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 mcjakeqool's block was unfair and disproportionate

Resolved

 – mcjakeqcool blocked indef until he can demonstrate editing competency on his own, very ducky IP sheds light and is also blocked for block evasion

I am rasing the concern that User mcjakeqcool's block was unfair and disproportionate, and it should be investigated by Wikipedia Administrators noticeboard/Incidents. In my opinion the biggest flaw was not letting User mcjakeqcool have his/her say at Wikipedia Administrators noticeboard/Incidents, I have other concerns but I am not certain they are appropriate for Wikipedia Administrators noticeboard/Incidents. Also may I state that I have taken on board the unsolicited comments User Guyinblack25 has made on User mcjakeqcool's talk page, and I have taken on board what he/she has said or typed to be more acuate and I will work from NOW on with User Guyinblack25 and other users & may I state I have already worked with him. As I said above, the block was unfair & disproportionate, User mcjakeqcool should have had his/her say & finally I am working with user User Guyinblack25 other users, aswell as already doing so. mcjakeqcool Mcjakeqcool (talk) 17:37, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Are you seriously referring to yourself in the third person? Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 17:42, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

The block has expired. Learn from it and move on. Under Preferences > Editing there is a box marked "mark all edits minor by default". Make sure it is unchecked, that way you will have to fill in the check box to mark an edit as minor. If you forget to do that when making a minor edit no harm will be done. Mjroots (talk) 17:47, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

And yet, every edit, including this complaint is still being marked as minor. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 18:06, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Jauerback - yes, he pretty much always refers to himself in the third person. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:11, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

McJ - as far as I can see you've never 'worked with' GuyinBlack, or me, or Tim Song, or anyone else who has offered to help you. Could you define what you mean by 'work with'?--Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:14, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

IIRC there was substantial support for indef at the last thread, but I was of the view that Tan's one-week block might have some effect so as to avoid the need for indef. I think it is now apparent that he has no intention to follow WP norms, even after Guyinblack's detailed explanation on his talk page, and after Tan's warning that continuing his behavior may result in an indef block. As such, per Tan et al. and my comments on his talk page here, I'd support an indef block. Four ANI threads later, his presence is still not a net positive. Tim Song (talk) 20:04, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Uh, Mcj, it was the folks at WP:AN/I who imposed this ban on you. Any reasonable person would assume that any investigation by WP:AN/I will simply confirm that decision -- especially with the lack of evidence you have supplied to show that this decision was "unfair and disproportionate". (see this archived thread for further details.) -- llywrch (talk) 20:11, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

As I said on his talk page, McJackqcool has obviously learned nothing and refuses to edit according to how the community wishes, as such he's left us little choice. I support an indef.--Crossmr (talk) 21:36, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I would have to agree with those above who find Mcjakeqcool's actions bothersome. They have received multiple warnings and comments on his talk page to not mark non-minor edits as such and even received a one week block of editing privileges for it. What is the first thing Mcjakeqcool does when the block is lifted? Create a new section here at ANI and marks it minor. This is the fourth ANI discussion about this editor (admittedly, they opened it on themselves this time.) Mcjakeqcool does not get it, does not listen, does not cooperate. This has gone on too long. I'd support an indef block of editing privileges. --TreyGeek (talk) 12:09, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

The only reason I haven't opened a thread to discuss a community ban about this user is that maybe he is actually working with Guyinblack. (It's what Mcj claims on his talk page.) So the moment Guyinblack reports here that mentoring Mcjakeqcool failed -- or he has not even heard from this alleged Brit rapper -- we should take that step. -- llywrch (talk) 16:48, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I've asked Guyinblack if he cares to comment. Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:27, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I must admit, I'm a bit confused by Mcjakeqcool's comments. My communication with them has been very minimal. Though I've posted comments to their talk page, I have only gotten two responses back: first to "deny" adoption, and second to enlist my help. However, Mcjakeqcool have never come to me after that for help on articles or discussions.

So I can't say that we've ever worked together. Not like how I regularly do with WP:VG members. I would welcome a collaboration with Mcjakeqcool, but no such discussion has occurred on or off the Wiki to lead to that.

The only conclusions that come to mind are:

1. This user is not a fluent English speaker and has a limited and different understanding of many English words used here.
2. This user is just trying see what havoc they can cause and attention they can get.

I hope it's the first one. Either way, not being able to communicate with someone because they are unable to or unwilling to gives us few options. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 19:51, 30 October 2009 (UTC))

Agreed. But I'd rather exhaust all reasonable options before we resort to a community ban. The grounds for one would be, to put it bluntly, he's too stupid to edit Wikipedia. We should use that rationale as rarely as possible due to endless opportunities for misuse. -- llywrch (talk) 21:36, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't use the term "stupid" but WP:COMPETENCE is sometimes cited with certain editors. A person who is absolutely brilliant but can't type well enough to be understood, or a person whose poor grasp of the English language precludes any positive contributions to the project are examples of people who aren't stupid at all but are still incapable of properly editing the encyclopedia. It's seems cruel but just because anyone can edit the encyclopedia, that doesn't mean everyone should. -- Atama頭 23:20, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

We've exhausted all reasonable options at this point. He's been blocked twice, he's had several editors reach out to him, his behaviour is evident elsewhere on the internet as I pointed out before and goes well beyond wikipedia. Wikipedia isn't reform school. The only willingness he's shown to "work" with the community is when facing an indefinite ban and so far that has proven rather fruitless. I cannot see any compelling reason to keep beating our head against the wall here.--Crossmr (talk) 00:30, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) According to off-wiki sources, McJ is born and raised in the UK. Now we do have a few communities where children are raised in a native language and start school without a full grasp of English, but McJ doesn't appear to belong to one of these communities. This is what McJ says himself about his grasp of english: I can speak in english, however I can only speak politically correct jargon, think of a MP and the houses of parlament, medical communication, police delacet etc. And also I do have poor english skills, and I am not reluctant to admit my english teacher gave me a F- in english. Also this is wikipeida, so we are MEANT to speak in jargon! This was in response to Chocobogamer and myself both asking him what this meant: I have seen proof that it exists with my own eyes, however I still it's existence and it is therefore orignal research In reply, he copied the text, and reposted it below our queries, as if we hadn't heard him. If you try saying his comments, and imagine a dub beat of some kind behind them, you can almost hear him speaking, so I think it's fair to say that his problems aren't just because he is being asked to use written English -he may be hard to follow when he is talking as well.

For me, he is more a nuisance than disruptive. Even the thing about the minor edits is just a nuisance - he never actually says anything on talk pages that make much sense. As I said before, he made a mistake a year ago about minor edits [1] and promised at that point to do it properly [2], but for some reason when he made the error more recently, he decided that he was right and Wikipedia was wrong. Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:15, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Which is the rub. There have been a few people who make good faith edits, yet just not capable of contributing to Wikipedia. We shouldn't ban them unless we are sure we are doing the right thing. -- llywrch (talk) 05:46, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

But once again, wikipedia is not reform school. If he is incapable of editing and yet persists, then there is little choice. He shouldn't be banned, he should be blocked. If at some future point he can demonstrate that he can write an article or contribute positively, then he can be unblocked. Beyond his nonsensical talk comments, he has had issues with article creation and other main space problems. So long as that is an issue and he fails to recognize what is wrong, we can't force him to edit properly. I don't think anyone expects Elen to go to his house and stand behind him and watch him edit and barring that, I can't see how we're going to make a change here.--Crossmr (talk) 06:40, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I think I'll pass on that. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:24, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Blocked

I've read the discussion above and the recent contributions of Mcjakeqcool (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), and agree that the lack of quality in his contributions, which mostly create cleanup work for others or are meaningless talk page comments, is a serious concern. I'm blocking the user indefinitely until he can prove to an administrator's satisfaction that he is competent enough to contribute productively to Wikipedia.  Sandstein  07:29, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

He has requested an unblock[3], but added the request to that interminable blog of his at the top of the page, instead of using the unblock template - which he previously used correctly (ie he managed to add it to it to the page with the words he wanted to say in the proper place) but unsuccessfully (because he never gave a reason why he should be unblocked). --Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:39, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Which is, of course, part of the problem. I've never liked WP:COMPETENCE for a number of reasons, but Mcjakeqcool is practically a walking advertisement for it. NYScholar (talk · contribs) was indef blocked for being systematically incapable of following the norms of interaction here IIRC and he was a far more productive contributor. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:52, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Good block. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 13:54, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

To the best of my knowledge, Sandstein has not been involved in this matter previously, & his block is the judgment of a disinterested party. In other words, a decision has been made & the matter resolved. If Mcjakeqcool wants to be an accepted member of Wikipedia, he's got some larnin' to do. -- llywrch (talk) 20:27, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I am of the opinion that User mcjakeqcool, should be unblocked, ONLY if he can follow wikipeida guidelines. 86.21.66.162 (talk) 12:52, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

