tags on it. If I am not allowed to improve it, in the way I believe it should be improved, because Mr. Strongbrow doesn't like it, then I have no reason to continue working on Wikipedia. --Gilabrand (talk) 15:27, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Adding statements into the introduction such as "The line between anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism is very thin, and some believe they are one and the same" is clearly an attempt to inject your bias. Strongbrow (talk) 16:23, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

If you had a problem with that, you should have gone to talk. For your information, I was paraphrasing Martin Luther King Jr.: "When people criticize Zionists, they mean Jews; you are talking anti-Semitism." --Gilabrand (talk) 17:17, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

This is a content dispute and does not belong on ANI. Please take it to the article Talk page. --Jaysweet (talk) 17:23, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Insults from user MauritiusXXVII

I want to report that the user MauritiusXXVII has insult me on this talk page saying me"xenophobic and racist user". It is not the first time to do it so i would beg some administrator to block him because this behavior is not admitted on Wikipedia. Even he make a call to other users to go against me on this same edition. He has gone beyond the tolerable limits.

He does not like my edition on Chile article but you can check yourself that Chile is painted in green on third world map and it is listed on the developing countries article so he is trying to deny the reality.

He is involved on edit warrings on Coat of arms of Catalonia article. Notice that he (and other user) does not accept what prestigious sources say so he undo it all my editions to change them for his thoughts. And notice he has not supported his editions with sources but only his points of view, even when he brought a source[31] he falsified it [32].I am editing with sources and do not waste the time to reply all his offensive comments against me on my page talk, so i want protection from injury. I want to be able to edit on Wikipedia without suffering mobbing.--Sclua (talk) 18:00, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I find it hilarious that Sclua is complaining about personal attacks, see the third warning on his talk page about making petty vengeance edits on Chile, all of them reverted by uninvolved editors [33] and my warning for using edit summaries to accuse other editors of lying [[34]].

See the previous ANI thread where Sclua is reported for personal attacks and POV and winds up doing again personal attacks against me and Maurice, questioning my neutrality, implying that it's ok to answer to "you push a catalan POV" with "you are anti-catalan", and a long etc.

Add to this: repeated attempts to remove and misquote sources with a clear POV bias, blanking of warnings on his talk page with complains of harassing against him, and jumping with accusations of fascism, nationalism, liying and POV pushing against anyone questioning any of his sources.

I guess it's time to start a RFCU. --Enric Naval (talk) 18:32, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

First, I would like to point the admins to my past report about Sclua, which remained unsolved. The situation has got worst and worst. I beg the Admins to seriously take action about this situation.

This user has repeatedly been breaking Wikipedia:Civility, Wikipedia:No personal attacks and Wikipedia:Assume good faith. In the articles Crown of Aragon and Coat of arms of Catalonia he has been engaging edit warring:

• Erasing references brought by other editors claiming them to be Aragonese nationalist lies" --> Not assuming good faith
• Reverting edits by other users using xenophobic and racist comments calling me "Southamerican" --> Personal attack

He has also made comments such as:

• "They are trying to block me, are trying that i leave to edit, i am suffering mobbing from both users with lots of threatens (...) It is Spanish fascism, worse than Chinese one (...)" here.
• "I think a fascist Spanish hacker has blocked my access" here and here

May I notice to the admins that he was already warned for using this language: "Also suggesting that 'Spanish fascists' are responsible is disruptive" by User:Prodego. He then answered that he will try to moderate his vocabulary. Something he has not.

A number of users have already warned him because of his behaviour in his talk-page (me included), but he blanked the page.

After calling me "Southamerican" in a clearly despective and disruptive way, he decided to vandalize (there is NO other way of calling it) the article of Chile, just because I have some userboxes in my talk-page related to that Country and that Sclua believed I was a citizen.

He vandalized the article a number of times (here, here, here and here). The vandalism consist in repeatedly call Chile a "Third world country".

Each and every time but the last (which was me), it has been other users who have expressed their nonconformity with these edits as you may see here (user:Kman543210), here (user:Kman543210), here (user:Tangerines) and here (user:Likeminas).

Even another user claims having reported him for this behavior here

It happens that I am not chilean nor southamerican, but my fiancee is... user Sclua is consistently attacking this article simply in order to personally attack me. I consider this a tremendous personnal attack and a lack of respect against other people.

As per WP:ETIQ and WP:CIVIL: "Some types of comments are never acceptable: Racial, sexual, homophobic, ageist, religious, political, ethnic, or other epithets directed against another contributor. Disagreement over what constitutes a religion, race, sexual preference, or ethnicity is not a legitimate excuse. The prohibition against personal attacks applies equally to all Wikipedians. It is as unacceptable to attack a user with a history of foolish or boorish behavior, or even one who has been subject to disciplinary action by the Arbitration Committee, as it is to attack any other user."

I asked in Chile's talk-page for other users' help to revert what is clearly vandalism and personal attacks against me (and all the people of Chile), something I believe Wikipedia (and his admins) should IN ANY WAY tolerate. But User Sclua blanked it.

I ask the admins to take a look at Sclua's talk-page and see the enormous history of warnings this user has have... All of them blanked each and every time by him.

User Sclua has just limited his contributions to erase, criticize, insult, revert good faith and referenced edits by other users in articles related to Catalonia and to vandalize the article of Chile.

User Sclua is clearly not assuming the good faith edits by other users and is privileging of the passivity of the admins to warn or block him for his disruptive behaviour.

I believe my point sufficiently explained but I am open to bring further explanations and references if the admins desire so. --MauritiusXXVII ^{(Aut Doce, Aut Disce, Aut Discede!)} 18:59, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I believe you are now discussing a Request for Comment - this is a good idea. Do that. In the meantime, I have warned Sclua to stop adding "Third World Country" to Chile over and over again, and have told him to stop his POV-warring on the Coat of arms of Catalonia article. Maurice, one thing you did that didn't help was revert on Sclua's talk page to reinclude your warnings after he removed them. Please don't do that again, it doesn't help things. Neıl 龱 09:26, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Please, notice that MauritiusXXVII began with the personals attacks " absolutly ignorant", please see how he demanded me explanations when he still has not any explanation on the page talk nowadays though his huges changes on the article (only after the edition left the message without reasoning), see how he begans to say me "pushes a catalanist or (may I say anti-spanish) non-neutral POV" before i called him "anti-catalanist", please see how he begins to threaten me after just one day from his first edition "you will be reported" please see how he said "Catalan POV and this is not the catalan wiki" before i call him southamerican and when, in fact, i was bringing International Heraldry Academy sources not Catalan ones and he (they both in fact) only were bringing an Aragonese website source (Aragonese Encyclopedia). And notice that Enric Naval lied when said that Periku was blocked due to his request when the reality was that Spanish admin rejected his request.

• If someone tells a lie then is a liar and the phrase "red bars" was a lie, simply. I see Enric naval defending personal insults due to my edits-warring. Incredible incoherence with what he told the other day "Sclua's excuse for being uncivil is that others have been uncivil first, but that's not a excuse for incivility."
• I could fill their both talk pages with a lot of warnings but i am not here to waste my time. They both have cleared references, have made me personal attacks, falsified sources, edited-warrings...
• It is childish only consider what users with all the evenings free to waste on Wikipedia are doing in my page talk and ignore all their bad style .
• I called fascist who was blocking my access to several pages but they both, now, are pretending falsely that i called it to them. They needs liars to supported their points of view.
• The past reported was solved being archived, this is, rejected by its weak reasonings.
• i can say the same to them, they both have repeatedly been breaking Wikipedia:Civility, Wikipedia:No personal attacks and Wikipedia:Assume good faith.In the articles Crown of Aragon and Coat of arms of Catalonia they have been engaging in edit warrings.
• On my page talk only see Aragonese users for obvious reasons and another one who on the Spanish wikipedia say that does not come from Spain.
• Maurice brings a quote that he does not apply The prohibition against personal attacks applies equally to all Wikipedians. It is as unacceptable to attack a user with a history of foolish or boorish behavior, or even one who has been subject to disciplinary action by the Arbitration Committee, as it is to attack any other user.
• i think it is incredible that a report for a personal insult ended up with a threaten against me from Neıl 龱. This admin still has not cleared the post where i am insulted and where there is a call on other users to go against me so i think his behaviour is cleary biased. No reproach against maurice. It has to see it to belive it.
• if Wikipedia admits personal insults this may be the jungle.--Sclua (talk) 18:27, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

As noted at the top of this board, if you feel someone's being impolite/uncivil, consider posting to wikiquette alerts. As another administrator as noted, if you have a dispute over the validity of the content of the article, please consider a request for comments. or mediation. --slakr^\ talk / 10:17, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Rockpocket block of Giano II

Bad block - Giano II unblocked for 'outing', but given a short block for continued disruption/harassment. Nothing else to see here. Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:46, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

See User_talk:Giano_II#Revert. Even with the history of Rockpocket's using every chance to inflame the matters when it relates to Giano, this indefinite block stands out. Can this be addressed swiftly without the ArbCom hassle to save on drahmaz? --Irpen 19:32, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Once again a sysop is attacked for attempting to enforce the same rules everyone else has to follow on Giano. Of course, it is the same old crowd doing it. _{1 != 2} 19:34, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Which rule is this? The one against alleging sockpuppetry? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 19:40, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

It looks very much like a bad block to me, but I really don't see this as desysoppable, and certainly not as being desysoppable outside of normal channels. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 19:34, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

No need to desysop anyone over one bad block - there there's a pattern, take it to RfC. Let's just get a quick concensus here to unblock Giano. Ryan Postlethwaite 19:37, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd rather see an unblock of giano, and some other forum to review rocketpocket's activity if folks feel the need (I don't know enought to have an opinion, and it's not an emergency). --Rocksanddirt (talk) 19:39, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I would be willing to unblock Giano (I believe I'm relatively independent, since I've hardly ever contacted Giano, aside from an article query). This very much looks like a bad block. Rudget (logs) 19:40, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Concur with Rudget, Ryan, Rocksanddirt, etc. Ill-considered block, and I would support unblock. Risker (talk) 19:42, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

This happened 20 minutes ago and Rockpocket hasn't even bothered to report it for review on ANI? An indefinite block of an established editor, and it's not put up on WP:ANI, nor on WP:AE? I can't believe it, are you drunk or something, Rockpocket? You don't know to do a simple thing like that? Of course you do—but lrpen has to do it? Words fail me. Bishonen | talk 19:43, 25 June 2008 (UTC).

Identifying one account as a "sockpuppet" of another account is not by any stretch "outing" an editor, as the Wikipedism has it. Since User:Rockpocket is perfectly aware that "outing" an editor specifically means identifying an editor's actual real-life name, "outing" in this case is a misuse of the vocabulary, perhaps a conscious one. Surely if this was not an intentional effort to intensify a toxic atmosphere, one would expect an admission of error here on the part of an editor— even an administrator— with a sense of honesty.--Wetman (talk) 19:44, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

RP has unblocked. Rudget (logs) 19:45, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I've unblocked per unblieveabe consensus that this block was wrong - Let's remember all that mistakes can happen, and it was easily corrected, we shouldn't get the pitch forks out for Rockpuppet. Ryan Postlethwaite 19:46, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

(ec) For someone who's filing a report to minimize 'drahmaz', you've sure chosen a neutral, non-inflammatory header for this section, Irpen. Can we wait for comment from Rockpocket – and geez, guys, it's been less than half an hour! – before we get out the gibbet? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:47, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Sidestepping the specifics of the case, I don't think there's a need for a more rapid/streamlined demotion process, because admins can simply be blocked if they're taking unambiguously abusive action (they can unblock themselves, but that's a sure way to get demoted). Dcoetzee 19:49, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Simply unblocking is not sufficient.--Wetman (talk) 19:55, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

No way this is "resolved" until we find out what happened. I removed the resolved tag. Sweeping it under the rug would guarantee the reruns. --Irpen 19:53, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

(For the record, this ongoing thread was tagged "Resolved" by [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2FIncidents&diff=221724653&oldid=221723869%7C User:Ncmvocalist, at 10:23)--Wetman (talk) 20:29, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Apparently, we're playing some sort of "game" with the unblock now. [35] [36]. I suggest we do not do that. It appears to have been a bad block, there's consensus here that it was a bad block, and, if this continues to be the case, I am going to wait a short while, then undo it. We do not leave editors blocked on bad blocks, to give the blocking admin enough rope to hang themselves with. SQL^{Query me!} 19:54, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

FWIW, I agreed with Nick because I wished to see what Rocket's interpretation of the matter would be. Thus resulting in an unblock, and perhaps a reflection opportunity for Rocket. Rudget (logs) 19:58, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

In that case, I misinterpreted your comment, My apologies. I hope you can see why it appeared that way to me.... SQL^{Query me!} 20:02, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

No worries. I am always happy to clarify. Rudget (logs) 20:09, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

And now we see that Rockpocket does not "consider [his block] a mistake at all". — Preceding unsigned comment added by HiDrNick (talk • contribs)

Relax - I am sprung! Now why has this happened, (I see 1=2 was quick to involve himself, sadly, he is yet again dissapointed)Now to the nux of the matter User: Sussexman's return - What the hell is going on? Who gave Kittybrewster permission to argue his case as a sock? Giano (talk) 19:56, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Not disappointed, I expected it. Multiple sets of rules, got it. I have stopped using my admin tools some time ago because I can't keep track of which rules apply to which special editors. _{1 != 2} 20:00, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

1=2, you're not on the right track here. Kittybrewster decided to make another account due to what he considered a threatening atmosphere on WP due to past history (actually, considering the amount that has gone under the bridge, I think that word should be all caps and bolded, like HISTORY). Now, that would have been fine, except the new account did all the same things that KB did, and showed a remarkable amount of prior knowledge of the people, personalities and issues of the prior history. To be quite frank, to the extent that any "outing" occured, KB/Berks did it to himself. You're allowed to call the Elephant in the Room an elephant. Endorse the unblock. SirFozzie (talk) 20:10, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I would say Kitty had it coming, especially with the smug popping the cork on the bubbly each time an Irish Republican editor was indef'd. --Dragon695 (talk) 01:53, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

1=2, please vent your frustrations over the project in general elsewhere. You can make a pose regarding sysop strikes all you want but I am sure you will never give away your sysop tools voluntarily. We are discussing a specific incident and what is to be done about it. Rockpocket's "hit and run" (block and duck out) adds more bad smell to all this. I raised the issue of desysopping on the spot not because this is an emergency, he is unlikely do anything for a couple of days. But because the abuse is so blatant here that I see no need for a full arbcom case. We do not need to an arbcom to block especially bad editors when the editing abuse is so obvious and in the plain view. Here we have the admin tools abused so outrageously, that I do not see a need for a long arbcom process. But if this is required, fine. Let's have ArbCom look at this. --Irpen 20:07, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Can a desysop be made with less hassle than going through ArbCom? Not really. Should it be possible? Yes. Should it happen in this case? Not according to any uninvolved administrator. This thread is all over bar the shouting. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 20:25, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Explanation

Hello everyone. I'd just like to note that I did not "block and run" as has been suggested above. I am just not a very quick typing and prefer to make considered responses. I spotted the ones on my talk page first, so that is where I have responded first. My position is detailed there at the moment, but I will be happy to explain myself here too, when I get a few moments. Giano has been unblocked so there is no emergency, I don't protest that considering the weight of protest here and elsewhere, but I do feel that my actions were justified and I will explain why. If any editor feels my actions requires a RfC, then feel free to make one and I will co-operate there also. It goes without saying I don't think an emergency desysopping is appropriate, and I'm sure this can be resolved without ArbCom. I'd also like not note that my block was not "Giano specific", in that I treated it differently because of who was involved. I warned twice then blocked as a preventative measure just as I would any other editor.

Also, the suggestion that I use "every chance to inflame the matters when it relates to Giano" is interesting. I admit Giano and I didn't first meet in the best of circumstances, but in the last few months I would say we have been on excellent terms. I would urge Irpen and Bishonen to review my position the last time Giano was discussed here and also review how Giano and I worked closely together in the lead up to Vk's unblocking recently. Perhaps then they may come to a different conclusion. Rockpocket 20:40, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

This is silly

• This is silly. Everyone has overlooked the problem of disruptive edit-warring and focused on whether there is 'outing' or not. A user is entitled to remove comments they receive on their talk pages [37], yet Giano II seems to be a special user that gets to decide (by way of disruptive edit-warring) if his comment is removable or not [38] [39] [40] and since his unblock, [41]. And predictably, nothing has been done about it. Or am I mistaken in what I've just said? Ncmvocalist (talk) 20:14, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't an indefinite block seem a bit excessive for removing comments, which weren't interpreted as 'outing' by many of those participating in this discussion? Rudget (logs) 20:16, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I agree it was a bad block on those merits, but there is problematic conduct warranting a block imo, given his history, and given that he removes comments from his own talk page at his whim (so he's not unaware). I'm thinking out aloud whether it should've just been a reduction in the block duration instead of a complete unblock - see what edits he's made since his unblock. Ncmvocalist (talk) 20:23, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

The block length was indefinite, not forever. Rock said he would unblock as soon as he said he would stop posting the message on that talk page. It could have been over in two minutes. A message that the user talk page's owner removed and asked not to be returned, as he is allowed to do and Giano put back repeatedly. I see a lot of mischaracterization of events here, and I sure hope people do their own homework and don't just take the summaries presented here as gospel.

Yet Giano is allowed to return the post yet again, who dares to remove it? Not me. Giano apparently can blank stuff from his page often, but refuse to let others do the same. _{1 != 2} 20:27, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Um, accounts in good standing are pretty much given a very wide scope of what they can remove from their user pages, while other parties are subject to the usual WP criteria - simply, if anyone posts on anothers talkpage (and it otherwise does not contravene WP policies/guidelines) they need the permission of the page owner for its removal. Just saying. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:03, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I think the "page owner" made it crystal clear that the edit was unwelcome, and the page shouldn't subject to an edit-war over it. Don't you think so? Ncmvocalist (talk) 21:19, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

But that is just my point. The user did remove Giano's post, and asked him not to return it. Giano just kept putting it back in, that would get pretty much anyone blocked if they did it over and over. _{1 != 2} 21:20, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

It regularly does result in blocks, for ordinary established users anyway. Ncmvocalist (talk) 21:24, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

The question remains, who gave permission to one of The Troubles editors to change username, given the massive history of socking all over the place involving just about every one of them? It was an obvious alternate account, and it was doing exactly what the "master" account had done before. And, while I see the point about the reverts, when a block is made for reasons that are so egregiously wrong, and the admin had better ways of addressing the linking of the two accounts than to post about it on one of the most-read user talk pages on Wikipedia (the block button worked, but the delete one didn't?), then the block needs to be rolled back completely and without hesitation, as was done in this case. Risker (talk) 20:43, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe one needs "permission" to have a fresh start under a new account, especially when one's personal details are irrevocably attached to their previous account. That said, considering the history of misbehavior and abusive sockpuppetry among Trouble related editors, there was an understanding that editors would stick with one recognizable account. However, there has also been issues of harassment (which I would rather not go into in public). One editor made it clear to me that they no longer felt comfortable editing from an account that is linked to their identity as indicated he would like to edit from another anonymous account. Being aware of the harassment issues, I told him that was justifiable on two conditions, 1) that he make admins familiar with The Troubles aware of it, so that I could be monitored for The Troubles ArbCom rememdies. 2) That he stick to one account and one account only. The editor has since made me aware of his new account (and I believe he made at least one other admin aware also) and I have been keeping an eye on it. A few editors with an interest in the Troubles have expressed interest at who this new account may be and on those occasions I have told them (privately) that I am aware of it and asked them not to out it by publicly speculating. All other those responded in the good faith one might expect from editors: they all said "ok" and never mentioned it. All except Giano.