He has posted another unblock request [4] It is addressed to me, and in that wretched blog. This is what it says

I have decided that if I am to be unblocked, to some exstent I have to change my tactics, I will seldem argue against wikipedia and when I do it will be in a professional manner, I am going to create a restraint order, which will NEVER allow me to mark any wikipedia edit as minor, article space or talk page and I will take a english course of some kind, however I can not promise good english as my english is very poor, I can speak english fluently but my gramma is not far off abysmal. mcjakeqcool Mcjakeqcool (talk) 17:24, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Would an admin like to look at it? Should I post it into an unblock template for him (I have a feeling that will bugger the template up and the admins will think it is me making the request). Should I take up Crossmr's suggestion and stand over him until he gets it right? I feel involved because it's addressed directly to me. Advice would be appreciated. Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:23, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

He's been told what he needs to do. He's not a child. If he cannot (or will not) follow simple directions, nobody else should help him and we should just leave him be. He's not the first and won't be the last editor who demands that we change the entire encyclopedia for their ego, so I say ignore him and move on. He's not worth the energy and in my mind, further help just tells him he doesn't have to follow any rules to get what he wants because someone will always be there to follow him around. Besides, he's acting like it's some sort of negotiation where if he promises to do one thing, we'll get the benefit of his help here, not that he'll do what's needed to continue the privilege of editing here. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:25, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree, while he's amazingly not marked those two edits as minor, he has continued his ability to create more work for other editors as it necessitated elen posting here, or creating the unblock request for him. Unless he can demonstrate, completely on his own that he is a competent editor, I can't see the point of spending any further time here.--Crossmr (talk) 01:22, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I feel because User mcjakeqcool has changed his tactics in a postaive way, he should be unblocked. 217.204.11.196 (talk) 16:22, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi Jake. HalfShadow (talk) 16:24, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

WHAT?! 217.204.11.196 (talk) 16:25, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

A geolocate lookup assigns the IP address 217.204.11.196 to the National Autistic Society in London, England. If this actually Mcjakeqcool, that would explain a lot. Doesn't excuse his behavior, though. -- llywrch (talk) 17:00, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Edits aren't consistent with Mcj - for one thing this editor identifies and corrects typos and poor spelling. Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:18, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure what you are talking about, Elen; this IP has not edited in more than a month before suddenly coming out of nowhere to defend McJ. The old edits are of very limited value here, as this is probably a shared IP address. No, this is most likely a sock. The ducks are quacking loudly. Tim Song (talk) 01:26, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Tactics gives it away.--Crossmr (talk) 12:51, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

D'OH! Should have spotted that the first post here has a typical McJ spelling error. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:52, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

No comment. User mcjakeqcool should still be unblocked though. 217.204.11.196 (talk) 15:56, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

and that more or less cements it. I don't even think a CU would be needed at this point. The IP should be blocked for a week for block evasion.--Crossmr (talk) 21:36, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Done. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 21:42, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

If you guys want another neutral, uninterested admin to process that "unblock" request above, I'll be happy to do it and take whatever flak comes as a result. Given the history on this guy, that unblock reason is not even close to adequate to show that the user will not continue to be troublesome once he's unblocked. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 20:11, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I for one would appreciate that. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:50, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I've interacted with MJC, notably when I patched up an article he created, and I was involved with the 2nd ANI thread. Back at that thread, I proposed a course of action which was adopted, designed to mend MJC's ways before resorting to indef. I also said, though, that if he showed no sign of improvement, I would support indef. MJC, I think, has not generally been out to cause trouble (though the whole minor-edit thing does seem disruptive), but his edits on the whole have been counter-productive as demonstrated. MJC does not seem to have the ability to be a productive Wikipedian. I support indef, but it's right we leave the door open for him to appeal in the future when he might be more suited to editing correctly. HonouraryMix (talk) 23:38, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

User:7107delicious - seeking attention

I'm sure that 7107delicious (talk · contribs) has nothing but the best intentions leaving unwarranted username warnings, "clerk" notes, and now oversighted messages on Jimbo's talk page, but perhaps they could use a mentor? They are apparently the same user as "retired" RuleOfThe9th (talk · contribs). Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 12:08, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

The user name warning appears to be a good faith edit - possible suggestion of paedophilic tendencies. Agree re the clerk note though. That template should not be used by anyone except clerks. Mjroots (talk) 12:16, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

(interjecting) No, what 7107delicious said is that "Kidshare" "matches the name 'Rapidshare', which is a promotional username". Given that "share" is a common word, this comment doesn't make sense. —Finell (Talk) 17:56, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I took off the bad use of template from User talk:Kidshare (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:40, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Another unusual behavior of User:7107delicious is that this user's displayed signature does not in any way resemble the actual user name and this user changes the displayed signature frequently. This, in effect, disguises who is posting and also makes it appear that the posts with different signatures are by different users. However, I have not seen this user use different signatures in the same discussion, which would be a new form of socking. —Finell (Talk) 17:56, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

You have never read the username change request page. On there, it specifically recommends changing one's signature in lieu of changing a username: "As an alternative, please consider changing your signature. This will change your "public appearance" on talk pages and other places where you sign your username with ~~~~." In situations such as votes in an AfD, an Admin would look carefully at the sig links. Pretending to garner consensus through multiple sigs (making it look like more people) would be bad. Some links to where this might have happened would be beneficial. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 18:03, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

But to change it so often? Why? Also, I specifically said above, "I have not seen this user use different signatures in the same discussion", so I don't understand your request for diffs. —Finell (Talk) 18:31, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I tend to WP:AGF, so let them "personalize", as long as they don't disrupt. My comment about posting diff's refers to "if you ever actually see a violation in the future". Sorry if it was not clear. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 18:40, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I asked 7107 recently [5] about this and he did say he thought he'd settled on something he liked. Kidshare could potentially be a promotional username [6] [7] [8] [9], so a little more AGF wouldn't go amiss. Also 7107 reported here Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive573#It.27s_User:Mikhailov_Kusserow_up_to_the_case_again. that he was having problems with a user who appears to be definitely bad faith templating editors (sticking on half a dozen vandalism templates without any vandalism reverts......what's going on there then?) Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:45, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

OK. I did not say that 7107 did anything in bad faith. Again, I explicitly said in my first post here, "I have not seen this user use different signatures in the same discussion". Nevertheless, I'm satisfied, and I'm done with this issue. —Finell (Talk) 19:07, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, my mistake. You certainly didn't. Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:20, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

That's OK, thanks. —Finell (Talk) 19:27, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

The user changed their name, and deleted the userpage at the old name, because they wanted to move away from a warning template on their page. (See their edit history for the conversation. ) I don't think they'll accept mentoring, but someone could try. Remember Civility (talk) 22:24, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

No, I was only changing due to the fact that I can't seem to change my username. Again, the username is less frequently changed. And would you explain why your thoughts are thinking of incivility and WP:SOCK? I have never stated that I expected this account for any disruptive contributions, or for any incivilitized activities. Do you guys mean that I am following the bad faith duites of Mikhailov Kusserow?--One moment, Reciever | Thank you for your instructions. 12:30, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

• Ok, ok, ok, so I see that this all began with WP:CHU, the Kidshare issue, and my signature. First off, what's a clerk? If anyone joins a CHU discussion, other than a 'crat, who could that be? Next off, I just took a look at the link, and I see that this username (Kidshare) is something from an educational link. Thank you for the help, but why should the template be removed? I am concerned of the username given. And, to finish today's "script", I liked unique signatures. Then what signatures should I use? 7107delicious|Spricht mit mir?--One moment, Reciever | Thank you for your instructions. 12:46, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for the angry-expressed posting, BTW.--One moment, Reciever | Thank you for your instructions. 12:50, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

WP:CHU is not a discussion - unlike say ... where we are now. CHU is the technical process. A Clerk is someone (usually an admin) who understands the related policies and has volunteered/been assigned the task of pre-vetting the requests for completeness, etc. A Bureaucrat then performs the actions. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:59, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. --One moment, Reciever | Thank you for your instructions. 14:17, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I just picked a few recent examples, but there are plenty more where those came from. They have now declared Das Sicherheit (talk · contribs) as an alternate account but it has no contributions yet. They also appear to be connected to 202.47.69.212 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) which is a school IP. If I wasn't brimming over with good faith, I'd suggest blocking the IP for persistent vandalism with account creation disabled and being done with it. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:27, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

No, I am not using Das Sicherheit (in which I am currently logged on) for sockpuppetry activities. I have never used this IP for a single month. And I am not committing to sockpuppetry.--Das Sicherheit ^{SPRICHT MIT MIR, ODER...} 02:34, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

FWIW user 7107delicious has been above board with his changing of accounts, and his asking permission for a new account. Hopefully he will stick with his latest signature, as it is getting a tad confusing... LOL! Anyway, I have had a fair few interactions with the user over the past couple of months (both old account and new), and my general opinion is of someone who is very keen to support Wikipedia, but a bit too keen to respond to others on someone elses talk page (which is why I think Mikhailov Kusserow responded the way he did). With a bit of nudging in the right direction when required, he will make for a fine editor. Stephen! ^Coming...