As for the suggestion that I am responsible for the outing: that is nonsense. Lets be honest here. The moment Giano wrote that first comment the game was up, the identity was compromised and the editor in question would create a new account. What is important, and remains important, is that Giano appreciate that he cannot go around linking accounts to real life people (even accidentally, if it was as such) for no good reason other than to irk someone he has bickered with for years. Harassment is a serious issue and it deserves our serious attention. If Giano thinks his jollies are more important than that than I think he deserved to remain blocked until he reconsidered. Rockpocket 21:40, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough about the initial rollback, but are you suggesting the egregiously wrong judgement of one administrator excuses the continuing disruption of the now unblocked editor? Ncmvocalist (talk) 20:53, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I've removed the section in question, and brought it up with Giano why he shouldn't add it again. SirFozzie (talk) 21:06, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Tsk, OK. Ncmvocalist (talk) 21:19, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Giano reblocked for disruptive editing

Ok, Giano has ignored my request, and readded the section again to Counter-revolutionary's talk page. I'm not sure if he's beyond the electric fence of 3RR, and quite frankly, I don't think I quite care at the moment, this is WP:DE, and I have placed a short term 3 hour block for preventative purposes for disruptive editing on him. SirFozzie (talk) 21:45, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Fully endorse this block. I was writing up a 24 hour block and hit the button a few seconds too late. Giano's actions are beyond unacceptable and 3 hours is a gift. - auburnpilot talk 21:47, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Clear case of 3RR. Giano is the first to point out to you that users can remove content from their talk page if they want to. The issue has gotten plenty of attention already so returning the post is just pointy. _{1 != 2} 21:49, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I unfortunately endorse this - it was a clear case of 3RR. I thought the first block would have been enough of a warning to him. Ryan Postlethwaite 21:54, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Endorse block, clear 3RR violation, and, should have been obvious that this was going to happen if he persisted. SQL^{Query me!} 22:19, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Crap. Editwarring is not the answer. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 23:06, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm a bit troubled that Giano seems to have interpreted an admonishment to stop being POINTy and disruptive to mean 'use the next three hours to draw as much attention as possible on your talk page and to attack all the people who were trying to help'. I've asked SirFozzie to have a look, as I'm not sure Giano has taken to heart the reason for his current block. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 23:24, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, perhaps Thatcher's post to that page might be of interest; although, at the end of the day, Giano can only be seen to be pointy on that page if people bother to read it. Editors get to be somewhat snippier on their own pages than elsewhere. Anyone who finds Giano to be annoying or pointy need only to remove his page from their watchlist and stop tracking his edits. Risker (talk) 23:31, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Let's not lose sight of the issue here, which is that disruptive 'Troubles' editors are being allowed to start new accounts because the original account (where the disruption started) was linked to their real-life identity (apparently), so that for some reason means that they have a ready-made excuse to switch to a new account: (1) resume the old behaviour and get "outed"; (2) switch to new account because of "privacy concerns". I'm not quite sure how that sort of situation can be dealt with. Carcharoth (talk) 23:30, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

One wouldn't need to switch to a new account if one hadn't been harassed. Anyone can switch to a new account at any time, last time I checked. The caveat, with the Troubles editors, is that they can not do so to edit in a disruptive or problematic manner to avoid detection. It was preferable that all editors stick with their known account, but there is a harassment issue here. Your use of scare quotes suggests you are skeptical, but if you would like to email me, I can give you a rundown on it. Therefore, unless you wish to penalize editors for being the victims of harassment, the next best thing is to permit an anonymous account that can be overseen by trusted admins. The account in question was not editing in a problematic manner, there was no resumption of "old behaviour" in that sense, therefore there was no good reason to "out" it (not least because Giano has no way of knowing he was outing the right person, which risks someone else being harassed). If the account had in anyway been used to violate The Troubles ArbCom I would have blocked it myself immediately as abusive sockpuppetry. I believe we need to assist editors who have suffered harassment, not punish them because someone else decided to abuse them. Rockpocket 00:29, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I've discussed the issue with Giano, and Thatcher is trying to explain things to him now. Hopefully this will be the end of things. SirFozzie (talk) 23:41, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I think the point is that the rules are there for a reason. Experienced editors should expect less slack, not more. Otherwise we can throw our rules through the window. End of story. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 23:53, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

The user in question is certainly running out of rope. If his latest "new" account fails to avoid the behaviors and patterns that got him spotted twice before, I don't think there will be much support for a 4th regeneration. Thatcher 01:30, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Having the same "behaviors and patterns" is human, it does not mean you should be outed, because someone is able to spot you by your characteristics. I just don't think we should be encouraging editors to go around outing others, when there is no good reason in policy to do so. That said, I has been made clear to me that it is one thing to edit in the same subject area, another to get involved in more personal debates. I appreciate that and it is difficult to justify anonymity when one gets involved in personal disputes. Rockpocket 01:43, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

There have been several cases in the past where a user has started with their real name and felt the need to change to an anonymous one because of varying (and sometimes extreme) degrees of threat. They have reappeared and it may have been obvious to some established editors who they were. The responsible thing was to respect the reason for the name change, not to announce it. The original "real name" editor in this case was not under any sanction, or trying to avoid such, but stated what would normally be seen as a legitimate reason for changing their user name. The old account stopped editing and there have been no overlaps. I've taken a quick look through the edits of the new account, and don't seen any egregious behaviour. The points put forward by the new account have been perfectly acceptable, even if others might not agree. Surely it is the argument that counts, not the person proposing it, the edits and not the editor. I don't see any advantage the user is trying to gain with the new name or any abuse. As pointed out, it is easily identifiable: there is not even any significant attempt to dissemble. Presumably the editor accepts that others may know who he really is: that is very different to it being announced and publicly linked. I suggest the old account is marked as defunct and when the editor returns with a new account, his wish to not have his real life identity linked to it is respected. WP:OUTING makes this clear. I have no wish to reopen the debate over what has happened, but would rather look at how to address what might happen next. Ty 02:27, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Something to keep in mind is that this particular user has previously been found to have used alternate accounts abusively, and in addition was publicly advocating the unblocking of another editor who has been been community banned for violation of Arbcom ban and sockpuppeting. Other editors who have encountered his previous reincarnations may or may not be aware that he has stopped using them or that this has been authorised, although it's unclear exactly who authorised it or whether or not any conditions were attached. He was editing in a way that drew attention to himself and made it obvious who he was. In this situation, any obligation of Wikipedia, its admins, and its editors to maintain the fiction that this was an independent editor unrelated to his previous identity becomes preposterous. Editors who change their account names for "security" reasons hold primary responsibility to ensure that their accounts are not obviously linked. If this editor is going to proceed under another username, and he expects the rest of Wikipedia to go along with it, he will have to change his editing behaviour so that anyone watching his favourite articles and talk pages will not be able to identify him. Risker (talk) 02:44, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I've been highly aware of this situation for a very long time. Any misuse of socks in the past was considered minor, and he has not been blocked for it. Hopefully he has learnt the lesson. There is currently no abuse. Editors are allowed to advocate unblocking of another editor. I don't see the problem there: there has never been any suggestion that they are other than two separate individuals (and not always in support of each other for that matter). There are other editors whose now anon-identity is equally clearly linked to a previous identity, but we respect it. I trust you do, or would, also—or does your reasoning have wider implications? There is no onus on editors to create watertight disguises. WP:Harassment is a policy and states:

Posting another person's personal information (legal name, date of birth, social security number, home or workplace address, telephone number, email address, or other contact information, regardless of whether or not the information is actually correct) is harassment, unless that editor voluntarily provides or links to such information himself or herself. This is because it places the other person at unjustified and uninvited risk of harm in "the real world" or other media. This applies whether or not the person whose personal information is being revealed is a Wikipedia editor. It also applies in the case of editors who have requested a change in username, but whose old signatures can still be found in archives.

There is a big difference between being able to identify someone and posting that identity publicly for the whole world to see. If you don't agree with that, then you should address it in the policy.

Ty 03:33, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Ty, except none of that happened. Kittybrwster'slegal name, date of birth, social security number, home or workplace address, telephone number, email address, or other contact information was not exposed by Giano, so there was no outing here. The only people really arguing that tying the two accounts together is outing is you and Rockpocket. I have sympathies for the situation that KB was in, which is why he wanted to create another account to edit WP, but are you going to tell me that he didn't give away who he was in his FIRST TWO EDITS? If anything Giano revealed what was an open secret? If you don't want to be associated with "Editor X", do not immediately step into all the articles/feuds that "Editor X" participated in, with the exact same knowledge and viewpoints as "Editor X". SirFozzie (talk) 03:38, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Let me me make something clear. I have been hearing lots of talk of "permission" or "authorization" been given to Kb to create sockpuppets. Giano is particularly keen to push this in the interests of his ArbCom conspiracy theories. I may be responsible for spawning it, but I would like to put that to bed once and for all. There was no "permission" or "authorization", official or otherwise. All that happened was that I (and again, I don't believe I was the only admin that was informed) was told by Kb that, due to certain other factors, he no longer felt comfortable editing from his old account and intended to edit from another account. He didn't ask for "permission" or "authorization" and I did not offer either. I did tell him that considering those other factors (which, by the way, not one editor who is so keen to criticize my reasoning has even asked me about), I could understand why he would want to do that and felt it justified. I therefore told him that I would not block his new account, but keep an eye on it. I also told him that if he edited from more than one account at the same time, or that if he used the account in any way that would have resulted in his old account being sanctioned, he would be violating the spirit of the Troubles ArbCom and would be blocked. Thats it. I then watched his account to ensure it was not used abusively and, when people began to ask about his account, I told them that I was aware of it and there was no need to be concerned that it was being used abusively.

I did this because I am aware of the effect of the harassment that Kb felt threatened by, and I did not believe there was any harm to the project so long as his edits were good and his comments were not inflammatory. On the other hand, there was a huge benefit because the chance of his good edits sparking further harassment were minimized if there was no link to his personal details (via he old account). Admins are asked to use their judgment, so I used my judgment. If that was a bad move, then I am accountable for it. But I don't think editors - even those with a less than perfect record themselves - should have to put up with harassment and I stand by that.

Do I think it was foolish that he then entered a discussion that all but outed himself to those that were familiar with him? Yes. Does that somewhat temper his "right" to remain anonymous? In retrospect, probably yes. Would en email to Kb stating "if you plan to get involved in those sorts of discussions then you face the consequences on your own" have been a good idea. You bet. Do I regret those things? Hell yeah.

But that all said, there is zero substance behind the suggestions that there was some sort of back-room deal being made involving Lauder's unblock request. I have said before and repeat here: I don't have a clue what the story is behind Lauder's block. My only involvement was to offer to help draft an appeal to the community in the same way I did for Vintagekits, and only then if ArbCom agreed. They didn't, so that was the end of it as far as I am concerned. I urge editors to stay focused on the issue here - and I am happy to accept the responsibility for my actions in regards to that - rather than get seduced by conspiracy theories being promoted here and elsewhere. Rockpocket 03:56, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm very tempted to say something along the lines of told you so.... As auburnpilot says, 3 hours was a gift. Hopefully the misconduct ends here. Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:22, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

This is going to be sorted

I have not retired. I walked away for a while to restore my normal good temper, and this subject will not be quickly archived and thrust under the already very dirty dirty wiki-carpet. I am disgusted that an admin encouraged and kept secret a troublesome editor socking in an area already know to be riven with socks causing problems. To the extent than anyone who rumbled this strange behaviour was to be blocked. I want that admin desysoped.

Kittybrewster is a known sockpuppeteer, and nothing seems to have changed. What was Rockpocket hoping for? That Vintagekits would unwittingly address Kittybrewster and then he could ban him for breach of conditions? This plan was so ill advised, and likely t cause trouble, it beggars belief. I think we need to have a whole list of Kittybrewster's socks published and made known. In the present atmosphere of mistrust there is no way an unblock of the infamous Sussexan/Lauder sock can be be considered. Can we believe a single word they add to the project is without some bias. I have been accused of "outing" Kittybrewster, someone should actually take the time to red what I wrote! Then tell me what is not true and accurate - and where the outing is? [42]

"I'm afraid the problem is with you people is that you think you can all sign in and out with different names and that the rest of us are all too stupid to see it. For instance you, Berks, are quite clearly Kittybrewster or another of the "gang" - if indeed you are all separate people rather just one adult with an identity crisis. So you see, there is not a lot of confidence placed in any of you is there? The question is not, when is Lauder returning, but who do you think you are fooling? "

I am not dropping this matter, as it strikes at the basic honesty and trust we attempt to achieve here. I have spent a great deal of time, with minimal success, trying to help calm the trouble at The Troubles, I will not sit quietly by while naive and deplorable admins allow any editors there, to start weighing in, as socks. Don't bother trying to revert me here, because I will go elsewhere and say what I have to say. This problem is going to be sorted, and sorted properly and honestly and openly.Giano (talk) 07:15, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

What exactly do you wish to know, Giano? How about rather than raising the temperature with references to mysterious "naive and deplorable admins" (plural), we talk specifics. You are already well aware of all the accounts Kb has used since he chose to abandon his old account. Lets not keep up the charade that this is a surprise to you, because you mentioned at least one to me in an email weeks ago. As for Lauder, what are you afraid of exactly? I have already made it very clear that ArbCom will not unblock him, so who exactly is considering an unblock? No-one. He and his supporters can complain all they want. Unless ArbCom is satisfied he will remain blocked. Rockpocket 07:29, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

• Rockpocket, we are not going to have an army of socks clamouring for the return of an multi-banned editor. You were aware of the socking at The Troubles, yet you chose to condone socking. Where was Berks going to edit next? On VK's page in boxing? I can't beleive you fell for this? Giano (talk) 07:42, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

As per my talk page, I am discussing this with Giano by email. Rockpocket 07:53, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

OK, please add updates as they come. Cheers - Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:01, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Here's an update for you [43] just showing the tip of the iceberg of the prolific socking that seems to happen arownd these editors. It does now appear though that Robert1/Sussexman/David Lauder/et al will not be rejoining us in the near future, despite an army of socks (with or without permission) clamouring for his return. Giano (talk) 18:33, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Giano, if you have issues concerning sockpuppetry, you are well aware of the appropriate forum - WP:SSP. The community as a whole have made it clear that Rockpocket is not going to be desysopped over this matter, even if you and Irpen continue to scream that he should be. If you still feel strongly about it, then go to the next step of dispute resolution. Do you understand why you were (validly) blocked the second time? If so, then this matter is closed. Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:49, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

• No, we are not going to supress debate to get Rockpocket off the hook. In answer to your question, I understand perfectly that a group of admins stood idly by and watched a known contentious sock puppeteer enter into a debate to restore a multiply banned editor. I also understand that the very second I spotted it, Rockpocket realised he was in the shit, panicked and banned me - indefinitely if you please? When I still would not be quiet a second ban was implemented to try and silence me and shove this disgraceful behaviour under the carpet. This whole sorry episode does nothing more than confirm the mistrust felt by one group of editors at The Troubles. Rockpocket and Co should be ashamed of themselves. Not one of them lifted a finger to say to Kittybrewster "WTF, hang on, back off here" they allowed it to happen. One can only speculate as to why. And as usual on Wikipedia when Admins are found behaving in a disgraceful way it is "shoot the messenger". Sadly, this particular group of editors are going to lead them into serious problems. So you think Rockpocket's behaviour commendable. I think it stinks, but hey - the carpet is big, and he's an admin - why worry? well if you can't work that out for yourselves - then.........Happy editing. Giano (talk) 07:24, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

OK, Giano, Enough of your fantasies that I blocked you to try to "shove this disgraceful behaviour under the carpet". I let you accuse me privately of being "an ArbCom cabalist" and let you ask me repeatedly "Who (on the ArbCom) cooked this up and told you (me) to do it?". Why? Because I figured you'd come to your senses, and realize how absolutely absurd you sounded. Guess not.

You are a big crusader to remove items you don't want from your talk page. Well, C-r removed your item from your talk page and asked you not to post there. (It's still on his page). You continued to be disruptive and continued to reinsert it. Multiple people have tried to tell you, including Bishonen, your biggest supporter [44] that you were acting badly on this. If you expect others to leave you alone on YOUR talk page, you'd better provide the same courtesy to others.

After the block/unblock and this discussion here, going back and breaking 3RR by inserting it one more time was the final straw.. At least TWO completely uninvolved (unless you were going to claim AuburnPilot is somehow a member of the ArbCom Cabal, as well?) admins were going to block you. I said it before and will say it again, you were lucky I was there first, because you would have been blocked for 24 hours, not 3. I said it before and I'll say it again, Giano. When you're right.. I will say so. And when you're acting like a complete prat (like with the statements above), I will also say so. Your paranoia has gotten the best of you here. I'd say I hope you start providing others with the common courtesy you want from others, but I guess it's a waste of time to ask, huh? SirFozzie (talk) 09:40, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Hang on, Ncmvocalist; it isn't just Giano and Irpen, it also seems to include One Night In Hackney, which makes five.

Can't someone be bold and move this 'discussion' off AN/I? --Major Bonkers (talk) 08:02, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Murphy9977

This user [45] continues to try to add inflammatory and admittedly unsourced comments to Joe Torre's page, in regards to the Mitchell Report. So far he has ignored warnings. This is not exactly vandalism, it's more like edit-warring, albeit conducted over 3 weeks time instead of constantly. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 20:57, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I was going to give this the "quick once over" and perhaps reply on the basis of taking it to AIV when they next transgress - but I saw the editors comments to Wknight94 and enacted a 31 hour block. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:27, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I put it here instead of AIV because it was a bit more than just random vandalism. 31 hours might not be enough to get his attention, but we'll see. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:19, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

It got their attention. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:16, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

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

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 [46], [47], and [48]). 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? [49]--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: [50] and [51]. Which is odd, given my multiple attempts to be nice and cooperative with you: [52], [53], 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. [54]--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)

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?," [55] (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)

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)

Out of process redirect being attempted (again) at Reaction to Tim Russert's death

Resolved

 – Referred to RfC --Jaysweet (talk) 18:46, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

There is a merge discussion happening at the above page, and now the users who failed to have the page deleted at AfD are attempting to redirect it during the middle of this discussion, apparently as a backdoor to getting their way. Also, there's some other guy named Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The that redirected it without even bothering to join the discussion first. Whatever side of the merge discussion one falls on, this is wildly inappropriate. S. Dean Jameson 14:56, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

There is no such thing as an "out of process" redirect. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 14:57, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