After posting a notice that they are on "wikibreak" until 15 December, they subsequently left some a note for a newly banned user which doesn't seem very helpful. When does the "nudging" begin? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:22, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I've just looked back over the edits of the user since he went on this wikibreak. It looks very much like he is still adding comments to people's talk pages which might not be adding value. I did talk to him about it a while ago, but I suspect that a bit of reigning in on his edits on peoples talk pages wouldn't go amiss. I am not sure of the motivation behind some of his edits are, in particular this one. At a guess, I would say that he is trying to behave like an admin, to prove that he is ready for the mop (his recent application did not succeed). Unfortunately, he appears to be stepping on toes rather than getting on with the job of proving himself. Also, the disparity with the notices on his user page and what he is actually doing does appear to be causing concern.

If anyone has any ideas as to how he can be nudged in the right direction, please suggest it! Stephen! ^Coming... 17:20, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Still adding "clerk" notes despite the earlier discussion. Just block the accounts and school IP already... Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:39, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, seeing as he hasn't been given any warning (other than general cautions), I would say that is a bit harsh. I would like to hear his explanation as to why he is adding comments that amount to little more than "I agree" and add no value whatsoever. I did drop a note last night on his talk page asking him to come back to this discussion. Hopefully he will (although I recognise that the clerk notes happened after I dropped the note). I'm still holding out on WP:AGF to explain his edits! Stephen! ^Coming... 09:42, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

First off, I must ask you guys. Should I be an administrator to be a clerk on WP:CHU? And second of all, I decided to call my Wikibreak off (again, I did this on my old account), since I can't seem to take my mind of Wikipedia. As for you, Delicious carbuncle, why block both of my accounts? Am I using Das Sicherheit (talk · contribs) absuviely, and that I am a sockpuppeter and must be blocked?

Back to the topic. I just edited Indonesian National Police and some Indonesian articles, and went back to the general discussions of Wikipedia-related articles. And I apologize, but I had a blackout last night and couldn't seem to respond to your discussions, and to explain my previous edits.----_{Boeing7107isdelicious|Sprich mit meine Piloten} 10:03, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

See WP:ADMIN for info on being an admin. You will need an good understanding of wikipolicy, and even from the posts you made at WP:CHU you have a long way to go. Based on the fact that you only have about 140 edits, you have a real long way to go. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:52, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Sure I am. Infact, I only made 362 (to say the least) edits, not 140, in these times. However, I am currently active in the Indonesian Wikipedia, which unfortunately will affect my work on enwiki.----_{Boeing7107isdelicious|Sprich mit meine Piloten} 09:26, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Suspected Bambifan sock

Please see Scratte Lover (talk · contribs), I'm not quite sure this fits the exact pattern however it does seem suspicious. Triplestop x3 22:27, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Not an admin, but I'm curious as to how exactly you can discern a pattern from two mainspace edits, one of which was reverted and marked wrongly as vandalism, and one which appears to have simply been a name correction and can be easily verified (I know IMDB doesn't qualify as WP:RS, but I checked it there...and the edit was accurate). I'm going to ask that an admin close this as no issue. Also, I've left a note at the talk page of the user who marked this user's first edit as vandalism about "biting" newcomers, and asking for an explanation about why they marked that edit as vandalism. Frmatt (talk) 23:48, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Nothing biting about it. Pure vandalism. Either from Bambifan, or the pain in the butt sequel vandal who has repeatedly thrown a ton of fake and incorrect sequel claims on a ton of these b-movie articles. As noted below, I suspect more Bambifan just trying to be annoying. Further reply on my talk page. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 23:54, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

There is already a new SPI checkuser being done. That one I'm less sure of if he is Bambifan or the sequel vandal User:A4d49f4a, but from his creating Scatte and his name, I'm inclined towards the former. Unfortunately, one of Bambifan's fun ways to try to get my attention is repeating another vandals vandalism. The CU will help clear which it is. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 23:54, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, the bad grammar fits BF101's pattern well as well. Triplestop x3 00:01, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

On a semi-related note, Pe De Chinelo is back, too. Crotchety Old Man (talk) 00:03, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I have left an apology for User:Collectonian on their talk page because I didn't notify them that I mentioned them here. Frmatt (talk) 00:08, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

So that's his name!!! He's been driving us nuts at Green Mile and Shawshank too! Already had like 2 IPs blocked today-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 00:12, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I left a note at User_talk:Tiptoety. He/she's been good at swatting all the socks. Crotchety Old Man (talk) 00:14, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately I think Tiptoety has retired; he last edited in August. -- Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 02:09, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

To Frmatt - It's amazing how easily some administrators can identify a sockpuppet after they've blocked so many of them in the past. I suppose that when you see so many of them what may not be apparent to people like us would be obvious to them. -- Atama頭 02:12, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Tiptoety went on a wikibreak shortly after his application for checkuser failed. (Sorry, I've no idea whether these two events are related, or whether he intends returning, I just recall the event). Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:17, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Severe Wikihounding and Disruptive Editing by Arthur Rubin

I first crossed paths with Arthur Rubin on October 30th while making my first ever edit to the page on New World Order Conspiracy Theory at 19:00 Oct 30 Diff1. My attempted contribution was simply to add an entry to the book list, Windswept House, and this included a wiki link to the book title as well as the ISBN number, and I left an edit summary that reads, "addition of one of the most well-known and important books on this topic that is strangely absent." A mere four minutes later at 19:04 on Oct 30, Arthur Rubin reverted my edit, and rather than asking for more information (which I would have been happy to provide) or stating a valid reason, he identified it as vandalism, and marked his revert as a "minor edit", Diff2. A mere three minutes after this at 19:07, Arthur Rubin visited the page on "faction (literature)" and reverted a change I made, a page where he had again no previous editing experience faction (literature) Diff3. I had changed the page on "faction" to redirect to the page on "roman a clef" because I believe the literary device of faction is equivalent to that used in a roman a clef and the second page was more developed, with "roman a clef" being the much more well-known term. Arthur Rubin notated his edit summary, identifying it as vandalism and marking it as a "minor edit." A mere one minute after this at 19:08, Arthur Rubin did a batch reversion of my contributions at the "roman à clef" page, another page where Arthur Rubin had no previous editing experience Diff4. He removed the aforementioned book from the book list, and removed the term "faction" that I had added to the page as a related term. Rather than give reasons for his edits or requesting talk on the discussion page, he marked his reversions as "minor edits" and identified my contributions as "vandalism" in the edit summary. A mere one minute after this at 19:09, Arthur Rubin did a batch reversion of edits I made to a recently created and rather undeveloped Wiki page for Windswept House, a page where Arthur Rubin again had no previous editing contribution Diff5. His edit summary stated that, "Changes appear not to be helpful." For example, one these changes I made was a conspicuous correction of a spelling error for a character in the book, "Maestroianni". Another change I made that he deleted was a switch of the descriptor of "Irish writer" for the author and substitution of "Catholic priest", since he was actually a U.S. citizen and lived and did all of his writing in the U.S. during the last 35 years of his life, and this "roman a clef" book was about the Catholic Church's role in a New World Order Conspiracy. He made no other edits to the page except to revert "my" contributions.

I'd like to point out the timespan over which all of the above occurred. It occurred apparently over a span of around 9 minutes. I posted a simple addition of a book to a list on the New World Order Conspiracy page, not exactly something that should cause alarm, and over the course of the next nine minutes, Arthur Rubin not only reverted this edit and labelled it as vandalism, but hounded me by visiting multiple other pages I had contributed to where he had no previous editing experience and did batch reversions of my contributions calling them also vandalism or "not helpful", even if it included the fixing of spelling errors.

I did make limited attempts to undo the reverts that Arthur Rubin made to most of my edits, as can be seen in the history of the aforementioned pages after October 30. For convenience, my attempts to undo his reverts can be seen on one screen at my user contribution page. If you take a look at the history page for faction (literature), you can see where Arthur Rubin initially reverted my edit and labelled it as vandalism. This was followed by my undo of his revert with an explanation to him that it wasn't vandalism coupled with a request for him to open discussion on the talk page if he had other reasons to revert my edit. Rather than do this, Arthur Rubin again reverted, and again labelled it as "vandalism" calling his revert a "minor edit." When reverts are labelled as "minor edits" for vandalism, I believe this keeps other editors from bothering to investigate when they have pages in their watch list.