When we're in the middle of a merge discussion, that you didn't even bother to join, after a contentious AfD, that you took no part in, then yes, there ARE out-of-process redirects, Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The. You did something that you had to KNOW would be contentious, in the middle of a discussion that was not even CLOSE to being finished. S. Dean Jameson 15:00, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Discussion? If I recall correctly, you complained about the result of the AfD (which wasn't actually in your disfavor) here on ANI. When you didn't get what you wanted immediately, you "retired" from Wikipedia, saying you scrambled your password (which you clearly didn't do). Now, you come back just so you can revert a couple times and then start another ANI thread. Whatever discussion is taking place, or was taking place, on the talk page, you didn't seem interested in participating in it. -- tariqabjotu 15:13, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I posted a notice here that people were trying to "merge" the article without having consensus to do so. The closing admin made an unorthodox statement that you guys tried to spin as justification for preemptive merging, which I also felt was in bad form. I became frustrated when it appeared that some of you were simply trying to bully your way into what you wanted, and yes, I scrambled my password. I then checked back to see how the discussion was progressing, and saw that some of the deletes (as well as one guy who hadn't participated at ALL in the discussion) were at it again, trying to remove the article without consensus. I requested a new password, was given one, and here I am again. My status has nothing to do with those of you who are trying to enforce a merge/deletion without consensus, and during the middle of the merge discussion, though. Please stay on topic. S. Dean Jameson 15:43, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

We can all read what Sandstein said about the closure and it does not say what you suggest. We opened a merge request, as suggested by Sandstein, even though s/he made his/her position clear that a merge was in order; it just needed to be hashed out on the talk page. There were some new people who showed up for the new discussion, with merge again coming out on top (maybe even more so than in the AfD). I'm not sure what you're finally going to consider "consensus" and I'm not sure what you're expecting an admin to do about this anyway (we are at ANI). Unfortunately, there does not appear to be a mechanism for an outside party closing a merge request (as you have clearly demonstrated in response to Anticipation / Tony's move). And it seems to me you're not very interested in how this current "discussion" progresses, given (as I will say again, because it's relevant) you stormed out early on and because you keep pointing your finger at supposedly bad-faith (and "bully"ing) delete voters when no such voters exist. -- tariqabjotu 16:03, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Did you read his talkpage? He made it CLEAR that his statement shouldn't be used to justify an immediate merge, but as a recommendation that a discussion about doing so take place. As for what I expect an admin to do, I would hope that if people keep trying to circumvent discussion by enforcing their own will, they would be blocked for it. It's completely unacceptable. S. Dean Jameson 16:05, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Please see Be bold. Of course I've no intention of getting into a squabble over this, but as the Tim Russert article covers the events more than amply and more material can be copied from the history of the Reaction to Tim Russert's death if it's really necessary, and moreover the redirect can be reverted at any time, my edit was utterly harmless and merely acted as a polite nod in what I consider to be a productive direction. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 15:05, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Being bold has nothing to do with usurping a discussion without ever having participated in any way, shape, or form. S. Dean Jameson 15:37, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Wait, if there is an ongoing AfD discussion, how come there is no link to it at the top of the page?? --Jaysweet (talk) 16:02, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

This is not a matter for ANI; really. -- tariqabjotu 16:03, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Tariq. Listen, this is very simple: As per WP:BRD, Anticipation did nothing wrong. He boldly redirected the article. He was then reverted, now we continue the discussion on the talk page. I am not sure I agree with Horologium reverting it back two more times, after all, it is not BRRRRRRRRRRRRRD. But the edit war seems to have stopped, so let's just let it go and continue the discussion. --Jaysweet (talk) 16:05, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

No, now Tariq is contentiously blanking/redirecting the page. This HAS to stop. In the middle of a discussion ABOUT whether this should happen, people should not be taking such actions. S. Dean Jameson 16:10, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

The edit war still seems to be hot. --Allemandtando (talk) 16:10, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, when I said it had cooled off there had been no reverts in half an hour and I thought the editors had found something better to do. Urgh... --Jaysweet (talk) 16:38, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

• Now Fletcher has joined the tag-team blank/revert squad. Is this acceptable in this community? S. Dean Jameson 16:54, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Are we going to do anything about these editors tag-teaming in this way? There's no consensus for this action, yet they have worked together to enforce their position. S. Dean Jameson 16:58, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, five separate editors have attempted to merge the article, and you have reverted all of them. There was one additional revert (by Everyking (talk · contribs)), but you have reverted five editors six times on two separate days. Maybe you should take that to mean that you are not the sole arbiter of the article's suitability. Horologium (talk) 16:58, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I've offered to make a list of the editors who have opposed you. That they didn't happen to be online when you were trying to bully your way to backdoor deletion is beside the point. There's no consensus to do what you're doing.

I have S. Dean Jameson a 3RR warning. I have no comment on whether I feel there is really consensus or not to merge, but regardless of that, 3RR is not tolerated. --Jaysweet (talk) 17:00, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Which I've reverted as inappropriate, unless you warn the other editors involved in the edit war as well. S. Dean Jameson 17:03, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

You have three reverts. The next highest editor, by my count, has two reverts in the past 24 hours. If any of them reach three reverts, I will warn them too.

One reason for the 3RR rule is to prevent a single editor from disrupting a de facto consensus. The fact that three other people are reverting your changes, and nobody is reverting them, should give you pause to question whether you are in the right here. --Jaysweet (talk) 17:07, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Ouch. S. Dean, none of the other editors you have reverted (or Everyking) has three reverts on this article. But, it's okay. Jaysweet, it's not necessary; S. Dean is already aware he's pushing it. -- tariqabjotu 17:08, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

The fact that it's the "deletes" and "merges" that have a few people attempting to force their views without consensus doesn't make you any more right. No consensus equals keep. Not delete, redirect, or merge. Those are just the rules. S. Dean Jameson 17:13, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Sigh... S. Dean is now canvassing on the talk pages of some of the keep !voters. -- tariqabjotu 17:20, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Sigh all you like. You had been citing their absence from the discussion as evidence of consensus, so I am making them aware of the discussion. There's nothing wrong with that. S. Dean Jameson 17:22, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Wrong, given both the limited audience AND the inflammatory language, it's a blatant attempt at Votestacking. --Calton | Talk 17:38, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Wrong. Inviting the "keeps" to a discussion that their absence was being used as some kind of "evidence" in is not inappropriate at all. And it's not a "vote" but a discussion. I've offered MULTIPLE times to make a list of all the people who made arguments against deletion/merging. They've never taken me up on it. I simply wanted the people with opposing views to be aware that the "no consensus" AfD they participated in was being backdoored by the deletes. Nothing wrong with that. S. Dean Jameson 17:40, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Nope, everything wrong with that, your martyr act notwithstanding: you've selected only those sympathetic to your minority view -- and no matter how you spin it, it IS a minority view, at best -- AND used inflammatory language to urge them to act in exactly the way you want. That's textbook votestacking, and all the aggrieved bluster or rewriting reality won't change that. --Calton | Talk 17:45, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Nope, nothing wrong with that. I simply asked them to "participate" in the discussion, as they may not even be aware that it's happening, and their non-presence was being used as some kind of evidence. Insult me all you like, the fact remains that notifying people of a discussion doesn't equal votestacking. S. Dean Jameson 17:53, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Your characterization is spin bordering on outright falsehood. You writing, The "deletes" from the AfD on Reaction to Tim Russert's death are attempting a backdoor delete[56] is NOT simply asking them to "participate" by any stretch of the imagination, and adding meaningless clauses like "the fact is" doesn't make your falsehoods factual, given the evidence is plain to see. --Calton | Talk 18:00, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Have you taken any time at all to see how the "deletes" are "spinning" the absence of the "keeps"? Probably not. And informing those who wanted to keep the article that the deletes are backdooring the "no consensus" is simply the fair thing to do. Most probably the thought the no consensus AfD would settle it, at least for awhile. S. Dean Jameson 18:06, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Have you taken any time at all to see how the "deletes" are "spinning" the absence of the "keeps"? Probably not. - Don't make up things out of whole cloth; your odd interpretations of actual events are annoying enough. As for your loaded question, it's really hard to see what exists primarily in your imagination.

And informing those who wanted to keep the article that the deletes are backdooring the "no consensus" is simply the fair thing to do. Nooooo, that's not "informing" -- unless your personal dictionary conflates "information" with "propaganda" -- and certainly NOT a fair thing to do.

Most probably the thought the no consensus AfD would settle it, at least for awhile. - Your mindreading attempts notwithstanding, I don't know why they'd think that, considering that the AFD closer wrote, explicitly, Even though there's no consensus to delete, however, there is a consensus (or a near consensus) that this topic does not deserve an article of its own. Accordingly, I think that a selective merger of this article to Tim Russert would be an appropriate editorial consequence of this discussion.--Calton | Talk 18:18, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Why is this still being discussed on ANI? Is actual admin attention required here? --Jaysweet (talk) 18:09, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

• I've stated before, and I'll state again: if those who want the article deleted keep circumventing discussion by blanking/reverting, they should be blocked. S. Dean Jameson 18:10, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Ain't gonna happen. They have not violated 3RR. Previously uninvolved admin Friday (talk · contribs) has already indicated that there are not going to be administrative repercussions due to the redirect. --Jaysweet (talk) 18:14, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

(after E/C; response to Jameson's rant) You just don't get it, do you? There was no consensus for deletion; in that, just about everyone is in agreement. However, there was a CLEAR consensus to do something to the article, since two thirds of the people participating in the AFD wanted to either merge or delete the article. You (and one other editor) have reverted five separate editors who have attempted to merge the article into the main article, as is appropriate. There is no abuse here on the part of those attempting to merge, but you arguably should be blocked for Disruptive editing at this point. You have been told by MANY different editors that you are in the wrong here, including two who nominally supported your viewpoint at the AFD, but you are not listening. Horologium (talk) 18:19, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

As to why it's still being discussed, you might want to have a chat with Mr Vexatious Litigant, above. --Calton | Talk 18:18, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, thanks, I got that. No need to antagonize him further, okay? Thanks.

Dean, one advantage of a merge over a delete is that all of the edit history is still there for you to see -- so if a consensus should develop to restore the article, no admin assistance is necessary, you can just restore it.