I have made efforts to reconcile this directly with Arthur Rubin on his talk page, and also included multiple warnings in edit summaries as can be seen in my contribution page after October 30. Despite this, Arthur Rubin continues to block and frustrate any attempted contribution I try to make to any page, and he'll make successive excuses to keep me from contributing to any page. If you look at the history page for roman à clef, you'll note that Arthur Rubin made three reverts of my contributions that included my inclusion of the book "Windswept House" to the list of roman à clef books. The first time he called it vandalism(1). The second time he called "Windswept House" a "film" even though it's a book, and this was after he reverted multiple edits of mine on the Wikipedia page for this book (2)! The third time, on November 2, he took out the book again and noted in his edit summary that, "still NOT notable."

After all this, Arthur Rubin also posted warnings to my talk page telling me I was coming close to violating the 3RR rule. Notice of this complaint has been posted to Arthur Rubin's talk page. MeSoStupid (talk) 01:02, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

It would be more impressive if you had made a correct, constructive, edit. Perhaps we could have a discussion on the relevant talk page, noting that WP:BRD suggestion you should not reinsert your preferred version until you obtain consensus. Windswept House is not very notable, whatever medium it's in, and is clearly not appropriate to any New World Order article. Whether Windswept House fits Roman a clef and/or faction is a separate question, but it's not particularly relevant to either article.

It might be noted that your addition of Windswept House to New World Order (conspiracy theory) was removed by two or three established editors.

Some of your edits to Windswept House may have been appropriate, but it seems clear that none of your other edits in the field have been appropriate. To the extent that your edits were corrections of errors in fact, I apologize for reverting them. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:24, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I have previously suggested to Arthur Rubin that the use of the word "vandalism" in edit summaries and reversions for edits that are not clear vandalism is more harmful than helpful. I'm disappointed to see that it continues.

(I'd also suggest to User:MeSoStupid that his concerns are more likely to be addressed if they're described a bit more concisely. :) ) kmccoy (talk) 02:10, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

What kmccoy said. I also happened to notice Rubin's rather inflammatory blanket use of the term 'vandalism' in edit summaries, and have left a message with a few diffs where I hope he can see for himself that he's been using the term inappropriately although the underlying edit may be supported by one of our policies and guidelines. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 04:05, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I feel no need to post a rejoinder to Arthur Rubin's response. I'd only like stress that I believe my particular case extends beyond inappropriate use of tagging good faith edits as vandalism, and into the realm of Wikihounding and Disruptive editing. MeSoStupid (talk) 04:45, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I can see why you as a new user might be taking it personally, but what he did is not hounding or disruptive so far. Please focus on editing - if you make good content edits nobody will be bothering you about it. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 05:18, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for responding. In my opinion, it's a clear case of Wikihounding, and the core summary of my complaint as to this can be found in the second paragraph of my original complaint, with the tedious details and proof noted above and below this. Thanks. MeSoStupid (talk) 05:30, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I respect how you feel about this, but as I said, I don't think his actions rise to that level. Could he have handled this better? Sure. But it's not the sort of thing we typically sanction anyone for.

You have had feedback on the issues with your edits, and I think that you can succeed at editing articles going forwards if you listen to the good advise above and try to focus on content. That's what the encyclopedia is all about, after all. Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 06:54, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm a littled bit bothered, georgewilliamherbert, by your suggestive comment in this context that "if you make good content edits nobody will be bothering you about it", as if the real problem is with quality of my editing, and if I had simply made good edits in the first place Arthur Rubin would have never bothered me. That's not what the problem is here, and even if my good faith edits were poor in quality, which they're not, it would have no effect on the abusive pattern of behavior I outlined above. In my opinion, you're coloring this dispute in a fashion that it should not be colored, and then based on this false coloring suggesting that this isn't the type of behavior that's usually sanctioned, which is false. I've been looking at case histories. I'm not going to take the bait and fall into the trap of letting this turn into a quality of contribution dispute. That's not why I'm here. MeSoStupid (talk) 07:49, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

In your last edit here, georgewilliamherbert, you noted your edit summary as "redirect towards content. we're an encyclopedia 8-)." This isn't a venue for arguments over content. This is a forum to report abuse. If you want to contribute your opinions as to the quality of my edits, feel free to voice your opinion on the relevant talk pages; I look forward to your contributions. Thanks. MeSoStupid (talk) 07:56, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

WP:TLDR. But from what I can read, it's a simple case of a disputed edit from a new wiki account being reverted (which is okay) zealously by an editor who is on article patrol (which is common) with an unfriendly edit summary accusing the edit of being vandalism (not okay, but also common). It looks like Arthur Rubin was engaging in what some editors consider vandalism fighting... a fairly thankless task of patrolling the encyclopedia looking for problem edits and simply reverting them. Most of the time that's just fine, and they pick up where the bots leave off. Occasionally, as here, in their hurry they flag a good faith edit as vandalism. Perhaps he's using a semi-automated tool or something. It's also fairly normal, common, and desirable, for people when they see what they consider a bad edit from a new account, to check in and if necessary correct the other things they've been doing. That's not hounding, it's only common sense. Problem edits often are made in groups. When you see a new account adding a book to a list of references, then edit warring over it, it's fairly normal to suspect the person is spamming or on some other kind of agenda. The best thing is for Arthur Rubin to slow down a bit and avoid calling things vandalism, and for the OP, MeSoStupid, to calmly explain the edits and be ready to talk. Escalating with this long thread, and the indignation over people who are commenting here, is not going to make matters any better. How about just hitting the reset button, engaging Arthur Rubin politely, then moving on? - Wikidemon (talk) 15:28, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

You write above, "When you see a new account adding a book to a list of references, then edit warring over it, it's fairly normal to suspect the person is spamming or on some other kind of agenda." If you read even the first three sentences my original complaint, you'll discover that that's absolutely NOT what happened. There was no edit war before this. I made a simple addition of a book to a reading list and four minutes later he reverted for vandalism and in the next five minutes chased me to other pages and did batch reversions there over a course of five minutes labelling as vandalism or not helpful, even spelling errors or correction in biographical errors. I provide evidence on the book for example, that not only did he not know what the book was about, he didn't even know it was a book at all, labelling it as a film in his edit summaries, and this was after he reverted multiple edits of mine at the book's webpage! The content wasn't what this was about. And then he continued with disruptive editing after I engaged him in conversation explaining to him that his original reverts for vandalism weren't appropriate; he's blocking any attempt of mine to add anything to any page, making successive and new excuses each time. This isn't a content dispute. I only mentioned content to the bare extent necessary to show that he didn't even know what it was that he was reverting, and that content quality wasn't the reason for his reversions. Then you also write, "The best thing is for ... MeSoStupid, to calmly explain the edits and be ready to talk." That's exactly what I did as I again explained in painstaking detail, and I've contributed to the talk pages for each topic. I'd be happy to consider your input after you read my original complaint. I explained all of this in painstaking detail in my original complaint with all of the diffs; I'm not going to list it again down here. Everything I wrote here was already above. Thank-you for you consideration. MeSoStupid (talk) 20:33, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Some of us have had a look at the situation and you have not been wronged in the way you think. Several above have commented that Arthur Rubin should not be using a "vandalism" tag in edit summaries for the cited cases (and I would argue, per WP:DENY, that "vandalism" is probably never useful). You are correct to point out that your edits should not have been reverted with that tag. However, your claims of hounding are simply wrong: as explained above, is it is standard practice (and common sense) to check other edits made by an editor you have just reverted. Your first edit six days ago was to replace an article with a redirect with no explanation. You were bold; you were reverted. It's time to move on. Johnuniq (talk) 22:46, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

That's not accurate -- at all. Who is the "us" that you start your reply with? I would like to request that you speak for yourself only in your reply. And I haven't seen any evidence that multiple persons have actually gone through my original complaint and tried to understand it. Rather, I found clear evidence to the contrary. And he didn't originally check my other edits over that course of the nine minutes I detail in the first paragraph of my complaint. That's whole point of my complaint. He wasn't doing this to monitor content quality. Checking involves checking the content. Had he checked, he wouldn't have reverted spelling error corrections and errors in biographical information that I corrected. Had he checked the book that I originally added to a simple book list, he would have found out what the book was about, or at least asked about it. And you know what, he didn't even know it was a book at all, despite the fact that he had reverted multiple edits I made at the book's wiki page. After reverting multiple edits I made at the book's web page, he again removed the book from reading lists, where he called it a quote "film" in his edit summaries (1). Then after I corrected him on it being a film, he removed it because he says it wasn't "notable". And as far as the redirect I made that you say was my first edit, why don't we look at the history of that since you brought it up. Click here to see the page history. You'll see I first redirected, noting where I was redirecting to. Then Arthur Rubin marked it as vandalism and reverted. Then I undid Rubin's revert, explaining that it wasn't vandalism and inviting him to have discussion about it. Rather than enter into discussion or enter an alternative reason for the revert followed by discussion, Rubin instead again reverted the page and again marked it as vandalism with a "minor edit", something that keeps other editors from taking notice. And this is only part of the story. It's the big picture that counts, and I meticulously explained all of that in my original complaint. The big picture reveals a very provable clear case of wikihounding and disruptive editing. It was until after reporting him that Arthur made comments to a discussion page or two as if he's genuinely interested in the content. And I'm not really saying anything new in my respones. In all of my responses here, all of the information is in my original complaint. Thanks. MeSoStupid (talk) 00:48, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Again - I (and the other admins and editors who have reviewed and responded here) have reviewed the case and your claims. We aren't ignoring what you said, we listened and checked.

There seems to be a general consensus that what happened to you wasn't entirely right. You aren't misjudging that point.

However, "wikihounding and disruptive editing" is a judgement call and depends on the wider Wikipedia context and social and ethical standards. There's also a general consensus among experienced admins and other editors that the incident does not rise to the level of wikihounding or disruptive editing. He did something somewhat wrong - but didn't harrass you elsewhere, file false reports, make a personal attack, etc.

If you haven't worked on Wikipedia for a long time, not knowing the context or expectations of editors, bringing the incident here was fine and you did so appropriately. But the system works by uninvolved administrators and interested users reviewing reports and making our own judgement, based on experience. I know what you think this amounted to, you've stated that since your first post. But the system doesn't work that you get to accuse and convict someone in making the report. Someone else has to review it and make up their own mind.

As I said - This was unfortunate, but not in my opinion serious abuse at the level you felt it was.

We do care about civility and how people respond to each other. Someone else already left a note for Rubin about that. But not every incident is serious, and not all incidents require or justify any sort of official response.

It's important that people who feel abused be able to come make reports here, and you had justification for feeling abused. I am not blowing your complaint off at that level at all. But the severity was, by our standards and policy, not that serious. The informal note that someone else left is about all we typically do in situations like this. We want people to be adult and communicate responsibly and respectfully - but we know that at times people fall short. Most of the time that's not that severe. Sometimes we have to leave official warnings, or if it's very bad or repeated a lot block someone. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:10, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi - I'm surprised you posted another response after what happened the first time you responded. I thought maybe you would have chosen to recuse yourself after that. Anyway, at this point I'm leaving Wikipedia because this has soured my interest in this project. Thanks. MeSoStupid (talk) 02:58, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Because of what that happened? That you objected to my characterization of the situation? That doesn't form any sort of conflict of interest.

You appear to be playing some sort of legalistic game here rather than intending to work on improving encyclopedia articles anymore. If you don't intend to improve encyclopedia articles, then perhaps leaving is for the best - that's why the project exists.

If you do want to work on encyclopedia articles, you're doing so in the context of a project full of other people. We have policies and guidelines, a social environment of sorts, etc. The project is not perfect, as you have seen - but it is what it is. The project not being as friendly and open to new users is a known and unfortunate problem, which is going to get more attention over the next few months if I have anything to say about it.

All of that said - and again, acknowledging that Rubin was pushing too hard - you don't get to dictate how we review and what we conclude about abuse cases. The process is, you bring the issue to ANI, experienced users and Wikipedia administrators review it, we draw our own conclusions and respond and/or act. You made your case clear, but your judgement on the situation was out of whack with the level of severity by our policies and community standards.

Rubin was wrong - but wrong in the "friendly warning" level, not even the speeding ticket, much less murder charges sense. Wikihounding and disruption are fairly serious felonies by our internal standards - this case wasn't that severe at all.

If you still do not want to participate - that's your right. But the rules exist to protect everyone. You could just as easily be the victim here - and new users often commit some sort of transgression, and are often pursued for rules violations. The policy and process we have, and our community, is intended to try and avoid persecuting people for ignorance or exuberance. If we overreact, we end up driving a lot of people away who are imperfect but still very good for the encyclopedia.

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 05:29, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

*sigh*

Resolved

 – Editors warned, further drama is discouraged. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 13:58, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

• Folks, I would like to begin by apologizing to anyone who has been reading this noticeboard of late for what I am about to do, but here it is nonetheless: User:Malleus Fatuorum, apparently unsatisfied with amount of drama that came of his issues with certain editors suggesting they might be "on acid, " came by my talk page today to poke me with a stick as well [10]. I gave a very brief response which I felt made it clear that we did not see the situation in the same light [11]. Then he proceeded to edit war with me over the content of my talk page:[12][13][14][15]and the last time going back to the tired drug related accusations in the edit sumarry [16]. This is sooo lame. That is all I have to say on the matter. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:26, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

• • Don'cha love it when other editors conduct a fight on your talk page? There's an important point to be considered, though. This is the second time in recent memory that an admin has made some stupid comment about being under the influence of something and as a result all hell broke loose. Some weeks or months ago it was an admin claiming he mistakenly indef'd a user because he was drunk. And then this recent stuff about an admin being on LSD or something. Comments like that guarantee a firestorm of uncivil yet theoretically justifiable remarks. Admins need to try to keep their personal lives out of the discussion. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:35, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, but edit-warring on someones's talkpage in a manner that can only be described as trolling isn't helping either. Soxwon (talk) 05:47, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

For sure. And Beeblebrox could have protected his talk page if necessary, but sometimes it's better to let the trolls combatants run their course. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:52, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Let me put my foot down on that point. Calling someone who is genuinely working for the betterment of Wikipedia a troll is a personal attack, and not OK. Even if you see someone who is a longtime editor do something like that, please do not personalize it in that manner. When used in behavioral or content disputes where neither side is being intentionally provocative or disruptive it just lowers the conversation level and makes it harder for anyone to resolve it or let it go.

That said - Malleus earns himself a civility warning for the sequence. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 05:56, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Let me ask a totally ignorant question, which is one thing I know how to do: What practical effect does a civility warning, or any kind of warning, have on anything? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:02, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

The above was a fair question. Where does Basket of Puppies get off deleting my comments here, including reverting my striking of my uncivil comment about trolls? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:34, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

To answer the question:

1. Civility warnings are a mirror held up to your behavior. Sometimes people look at their own behavior and change it. That's the goal.
2. If they do not, the warning serves the same purpose as other behavioral warnings do - put it on the record, and if the behavior continues past multiple warnings, leads to a block.

There's no template for civility warnings because they're impersonal, which is the exact opposite of what we want to do with civility warnings (hold up the mirror and ask people to be reasonable and human and adult). See Wikipedia:Civility warnings - my essay on this point. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 06:41, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

It occurs to me that the second point would be far more effective if users weren't allowed to delete them. Currently the only restriction is that they can't delete their own unblock notices while they're blocked. Otherwise, anyone looking for such warnings would have to look through the history. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:50, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

What, you don't check the talk page history before leaving warnings? For shame...

Seriously, though - you have to do that. The current policy on talk pages explicitly allows removing warnings, and that's considered a feature (although with the downside you noted). Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 06:57, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, yeh, that's the point. Perhaps there needs to be a way to formally log warnings along with actual blocks? In response to your semi-rhetorical question, I seldom issue warnings to established users, and only when necessary to IP's and redlinks. They all pretty much know what they're doing. The one thing admins could do, in the absence of a separate log, would be to HIGHLIGHT such warnings in the edit summaries. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:05, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

It's easy to want to force users to keep warnings and such on their talk pages as a sort of record of their misdeeds, to warn others of their past, etc. But this really isn't all that beneficial. It places more focus on punishment and labelling of "wrongdoers" rather than encouraging positive contributions. It's no accident that the tone of so many of our principles is about redemption and assuming the best rather than the worst and allowing people to recover from previous mistakes.