One option you could look into would be to file a Request for Comment to try and get additional people involved, which might help establish consensus..? --Jaysweet (talk) 18:20, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

That is perfectly amenable to me. I just want the disruptive redirects in the middle of an open discussion to stop for now, that's all. Let's hash it out, and THEN make a decision. S. Dean Jameson 18:22, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Bluegoblin7

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Bluegoblin7 (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfas · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · socks confirmed) has been trying to have his prior failed RFA deleted via MFD and is now edit-warring on the closed MFD. Doesn't seem willing to listen to reason as evidence by the discussion at his talk page. Since he has asked me to stop posting on his talk page, I am posting here for a an uninvolved administrator to review the situation and determine what action, if any, needs to be taken. –xenocidic (talk) 15:35, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

This is not the first time we've seen general immaturity problems from this editor. He threw a similar tantrum once before, as I recall, demanding that his images be deleted. I hate to say it, but it might be best for the project if he does storm off in a huff. At any rate, he's been warned, the MFD has been protected. If he keeps stirring the pot, a block might be warranted but I have little confidence it would help. I don't see that further admin action is required, though. Friday (talk) 15:42, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, both the MFD and the RFA are now protected, so I suppose no further action is required. –xenocidic (talk) 15:43, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I could be taking a whole bunch of people to the Admin Board - as per my important notice. But cna I be botehred? No. The WMF is just a waste of my time. BG7even 15:46, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Between that important notice and the legal warning/threat he made, plus the fact that he is "retiring", an indef block might be in order. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 15:50, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

And per his request for an indefinate wikibreak enforcement. –xenocidic (talk) 15:55, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

ecOk. Well, If I wanted to, I could also take legal proceedings over my notice. But am I? No. And do you know why? Because I cannot be bothered to a) waste my time and b) stoop down to some people's levels when it is so much nicer for everyone to just come forward. I do not care to be honest. But how would you like it if:

a)you had to deal with exams

b) you were still grieving after the loss of a loved one

c) you have people trying to stop you deleting things for legitimate reasons, yet the WMF still ask for money? If you ask me, Wikipedia would have so much more space left if they decided to delete all the so-called "archives" and wouldnt have to ask for any donations for a long time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bluegoblin7 (talk • contribs) 15:57, June 26, 2008 (UTC)

OK, I dont see that Blue Goblin is understanding the whole "no legal threats" thing, and I think that the best thing for everyone, including him, would be an indef block per WP:THREAT. If in the future he wants to take the time to understand that throwing around warnings of legal action aren't acceptable if he wants to continue to edit, then we can remove the block. But until then... should be blocked now. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 16:01, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. Hes not understanding, yes. But is blocking here actually going to help? At first, I was going to support a block, but now I think someone just needs to explain things more clearly to him. — _Maggot^Syn 16:04, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Where in that were any legal threats? And actually, I do understand it. If you want to block me fine, I couldnt care less. As ive stated in several places, the WMF sucks, and I really cba any more. BG7even 16:06, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

He's requested the wikibreak enforcer be put on his account indef. I haven't gone for the indef option, just 4 days - hopefully once he takes a break he'll see things in a different light. Ryan Postlethwaite 16:07, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

We can only hope. Good call Ryan. — _Maggot^Syn 16:14, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I tried explaining it, he doesn't seem willing to listen. His argument-from-server-space is a red herring (hard drive space is cheap - its other resources the WMF needs). He just doesn't want his failed RFA on record (he admitted he is "ashamed of it") and doesn't understand archives are kept for a reason. –xenocidic (talk) 16:09, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I only meant clearer than what we've already tried. This may prove impossible though. — _Maggot^Syn 16:14, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

May be a moot point: [57] (although there are ways around it, of course)... --Jaysweet (talk) 16:19, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

My only concern was that he clearly isn't understanding whats going on. I felt it would be unfair to block indef for this. But he does need a time out. — _Maggot^Syn 16:21, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm against IRC chats about people, sure. But is that userpage necessary? I hate it when people leave in a huff, expect support and then return five minutes later. Ergh... Rudget (logs) 16:22, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm also a little baffled by why he is making a big deal out of that RfA.... I think that is the least embarrassing failed RfA I have ever seen! Most of the opposes were along the lines of, "You are doing great work, but I want to see a little more of it before we give you the mop." Damn, if I had a failed RfA like that, I'd point to it with pride! heh... --Jaysweet (talk) 16:24, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

BG7, I'm replying to you here (which I assume you're watching), as you've blanked your talkpage. A failed RFA is nothing to be ashamed of; plenty of people pass RFA after many failures (four people this month alone have passed on their third attempt). I know you're annoyed after all the hassle you've been getting about various portals – and the fact that one of our more disruptive characters was targetting you at one point – but that's not a reason to leave Wikipedia. You've a lot of valid contributions (which I why I supported you in your RFA, lest you forget); even if you don't plan to come back right away, please don't put yourself in a position where you get yourself blocked and can't ever come back. This is the eighth busiest website in the world, and because of that it works to stricter rules than some other places, but once you get used to them they're not a problem, despite what some people might say. And because we're so successful, writing articles here does something that writing on specialist sites doesn't; it means people who don't already know about the subject get to find out about it, because of what you told them; 800 people have read your National Tramway Museum article this month alone, for instance.

Regarding server space, Ryan's right; it's not server space that we need the money for, but bandwidth. Because of the nature of Wikipedia, every version of everything (even the deleted articles) has to be kept for copyright reasons, and storage really isn't the issue; that money is to pay for bandwidth to stop the annoying "freezes" you sometimes get when you try to edit (six million users a day is a lot of traffic).

If you do go, good luck, but I really hope you don't. We have a lot of bad editors (and some bad admins) but you're not one of them. (edited to add) There are ways to disable the Wikibreak enforcer; if you do want to come back & don't know them, email me and I'll either tell you how or disable it for you. – iridescent 16:26, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Resolved; see my talkpage. – iridescent 18:09, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Evidence page of an arbitration case missing

Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Homeopathy/Evidence

This case is still open, and no reason has been given for the page's sudden deletion. The Arbcom don't respond to repeated queries, so I thought it best to bring it here. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 15:42, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

The deletion log gives a reason. I don't see any problem here. Friday (talk) 15:47, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

(ec) The deletion log says "Personal information concerns. (ArbCom can still see the deleted content; please keep this deleted until they decide how to deal with the outing.". Have you tried talking to User:Dmcdevit, the admin (and former arbitrator, and checkuser and oversighter) who deleted it? Carcharoth (talk) 15:48, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Arbcom policy allows for evidence to be considered in private. _{1 != 2} 16:00, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Also, I'll note that Dmcdevit (talk · contribs) has not edited since June 3, 2008, so that probably won't work. MBisanz ^talk 16:12, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Hopefully the remainder of the evidence, that which does not contain personal information, will be restored reasonably soon... — CharlotteWebb 16:10, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

It has been about a month. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 16:39, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

There is mention here in an April comment by Dmcdevit that a non-public name had to be oversighted from the Evidence file. Maybe they need to make a policy decision as to whether some statements in the file constitute WP:OUTING or not. It seems reasonable to assume that Arbcom will not close the Homeopathy case without restoring the Evidence file. EdJohnston (talk) 16:48, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

One would think so ... but the first vote to close was made today. GRBerry 01:00, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Even though I think User:DanaUllman is a massive... whatever, the community deserves to examine the evidence that led to his ban, as well as to the discretionary sanctions placed on homeopathy-related articles. I'm dismayed that several requests on the arbitration pages and WT:RFAR have sat unacknowledged by even a clerk. Skinwalker (talk) 01:10, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

They should at least say what they intend to do. They can't be so busy that they can vote but not respond to questions like that. I suggest going to the talk pages of the arbitrators who are voting and asking them directly, but politely, and pointing them at this thread. I second Charlotte's comment: "Hopefully the remainder of the evidence, that which does not contain personal information, will be restored reasonably soon..." Failing that, there must be an explanation of why all the evidence has been deleted, and non of it restored (even copy-pasted restored after redaction, regardless of the loss of page history). Carcharoth (talk) 05:37, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Transylvania

A new(?) user is deleting referenced material, adding unreferenced information, messing up the whole infobox etc.. On the talk page a conversation started, but meanwhile the article is going through rapid changes.
What to do in a situation like that? I can't solve the situation by simply adding referenced material (which I usually do), because the infobox may contain only one information. Semi-protection does not protect against users with an account.
I'd like to ask an administrator to revert the article to the last version before Idsocol got "involved". The changes since are questionable to say the least. Squash Racket (talk) 16:40, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Squash Racket, I think it's a little bit early to discuss the issue here as long as the discussion on the talk page didn't end until now.--Olahus (talk) 18:58, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Just like the new user, you too were editing the article in an arbitrary way as the diffs above show despite having no concensus on the talk page (even keeping the changes of the new user like nothing happened). Squash Racket (talk) 23:43, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

no, no it hink that I have resolved this issue already.