Edit warring with users on their own talk page is also especially distasteful because of the generally wide latitude that users have over their userspace. And it just starts to seem petty, forcing this user to fight over every edit, over an attempt to no longer be seen as incivil or whatever. People have pride, and many of us use our user space as a place to show off a bit, within the context of encyclopedia building, preferably. If someone wants to remove warnings from their talk page, then let them. The encyclopedia will continue. kmccoy (talk) 07:09, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

George's argument is that the warnings serve as part of the user's record, like demerits on a report card or something. But unless it's easy to track, it's really of no value... unless it's mentioned in the edit summary IN ALL CAPS, or in some yet-to-be-determined style, contained within the edit summary so admins can see it. Otherwise it just gets buried. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:39, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

But, au contraire Bugs, there are plenty of editors who will have that diff ready and will produce it at the exact moment their wiki sense goes off that the particular editor has been called upon again. That is its purpose. I'm quite impressed at people's ability to pull random diffs out from the wiki-space. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:22, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Then why the exception for the unblock notices? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:18, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

• This is really silly. It's already a bad idea to replace another editor's comment on your talk page by a picture, while leaving the signature [17], and then edit war in order to keep the fake on your talk page [18]. But then you run to ANI complaining about the other editor's lameness and provide links to your own? What are you trying to accomplish? Hans Adler 10:39, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

• Colour me confused, but I don't see anything in the provided diffs that warrants administrative action against User:Malleus Fatuorum. Categorising this post as "[poking] me with a stick" comes across as somewhat thin-skinned. Whether or not Beeblebrox disagrees with the post, I'd still class it as little more than a correction of a seeming misconception. And the evidence of Malleus' "edit warring" seems to be a couple of attempts by him to remove a borderline-abusive refactoring of his previous post by Beeblebrox to ... what, call Malleus a troll? As such, I strongly disagree with Georgewilliamherbert's hasty issuing of a "formal warning" for "atrocious" behaviour to Malleus before any consensus had been reached here, and suggest he removes it until it is. Steve ^T • C 12:43, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

• There is clearly very little honesty here, and more than a little gleeful handrubbing that Malleus is going to get what many think he deserves. The facts of the matter are very clear for anyone with eyes to see them. Beeblebrox accused me of starting yesterday's shitstorm over Chillum's admitted drug taking, and I made a posting on his talk page correcting his misconception. He subsequently deliberately and abusively altered my posting and then edit warred to keep his abusive version. And I'm the one who's being accused of being incivil? Sheesh! --Malleus Fatuorum 13:48, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

• It is inappropriate to alter someone else's comments to change the meaning of their comments in this way, regardless of where the comments were made. If Beeblebrox felt the post did not belong on his talk page, he should have removed it entirely. Replacing it with this type of image while leaving Malleus's signature was wrong and served only to escalate the dispute. I find the edit summary to be incivil as well. An adminstrator should know better; it saddens me that so many don't. Karanacs (talk) 15:01, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
  • And out of fairness, I've left a warning for Beeblebrox [19]. His behavior, in my opinion, was worse than Malleus's, so if Malleus deserves a warning, Beeblebrox does as well. Karanacs (talk) 15:08, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
• I replied to the warning on my talk page, but I'll sum it up here: I acknowledge that blanking the message instead would have been a better, low-drama route to take, but the idea that Malleus was simply trying to "correct a misconception" is ridiculous. He came to yell at me, and to drag out the drama that he stirred up with Chillum. The fact that he succeeded is probably my fault, but his insulting, condescending posts on my page saying I was "clearly confused" and "can't read" were trolling. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:25, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
  • I take very strong exception to this repeated accusation of trolling, which is completely inappropriate and inaccurate. That you persist in making the accusation does you absolutely no credit whatsoever, but your attitude is all too common amongst administrators sadly. The fact of the matter, like it or lump it, is that you accused me yesterday of having started the Chillum fiasco, and I was merely pointing out to you that you were incorrect in that belief.[20] You then went on to alter my posting, which is completely unacceptable. Frankly I think that you're a disgrace as an administrator, and your childishness in initiating this report simply beggars belief. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:03, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Karanacs has said the same thing I was going to. Beeblebrox, removing Malleus' comment would have been ok, and putting up an image would have been ok, but leaving his signature attached to the image as you did here wasn't; that makes it look like modifying another user's comment, and thus Malleus had the right to undo it. No comment about the messages before that, but as for the "edit-warring" that's that. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 19:46, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I believe I have pretty clearly conceded the point that simply blanking it would have been a better idea. However, I stand by these two points: that Malleus did indeed throw the first stone that started the prolonged discussion about Chillum, and that his posting to my talk page were trolling, in that they were insulting, condescending, and intended to cause problems rather than solve them. His remarks were no more an innocent attempt at explanation than his remarks to Chillum were an innocent question. As for me being a "disgrace as an administrator," I don't see anything anywhere in any of these threads that remotely relates to any of my admin actions. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:02, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Not admin actions per se - however, admins have a higher expectation of proper behavior, due to the position of trust in the community. Even if you're being abusive in normal editing interactions with people, never threatening or misusing admin powers, it's still more of an issue than for normal users.

It's hard not to poke back, but the job requires that we respond to provocations in a professional and polite manner. One can be firm and act decisively without being rude or abusive.

I had a long go-around with Ottava on my talk page last night, who insisted that your actions were the worst part of the series of incidents. I disagreed with that - I warned the one person I felt I had to, on seeing the series of events and incidents - but I think that your response was not in keeping with the expectations that we set for admins and not entirely civil. It's bad enough when normal users do that sort of thing. When admins do it, it creates a perception of "them vs us" and lowers community trust in admins as a whole.

I don't want to belabor the point too much. I hope you don't do that again, and if you start doing it all the time it would legitimately be a Big Deal problem requiring some sort of action. But in the spectrum of events over the last few days it was only notable not excessive, IMHO. But every little bit of drama adds up. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:58, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Admins make plenty of mistakes, nobody's perfect. But I can't think of any mistake worse than an admin openly stating that they are under the influence of something. Unless it would be being caught socking. Those two scenarios undermine an admin's credibility far more than mere bitterly-exchanged words as we have in this discussion. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:06, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Clearly it's not allowed to draw attention to that fact though. Another lesson learned; wikipedia's governance is even more corrupt than I'd imagined. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:13, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

A rather disingenuous rewriting of history GWH. Beeblebrox accuses me of starting the Chillum shitstorm; I correct his misconception; he alters my posting; I revert his alteration to my posting. You warn me, but you don't warn Beeblebrox. Enough said. Your credibility is zero as far as I'm concerned. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:17, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Not quite 3RR

Resolved

 – The socks found themselves trapped under a block that fell off the drawer.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 06:18, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Could we get some more eyes on Thomas Suozzi? There appears to be some concerted vandalism in the last couple days by at least two users who reverted right up to 3RR (but didn't technically break it...yet), as well as some vandalism by some IPs. I know that this isn't the greatest place, and a request has been put in at AIV and an RFPP will be put in shortly, but some more eyes would be helpful. Thanks! Frmatt (talk) 06:27, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

The RFPP was declined, but there is now a third user making the exact same edits to this article, all three of them appear to be single-purpose accounts, specifically to vandalize this particular article. Frmatt (talk) 06:41, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Never mind, taken care of...ignore this section! Frmatt (talk) 06:44, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Note. Sockpuppetry by Lemonyellowsun (talk · contribs) has gone underway to violate 3RR and I've filed a report at WP:SPI, if there are any interested uninvolved admins to issue blocks quickly. — ξ^xplicit 06:47, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Socks confirmed, blocked, can someone mark this as resolved? Frmatt (talk) 19:11, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Rude anon

Resolved

 – IP user temporarily blocked. Syrthiss (talk) 13:54, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Nope, I'm not talking about myself! I could use a little help: [21] 24.148.0.83 (talk) 13:40, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I warned the IP with a NPA template. Syrthiss (talk) 13:43, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

...and since they blanked my warnings with abusive edit summaries, they are now blocked. Syrthiss (talk) 13:54, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks - I'll keep an eye out, although this user seems to have created a sockpuppet to continue reverting. 24.148.0.83 (talk) 00:51, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Ottava Rima "community" sanction

Resolved

 – No consensus for additional sanctions at this time.

--RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 03:41, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

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

Original thread

Resolved

 – The editing sanctions placed on Ottava by Jehochman and listed in Wikipedia:Editing restrictions#Placed by the Wikipedia community are confirmed (22 supports, 8 opposes -depending on how one counts some of the comments not clearly marked as support or oppose).

--RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 03:38, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

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

Resolved

Wikipedia:Editing restrictions#Placed by the Wikipedia community indicates that Ottava Rima (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was sanctioned by the community, with Jehochman imposing the sanction in this ANI discussion. Ottava Rima has since claimed that there is no sanction as deemed by the community, and that Jehochman (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) imposed it himself unilaterally, without a community consensus, and that Jehochman was involved. [22]. The sanction, which requires immediate review, is:

The user may be blocked if they make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith.

The following other recent discussions and diffs are clearly relevant to the conduct of the user in question: Nov '09 ANI, Oct '09 ANI, May '08 ANI, Aug '08 ANI - blocked, May '09 ANI.

• Does the community believe this restriction should be in force, and should therefore stay listed at Wikipedia:Editing restrictions#Placed by the Wikipedia community?
• Would the community prefer adopting an alternative, which would allow for page bans - including user talk and Wikipedia pages as appropriate:

Should Ottava Rima (talk · contribs) make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be disruptive or unseemly (including personal attacks, assumptions of bad faith, or incivility), he may either be blocked, or banned from the affected set of pages for a specified duration. Any page bans will take effect once the administrator has posted a notice to his talk page and logged it at Wikipedia:Editing restrictions/Community sanction/Ottava Rima.

Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:17, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Support alternative as first choice, support original as second choice. I was not a fan of such a lightly worded proposal, however, we might as well do more than just reinforce current policy - probation meaning something more than a mere block option. If it so happens that there is no consensus for either, then at least this discussion can clarify that. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:17, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

• Support alternate as first choice- --SKATER ^Speak. 17:20, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
• Comment: I would suggest replacing "an administrator" by "an uninvolved administrator". Count Iblis (talk) 17:27, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
• Support alternate as first choice, support current restriction as second choice... I don't see any particular need to make Count Iblis' proposed change - if the incivility is clear enough to block, it's not going to matter whether Ottava has ticked off the blocking admin or not. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:29, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

• Ncmvocalist is clearly forum shopping and operating inappropriately. He made multiple disruptive comments on the page as in violation of WP:TALK. Two arbitrators were already directly contacted and this will go up before RfAr if the restrictions are not taken down as not having any appropriate sanction to begin with, and thus an abuse of an administrator of an ArbCom related board. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:30, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose both "alternatives" - There are already civility rules. Either enforce them, or don't. No special rules are needed for individual users. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:31, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
• (several ec's) Procedurally opposing the first because it put the cart before the horse; individual administrators simply don't have that power except in in the rare context of arbitration enforcement. Unsure about the alternate; would like to hear from Ottava Rima before deciding. Without opining on the rightness or wrongness of his opinion in the most recent issue, it was exactly the sort of matter that ought to be handled with discretion and decorum. These pages are public, other sites do discuss what happens, and some of them go out of their way to discover and publicize real names when a dispute arises. In the long run it doesn't serve the project's best interests if people become fearful that volunteer work for this website would damage their employability. Ottava Rima's content work is outstanding--absolutely outstanding--so here's hoping an appropriate balance is possible. Durova³⁵⁵ 17:35, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Ottava, would you prefer arbitration? Durova³⁵⁵ 17:36, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
    • As per what has been stated on that page, an appeal can go through Request for Arbitration/Clarification. I think it would be optimum to have the ArbCom rule on the matter on if Jehochman's actions were appropriate to begin with. As per how the page operates and the statements by Carcharoth on the talk page (and even Jehochman's), there was nothing following protocol in placing my name on that list. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:47, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
      • I don't quite understand; why would this go to clarifications requests? It doesn't appear to be an outgrowth of any arbitration case's discretionary sanctions. Durova³⁵⁵ 20:10, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
• Comment: Both suggestions are silly, added to which who's going to trust a drive-by administrator to act fairly and honestly? Certainly not me. The "definitions" of personal attacks, incivility and the rest are routinely twisted by administrators to justify their high-handed actions in doing whatever it is that they please in a misguided attempt to exercise some grudge they have against another editor. --Malleus Fatuorum 17:37, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
  • That's a broad-brush attack which is mostly false, but is sometimes true, unfortunately. And is not helped by admins admitting claiming to being under substance influence. (That might be funny in some circumstances, but not when coupled with enforcing the rules). ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:42, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
    • It's a realistic view of what actually happens. I would not trust a single administrator to be imposing such blocks as are being proposed on anyone. --Malleus Fatuorum 17:44, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
    • PS. I don't mean that there isn't an administrator that I'd trust, I mean that I wouldn't trust an administrator acting alone to impose such blocks. --Malleus Fatuorum 17:46, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
    • Bugs, were I under the influence of psychoactive substances like pot or acid, the last place I'd want to be is on Wikipedia: that would make for a truly bad trip. ("Acidhead Wikipedian freaks out over AD/CE edit war, claims it proves the remaining Tuesdays have been mailed to last month.") -- llywrch (talk) 21:30, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose both. Admins are incapable of evenly and appropriately enforcing the civility policy. Such restrictions will just cause more drama. Regarding the suggestion for Arbitration, it would most likely be rejected. Lara 17:53, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
• Support either Remove Ottava's immunity from sanction. --Folantin (talk) 17:59, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
• Comment (ec) This is an issue; period. I highly admire O-R's article work. However, their actions when confronted are not community-minded. They have a unique take on what WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL are, and claim that their actions never violate their take on them. As such, the violations of the spirit of the policies in question are extremely problematic. How does the community deal with someone who seems so anti-community? Prolific article work is not a "Get out of Jail Free" card. They cannot ever be immune. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 18:00, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

My statements on NPA are 1. to always talk about an editor's actions as I never make any comments regarding race, sex, sexual preference, etc and 2. I ask that people provide diffs when making accusations, which, per NPA, is a requirement. These are traditionally held and orthodox interpretations. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:16, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

At no point do the definitions in NPA and civil ever try and mimic those for "hate crimes", nor is it at all related to harassment - and nobody "holds" your "interpretation" as valid; only you (it appears). No personal attacks means not attacking anyone in any manner: this includes "idiot", "moron", "inept", etc. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 18:49, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

The policy makes it clear that it is about -personal- attacks. It spells out clearly "comment on edits, not editors". Furthermore, what you claim as "attacks" is spelled out at WP:NPA as clearly being within the realm of complaints about inappropriate actions, which is perfectly acceptable. Furthermore, I don't comment on people's intelligence, but it is nice of you to accuse me of doing so without proofs and in direct violation of WP:NPA. The standard is really, really clear and you are violating it. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:57, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

There is no doubt at all that the following falls under WP:NPA: "You bully, threaten, and what state of mind are you even in? You lack the capacity to be an effective admin, and your inappropriate attacks verify that." [23] (From WP:NPA: "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence." You provided no evidence for bullying, threatening, or for an altered state of mind at the time. You provided no evidence for lack of capacity... or for inappropriate attacks. And this was not an isolated attack. You harassed Chillum over several hours.) Hans Adler 20:01, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I provided you with about 15 diffs and User:Hans Adler provided you with another 10 to demonstrate. In both cases you shoved them off the table, in my case actually accusing me of personal attack with this edit. You actually managed to claim i didn't provide any diffs while there were 15 above your comment. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 18:27, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

At no time did those diffs show any incivil comment or attacks of any sort. This was explained to you and you kept going on. You have yet to provide anything. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:57, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

The only person refuting my diffs was you Ottava, while User:Ks0stm and User:SqueakBox supported my conclusions. You are suggesting that because just you state there was no incivility evidence there was none? Also, for the record, "I just kept going"? For someone demanding that everything has to be proven with diffs i find this rather amusing, seeing i just made 1 comment (The initial one) in that entire ANI thread? So for now i demand a diff showing that A)i kept going and going, and B) that someone else then you refuted the diffs i provided. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 19:19, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

As for the disruption; making a large amount(unjustified) accusations against 9 other people (More by now actually) is what i call disruptive and assuming bad faith. Yet having read trough your entire recent comment history i doubt that any words i say could per sway you to think otherwise - not because they are wrong but because you just don't seem to listen. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 19:19, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose As Baseball Bugs said, why do we need special civility rules for a particular user when the current ones are perfectly applicable? Master of Puppets 18:07, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
• Comment: In my opinion, what should or should not be done with Ottava depends entirely on what what kind of encyclopedia we think we are building. If it is an encyclopedia that relies primarily on a few content builders, then it makes sense to ignore the drama, give an occasional rap on his knuckles, and either grit your teeth or smile in an avuncular fashion each time he goes off the rails. If, on the other hand, we are building an encyclopedia that relies on huge numbers of editors, each contributing a little to the knowledge base, then it makes sense to put sanctions on any disruptive editor immediately. Personally, I think that project will only succeed with a large and diverse body of editors because that is what distinguishes us from the dedicated content editors that define traditional encyclopedias, and, unless incivility is addressed immediately, people will continue to be turned off from editing here. Is it surprising, one asks, that the number of people who edit wikipedia is declining if we tolerate gross rudeness from some individuals but are quick to block even the smallest infractions of others? The question each one of us should ask ourselves, which is more important - an encyclopedia with a few strong content editors who can be as disagreeable as they like, or an encyclopedia that is a welcoming place that discourages gross incivility and strives to create a collegial and collaborative atmosphere? That question is far more important than the fate of an Ottava rima for which the only two meaningful choices are, IMO, an outright ban or letting him continue editing with an occasional off-the-rails episode. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 18:12, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

It isn't a coincidence that the same group of people who complain against me have a long record of tag teaming, edit warring, POV pushing, having discussions skewed by their members using socks, etc. That isn't building an encyclopedia, and the single common denominator there is not me. The problem existed before I was here, and would exist after I go. Until Jehochman, Moreschi, Folantin, Akhilleus, Antandrus, Bishonen, etc, and all of their supporters are kept from editing Wikipedia, there will always be these major disruptions by them. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:18, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh here we go. It's a conspiracy. You forgot to mention WikiProject:Georgia. I'm sure Stalin is after you too. --Folantin (talk) 18:22, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

You are rather open about targetting me. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:58, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

• Support both, with alternative as first choice; Count Iblis' modification acceptable but not necessary. I don't remember ever seeing a single conversation involving Ottava Rima in which he wasn't absolutely, over the top uncivil. I haven't seen a single instance where he reacted to the fact that someone disagreed with him (let alone when someone warned him about his misbehaviour) with anything but strong personal attacks. Often they lack any foundation, and often they are accompanied by conspiracy theories.