Just asking: is Smith Jones an administrator closing a thread on ANI? Squash Racket (talk) 00:05, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

No, he is not. Do you feel that his closure of the thread was inappropriate? Antelan^talk 00:09, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, I got exactly zero answers for my concern mentioned above. The infobox of the article looks messy right now, referenced material disappeared, and I don't want to edit war over it. Please see the page history, you feel everything is just fine there? Squash Racket (talk) 00:30, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

User:PrisonBreakguy

Continued use of edit summaries to insult other editors. Examples: [58], [59], and [60]. After being warned about the edit summaries (by numerous editors besides myself, (although he has blanked his page repeatedly, old version here), he takes his rudeness to the warning user's talkpage instead. examples: [61] and [62] Nar Matteru (talk) 16:59, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Blocked for 48 hours for a recent, relatively minor instance of incivility: [63]; taken alone, it's not much, but upon review of their edit history and truly extraordinary number of previous warnings, it was the straw that broke the camel's back. If his behavior resumes upon the block expiring, I'd suggest going straight to indef, rather than gradually escalating blocks, as some people just don't get it, and there's no sense spending too much of our time hoping and praying that they will. --barneca (talk) 17:32, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Good block. I see you noted the need to remodel their interaction upon the block expiry at their talkpage, but without any persuasive reason (such as, "or the next block will likely be of considerably longer duration"). LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:21, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Good point, I tweaked my message. Thanks. --barneca (talk) 23:57, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Admininstrative attention needed at Lyme disease

Can I ask some uninvolved admins to look at Lyme disease and Talk:Lyme disease? A small rotation of SPA's have been pushing the unsourced theory that Lyme disease is the result of biowarfare gone awry, along with other sundry beliefs. OK, it's being handled; DGG, Antelan, SandyGeorgia, and I have been working on the article, which lost its GA rating as a result of this nonsense. Recently, though, the ringleader account, Shine a lite (talk · contribs), claimed on the talk page that a specific Lyme researcher had threatened her with death ([64]). I think this requires urgent administrative attention as a WP:BLP issue, but as I am involved in dealing with this account's POV and WP:SYN issues, I'm not comfortable handling it myself. Any input or additional eyes would be appreciated. MastCell ^Talk 21:30, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

This requires lots of eyes - unsourced claims that a living figure have made death threats should be removed immediately and on sight. I cannot stress how seriously such a matter should be taken. If they repeat the claims after warning, they should be blocked immediately. --Allemandtando (talk) 21:44, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Lots of eyes needed long term, or we're looking at another homeopathy; medical editors can deal with the content if uninvolved admins pitch in. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:45, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

checking the edits, the editor in question has been warned about the BLP concerns - if they repeat the accusation, they should be blocked immediately without the necessity for further warning. --Allemandtando (talk) 21:48, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

There is a rotation of redlinked accounts at Lyme disease. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:51, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

WP:SSP? Carcharoth (talk) 22:33, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

As a side comment, I don't think WP:BLP was needed here (the same comment should still have been removed even if it wasn't about a living person). The comment seemed to have been an aside on a talk page, not something that was being proposed to be put in the article. It is obviously unacceptable, and shouldn't be allowed anywhere near the talk page of the article about the researcher in question, but it could just have been removed from the talk page of Lyme disease as irrelevant and off-topic. As it is, more people are now aware of this allegation than would have been previously. Carcharoth (talk) 21:59, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I considered simply removing it myself. However, this editor has already launched various accusations of censorship as well as personalizing issues quite a bit. I thought that on balance it would be better to have more editors involved, rather than me being the point person not only on policy/content matters but also removing or editing her talk page posts. I've found that when you're in a content dispute and you start removing someone's talk page comments, regardless of how inappropriate, it doesn't tend to go well - even more experienced editors don't react well to it. I've gone through phases where I've tried to "enforce" the talk page guidelines by removing clearly off-topic bloggy posts, and it doesn't work - people honestly feel deep down that talk pages are a zone of complete free expression. As far as I know, BLP is the relevant policy and applies to all namespaces, including throwaway remarks about a living person on the Lyme disease talk page. MastCell ^Talk 22:16, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with MastCell; it is less than optimal for an involved editor to delete that content and deliver warnings. It will be helpful if admins uninvolved with the content can keep an eye on the article, to keep issues separate. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:28, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Don't forget to keep an eye on the researcher's article as well. I presume we are not mentioning the name, but those who have been following this know which article I mean. Carcharoth (talk) 22:32, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

If you edit under your real name or your real name is easy to work out, then you should take care when editing this article. People who oppose this viewpoint have a tendency to have mud-slung at them up and down the internet. --Allemandtando (talk) 22:37, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

It's already being slung at MastCell; anyone home ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:29, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Lyme disease controversy will also require eyes and careful monitoring. --Allemandtando (talk) 22:55, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

it seems that we are all working for them (some of us are paid, some of us are govt shills, some of work for the medical companies - take your pick) and they are busy trying to work out who editors on the article are in real life. In addition, some has suggested that If just a few people volunteered to cover certain times of the day, and learned how to go into Wiki and press the “revert to previous button”, then it would be an ongoing thing and we could keep a good version going all of the time. Also being discussed here. --Allemandtando (talk) 08:42, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

User:WhatamIdoing

I seek help with removing some personal attacks aimed at me for my off-wiki activities. On Talk:J. Michael Bailey, User:WhatamIdoing states that I "accused Bailey of incestuous child rape." My requests for her to remove this false statement went unanswered, and instead she escalated things to a BLP noticeboard posting which outlines why she thinks I am a bad person and is thus entitled to make such assertions. I responded there, but no one stepped in, and her accusations and rhetoric continue to escalate. This clearly violates Wikipedia policies. I've edited here with all kinds of people who find my off-site activism odious, from white supremacists to alternative medicine practitioners, without incident. Since User:WhatamIdoing refuses to discuss this one-on-one, I'm hoping someone can help me out. Thanks! Jokestress (talk) 21:43, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

• Let me see if I understand what you're saying. You feel you have the right to attack someone's INNOCENT CHILDREN in a extremely vile and hateful fashion and hide behind "satire" IRL, but start bleating about "personal attacks" and demand protection when someone draws attention to your reprehensible off Wikipedia behaviour on Wikipedia? If you can't take it then you shouldn't dish it out. Exxolon (talk) 01:46, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
• My research is finding some interesting things. When exactly did you decide it was acceptable to refer to someone's five year old son as a "precious womb turd"? Quite frankly there should be MORE documentation of your off wiki behaviour here if this is the sort of thing you think is okay. Exxolon (talk) 01:55, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
• I don't agree with Exxolon. While I don't presume to judge whether your real-life statement was harmful and/or tasteful, it should not influence a discussion in which you are clearly discussing the article in an impassionate, neutral manner, and addressing legitimate questions of sourcing. A person's editing should never be restricted based on a belief that they are morally reprehensible; let them be judged by their actions as editors. Dcoetzee 02:04, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm not proposing any restriction on their editing. If you read carefully they are asking for restrictions on another editor Exxolon (talk) 02:10, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
• Yet more hypocrisy. This editor has an advert/post on their site for "TransYouth Family Allies" of which they are apparantly a director which has part of it's manifesto "TYFA envisions a society free of suicide and violence in which ALL children are respected and celebrated." - unless they are the children of someone whose opinions you disagree with in which case they are fair game for whatever crap you feel like throwing at them. Exxolon (talk) 02:17, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
  • • I'm simply asking WhatamIdoing not to make things up about me, and I have asked her to remove that misinformation. And if people want to berate me for off-wiki conduct, that should probably happen off-wiki. It's disruptive here. Jokestress (talk) 04:27, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I had said here that W's behavior had turned outrageous. In followup email conversations, it becomes increasingly clear that W is unable to separate strong personal feelings from the kind of thought that is needed to be a sensible wikipedia editor. Personally, I would think a stern warning is in order; accusing a fellow editor of making libelous accusations is not much different from making legal threats. It appears that Exxolon has the same problem, or has bought into the same "facts"; I doubt that either of these individuals has even seen the actual content that they are so appalled by, but even if they have, that old event that is not documented in reliable sources is not a reason to attack a fellow editor; like Jokestress says, you don't have to like her or what she has done, but off-wiki problems should stay off. Dicklyon (talk) 05:42, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Yoshihiko

User Yoshihiko (talk · contribs) is back - see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive436#User:Yoshihiko. On 21 June he (or she) uploaded a lot of copyright images and laboriously upgraded the article IdeaPad from a factual article to a glossy advertisement. He then went on a recipe rampage, uploading a stream of recipes for Spanish fried rice, Italian Fried Rice, etc. His only response to strings of messages and appeals to stop was to blank his talk page from time to time. Eventually he was blocked for 31 hours and reverted. Now he's back working on IdeaPad again, uploading more copyright images and blanking his talk page. I have reverted it and tried again to explain, but I seriously doubt if he understands English. Can anyone think of what to do, short of an indef block? The name sounds Japanese, but another previous string of edits were to Wuzhou, so maybe Chinese? JohnCD (talk) 21:51, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I've left her (name ends in "-ko", a Japanese indication of femininity) an {{ANI-notice}} but also advised that she needs to listen to other editors. --Rodhullandemu 22:01, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I left him/her a message in Spanish. I'll try Chinese and Japanese next as that user seems to have an asian user name. Rgoodermote^{Not an admin}  21:58, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I hadn't noted the ko. I had thought it was only part of the name. So I left the user a note in three languages first common then Chinese and Japanese. Rgoodermote^{Not an admin}  22:03, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

This user should be blocked for spamming. Repeated attempts to communicate have not done anything; this might. The pages are unquestionably spam. The Evil Spartan (talk) 22:18, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. The user should be blocked. Even attempts in multiple languages has prove fruitless. This user is clearly not here to edit properly this is most evident from her lack of communication. Rgoodermote^{Not an admin}  22:21, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

• OK, she has yet again blanked her talk page and is still uploading images, and still getting copyright notices. I have blocked her indefinitely, on the basis that this does not mean "forever", but she should heed advice, and talk to us. The ball is in her court. --Rodhullandemu 22:30, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I wonder if this is a child - able to copy and paste, but with no idea how to respond to messages except by blanking them and hoping they'll go away? JohnCD (talk) 22:55, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Possible, but all she needs to do is to ask a friend "what does this mean?". I'm wondering why she's contributing here rather than ja:wiki, for example. You might think she'd be more at home there if English is not her first language. Or have I missed something? --Rodhullandemu 23:06, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I asked her to respond in the kindness way I could. I will translate all to Japanese shortly. Rgoodermote^{Not an admin}  23:09, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Nevermind, I thought my Japanese was good enough to translate that but it isn't. Can some one else? Rgoodermote^{Not an admin}  23:17, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

The most obvious conclusion here is that they're a Lenovo employee, a Chinese firm, promoting the IdeaPad. The rest is explainable by their being a newbie with limited knowledge of English. They're here because they're looking to promote to the English-speaking market. I suggest we grab a zh admin to explain conflict of interest to them. Dcoetzee 23:58, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I left a note for zh:User:Smartneddy, an established zh administrator, to point him here and see if he can help (their admin noticeboards seem to be protected at the minute). --_{tiny plastic} Grey Knight ⊖ 08:50, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Non-free image experiment

I'm having a break from admin stuff, for various reasons. But I thought it'd be an idea, during this time, to experiment to see how well our copyright policy is enforced. It was quite enlightening. I removed, per policy, a large amount of WP:NFCC-failing images from a number of articles, using a throwaway account. It is intriguing to see that a number of our users appear to believe that "consensus" (i.e. they would like to see pictures in their articles) is more important than policy. Some histories for you - most editors at articles eventually understood our policies, but one particular group appeared to believe that our policies don't apply to them; one two; three, preferring to claim that some sort of "consensus" amongst editors that edit these articles holds sway. It is unsurprising, therefore, that large numbers of featured articles fail our own policies. The question is, what are we going to do about it? Black Kite 00:33, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Your second and third link are identical. --AnotherSolipsist (talk) 01:16, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Fixed my own incompetence :) Black Kite 01:22, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

• You removed per policy 7, but that states One-article minimum. Non-free content is used in at least one article. How is that relevant? RMHED (talk) 01:56, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

• The "7" is a typo in the edit summary - see below for policies. Black Kite 06:40, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I can't find a policy specific to lists, just this guideline. RMHED (talk) 02:01, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

• Black Kite, I think you are misreading policy. Could you explain the removal of the images? Hobit (talk) 03:08, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Certainly. They fail WP:NFCC#1, WP:NFCC#3a and WP:NFCC#8. In fact there couldn't be a clearer example really, and we've been through the "non-free images in lists" thing numerous times (see below). Black Kite 06:40, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Not Kite, but speaking as an editor who was extremely involved when we actually started enforcing this in lists of x articles a little over a year ago, The image must not be decorative and must be the subject of commentary/criticism to qualify as fair use. Lists do not get in depth enough to satisfy the second part, and are by definition at that point decorative. There's a couple AN subpages dedicated solely to this, as well as myriad other pages. -M^ask? 03:58, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

If they're used for identification, then it's not just decorative. That's not to say that any image used for identification necessarily meets C#8, but this misuse of rhetoric is getting a bit out of hand. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 07:32, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

IP editor changing BCE/CE to BC/AD

Resolved

-- the bad guys have been blokked.

This may be too trivial for this board, but it doesn't fit anywhere else. 99.225.142.81 (talk · contribs) has been warned repeatedly for systematically converting BCE/CE to to BC/AD. According to the Manual of Style, "[i]t is inappropriate for a Wikipedia editor to change from one style to another unless there is some substantial reason for the change." A block may be appropriate. --AnotherSolipsist (talk) 01:11, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

• Probably best on WP:AIV, but fair point and blocked for a short time. Black Kite 01:18, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

  ...and he's back, this time as Cwyche (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). --AnotherSolipsist (talk) 01:38, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

  Blocked. Black Kite 01:47, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

WorkerBee74

Can an uninvolved admin swing by Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/WorkerBee74 and provide a resolution? A RFCU for another user revealed that it was possible WorkerBee74 (talk · contribs) and a number of IP addresses had !vote stacked on several !votes on Talk:Barack Obama that has perpetuated a general distrust of new users and lack of good faith on the article. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 04:00, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Note: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Barack Obama pages. Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:29, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Wow, that almost reads like a mini ArbCom case. Well, I think WorkerBee's possible use of IPs aren't addressed on that page. I ran some of the checks, if there are any questions I can answer please let me know. ++Lar: t/c 04:52, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Just even less effective than an ArbCom case, alas. The rampant edit warring on the article may have calmed down, but the incivility and lack of good faith on the talk page persists. Also, another Obama-related sockpupptry case could do with a resolution from an uninvolved admin. This one adds in the added interest of possibly being a ban evasion by Rex071404 (talk · contribs), aka Merecat (talk · contribs) and apparently Añoranza (talk · contribs), who may have returned as an IP address to a topic that got him an arbcom case and ultimately a ban for failing to comply with the rulings of that arbcom. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 05:28, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Some of the things WB74 has said in his own defense are worth repeating here:

My concern is that the Sprint IP addresses used to vote could just as easily have been used by Clubjuggle or Bobblehead, or anyone else on that page, to create "bad hand" accounts. It could have been Shem, SCJ, Tvoz, or any other editor. The checkuser admin himself said that there is no direct IP link between me and the IP addresses listed above, so your case is very weak. It could just as easily have been someone else's "bad hand" account.[65]

[This is] a lot like saying, "The guys who raped that white woman were black, and you're black, so we're stringing you up from this lamppost."[66]

Kossack4Truth (talk) 10:30, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Bot malfunctioning

Can someone please block User:SoxBot VII? It's adding dozens of inappropriate tags to redirects and refuses to stop. --Closedmouth (talk) 05:33, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Example: repeatedly adding uncategorized tags to redirect pages.

In at least one case the bot also edited from an IP address.--Srleffler (talk) 05:38, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

The bot's user page claims that an edit to User:SoxBot VII/Run will shut the bot down, but this does not work. The bot's owner is on vacation until the 29th.--Srleffler (talk) 05:39, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Maybe it takes a short while. It's stopped for now. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 05:41, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Blocked. Anyone can unblock at any time if they are happy it is fixed. Viridae^Talk 05:43, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Whew. It's a bit scary when they do that. --Closedmouth (talk) 05:51, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Plagiarism software

Does anyone know of a good free plagiarism software program? I haven't been able to find anything on the net, and as we have a user who has detected multiple episodes of plagiarism in articles submitted to DYK, that project is effectively at a standstill until the regular updaters are able to find an effective way of detecting plagiarism. Thanks! Gatoclass (talk) 07:47, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Pick random sentences and google (thats what turnitin does effectively). Also compare sources to sentences. Viridae^Talk 07:55, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I see the user who was picking up the plagiarism has just retired from Wikipedia after I threatened to take him to AN/I for breaches of wp:civil. So I guess it's "business as usual" at DYK for the time being. However, I think the user in question raised some legitimate concerns about plagiarism, and I'd still like to get hold of some free software if anyone knows of any. Thanks, Gatoclass (talk) 08:01, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Just one last point to be clear: you threatened me for finding plagiarisms, and that was the threat: you would and will accuse me of anything in order to stop my pointing out the dreadful state of this project. You don't want to hear it, or know it. You would rather spend your time and efforts finding something against me than working to find the plagiarisms. I'm not leaving because I'm worried about an incivility accusations, what could be more incivil then be found guilty of claiming another's work as your own and then passing out rewards for it? I'm leaving because Wikipedia honors copying from others and claiming it as Wikipedia's own.

I just found out about the Triple Crown award. I told you there was a reward for DYK. It's very obvious to an outsider that this is the result of a frantic contest, a quest for prizes, not quality. Do you want to guess how many plagiarisms I found in Triple Crown Award winners so far? And, interesting enough, not just in DYKs. a couple in GAs. So, at least you're in good company on Wikipedia.

You don't need software to find plagiarisms, you need English language reading skills and familiarity with encyclopedias. I write lay articles on technical subjects for a living. I read encyclopedia articles and similar articles in journals and books that are on technical subjects for a general audience as part of my job. After the first dozen or more DYK plagiarisms that I spotted, I just started picking them out, left and right. The first ones I found I knew instantly they were plagiarized. I only found two articles that I didn't think had plagiarisms in them, and these in the last 24-48 hours, and they both held up to a quick scrutiny. Every other article I reviewed may have taken some time, but it wasn't really that hard. Just time to find where the lines were copied and pasted from. It's so obvious anyone who spent any time learning the skill of writing can find them. And, you have some more waiting in the queue.

It's not a threat of my incivility, it's a threat to me that if I keep bringing up the problems I will be banned--effectively that is a ban, because I can write, and I find it disgusting that someone would take the work of another, claim it as their own, then show it off for a cyberspace reward to their assumed name.

--Blechnic (talk) 08:26, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Blechnic, if you are feeling threatened, then please feel free to email details of plagiarism you have found to myself or any other administrator. Neıl 龱 09:27, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

It's fucking shameful is what it is - I'd suggest that if people think they aren't get a response when they detect plagiarism, then they inform the people being ripped off - once they start hammering on the foundation's door - people will be less inclined to look the other way. --Allemandtando (talk) 09:38, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

For what is is worth, a lot of discussion has taken place recently at Wikipedia talk:Plagiarism, prompted by Blechnic's earlier threads about plagiarism, which Gatoclass may not have been aware of. I would encourage people to participate in that discussion. Carcharoth (talk) 09:34, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

User requesting block of itself?

Resolved

 – no biggie :) - Alison ^❤ 09:32, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

User:65.210.117.93 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). Anybody an idea why the IP is marking its own host as being an open proxy? I can't see any abuse from this host so far, and it's not actually blocked. --PaterMcFly (talk) 09:22, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, it is an open proxy and it's now been blocked by another admin. Chances are, the edit was made by someone who was testing to see if it was open. Some admins on here do that. It's no biggie, so don't worry about it - Alison ^❤ 09:24, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm not at all worried about it, I was only confused, because in general, IP's are blocked because they use open proxies in an abusive way. They won't usually report themselves for a potential abuse. Never mind. --PaterMcFly (talk) 09:30, 27 June 2008 (UTC)