Moreover, while a lot of people say very positive things about his contributions, I am not going to trust that before I have checked some of his articles (which is probably going to take a huge effort). I often get the impression that he is making up things on the spot all the time in disputes, trying to pass off his personal, sometimes eccentric, opinion as verifiable truth. If the impression is correct there may also be very serious OR and POV problems in his articles.

I would also like to point out an important difference between Ottava Rima and another prolific content creator with civility problems: Ottava is showing no signs of emotional intelligence whatsoever, it appears to me that he is looking actively for ways in which he can disagree with other editors in order to start huge disputes out of nothing, and it seems he is never willing to let a dispute end before a new front has been opened somewhere else. Hans Adler 18:22, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

PS: Here is a permanent link to my dialogue with OR where I present diffs and he denies there is any problem at all. He also denies having bullied Chillum to answer a question, followed in the next sentence by a complaint that Chillum didn't answer. Hans Adler 18:47, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

• Support, or just block now. I'm getting sick of the accusations that I'm part of a vast conspiracy to destroy Wikipedia. --Akhilleus (talk) 18:24, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Akhilleus, you have posted on multiple talk pages defending actions and speaking for others. You have tagged teamed at the Persian Empire page, and involved yourself in discussions with the same group of people ranging on many different topics, including Ludovico Ariosto. The range and constant backing up of the same people is in direct violation of our standards. This has been pointed out to you by multiple people for quite a while now. Do you intend to destroy Wiki? Who knows, but you do have a proven record of meat puppetry. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:29, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

"a proven record of meat puppetry"? Really? This is news to me. Where was this proven? And how was I sanctioned? Or does this exist only in your own mind? --Akhilleus (talk) 18:36, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

There have already been diffs showing where you have backed up the same group of people on multiple topics. It isn't coincidence that you never disagree with Folantin, Dbachmann, Moreschi, etc, but you have appeared with them at dozens of pages all in areas you were never involved in previously and chiming in support of them. That is clearly not accepted by our policies. And yes, three Arbs publicly stated there was a concern. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:01, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

• Support Either. I have no preference in which, but some steps must be taken to prevent this from happening again (Par my summary regarding this issue in a previous topic, and my investigation into the nature of the previous bans). Normal civility guidelines are apparently not enforced well enough as i deem it highly uncivil to cry WP:NPA against other editors who caution or warn, while also threatening them with reports to ARBCOM or ANI. Similary O.R seems convinced of complete innocence and shoves of any diffs against her as personal attacks. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 18:27, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

• General comment without taking a position wrt Ottava specifically. I disagree with Baseball bugs that "No special rules are needed for individual users", and find RegentsPark comment wrt disruptive editors who make otherwise good contributions to Wikipedia (" ... then it makes sense to put sanctions on any disruptive editor immediately") highly ironic considering his part in a similar "mentorship". ArbCom has taken recently to trying to mediate rather than arbitrate via sanctions intractible behavioral problems from editors who make otherwise good contributions, so that it's apparent that the community must take these matters into our own hands. Clearly, special rules are needed in some cases. To that extent, I'm glad the Community restrictions page exists (I wasn't previously aware of it), but I also caution that it not go the direction of the now defunct WP:CSN, where individual admins held court in cases in which they were involved because the board didn't receive wide readership. In terms of Ottava specifically, I have always opposed bans of any editor from FAC or FAR, unless ArbCom specifically finds those editors disrupt FAC and FAR, so I hope the board will not be used to ban anyone from those pages; all feedback in those processes is useful, and the delegates can sort any disruption without outside interference. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:25, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Can you develop further why you disagree that "No special rules are needed for individual users"? What special rules are needed for which users? Leaky Caldron 18:33, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

No, I won't. Anyone can follow ArbCom cases; this case is about Ottava. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:37, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't think there is anything particularly ironic about my views expressed here and my willingness to mentor Mattisse (and do note that the irony cuts both ways). I realize that my opinions are just opinions, are not particularly well-formed, and that I have no particular claim to being right. Color me wishy-washy but I would be equally willing to mentor Ottava if that was what the community concluded was the right approach. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 19:17, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't find it very helpful that you introduced her name into this discussion, but do wish to point out the difference between "advocate" and "mentor". She has one mentor. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:42, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

No worries Sandy. We obviously differ on both the definition of irony as well as when incivility is acceptable but I can live with that. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 19:52, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Of all the mistaken memes that surrounded the dismantling of WP:CSN, that's the oddest one yet. Please post examples; I don't recall such a thing ever happening there. Durova³⁵⁵ 20:16, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry you don't remember or weren't aware, but no, I don't think we need to introduce another tangent here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:24, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Was very aware, thank you. Also coauthored the disruptive editing guideline and argued vigorously for the retention of the guideline's uninvolvement clause; got overruled and had a monstrous time with the board afterward. Filed several arbitration requests procedurally in order to manage the involvement issue at CSN. It's gross distortion to assert that the editors there actually fostered such a problem. We did all we could to prevent it. Durova³⁵⁵ 20:35, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comment Only an uninvolved admin should allowed to rule on an sanction - on any editor. And then another uninvolved should review the case. Note the comments from Baseball Bugs (17:42, 3 November 2009) and Lara (17:53, 3 November 2009) However, Ottava is a terrific editor and can also be very tactful, he gets far too involved in whatever content he's currently working on, and this keeping wearing. --Philcha (talk) 18:30, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

• It does, huh? Will the irony never cease ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:33, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
• (ec) I submit that, when an editor is involved with as many articles, as many editors, and indeed as many incidents as Ottava, it becomes difficult to find an uninvolved admin. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 18:37, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

• And I countersubmit your submit :) When an "otherwise good editor" has a corp of advocates who facilitate the disruption, admins can be afraid to block (as recently occurred in a sockpuppetry case, where the blocking admin admitted he did so with fear). I submit that this is an important test of whether the admin community can enforce Wiki policies when ArbCom hasn't. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:05, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

• Well, I tried, but Deacon reversed me without discussion. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:13, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

• Clarification I was not referring to Ottava or Sarek. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:24, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

• You previously edit warred closed a thread that was perfectly valid while being an involved user, then, involving yourself again, you decided to make threats and apply blocks in direct violation of WP:ADMIN and WP:BLOCK. There was no discussion necessary. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:16, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

• Any sanction that keeps Ottava's repeated and bilious accusations off my back is welcome. I am fed up of being accused of being part of some grand conspiracy of drive Ottava off the wiki. Nothing could be further from the truth. All I and others want is for Ottava to abide by our traditions of compromise and consensuality, instead of instantly calling for bans, desysoppings, blocks etc the minute he gets into any sort of dispute, and then holding grudges from those disputes for long after everyone else has stopped caring. His forum-shopping on #wikipedia-en is also highly unsatisfactory, where he has recently called for editors in good standing to be banned, and has remorselessly attacked his so-called opponents in a forum where they cannot respond. Moreschi (talk) 18:33, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Anyone can take a look at Moreschi's indef block with Bishonen's ban proposal following my successful DRV when Geogre deleted a page of mine. They can then look at multiple pages and disputes surrounding Talk:Ludovico Ariosto, Talk:Pesian Empire, Talk:Oscar Wilde, etc. And not trying to drive me off wiki? [24] "If he had the same treatment the average editor gets then he would have been banned long ago." You already tried to ban me quite a few times so far. What else would this be called? Ottava Rima (talk) 19:09, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

• Strong oppose - I agree with Bugs and Lara. iMatthew ^talk at 18:39, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comment It looks to me like a lot of the editors voting above are those who have personally had run-ins with Ottava in the past, and I don't know if community sanctions should be imposed for vendettas; I too have disagreed with Ottava before, but I wouldn't support sanctioning someone now because of something I didn't like months ago. I am refraining from comment here because I don't really know what circumstances led to this particular dispute and, to be honest, will probably not read the whole background. I do think, though, that Jehochman's sanction is not a "community-imposed" sanction but is one editor's interpretation of a community discussion, and is probably not the only possible interpretation. No sanction like that would be legitimate unless the wording of the sanction itself were determined by the community (through a discussion like this one) rather than just made up to try to summarize a different discussion. So if this discussion yields a unified result then maybe that can be called a "community sanction", but the one in place now holds no water. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 18:42, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
• Support, either option. While Ottava's dedication to adding content to Wikipedia is above reproach, his approach to interpersonal disputes is disruptive and inflammatory. I hope that this particular parole will encourage him to focus on the work that he does best. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:46, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose No, I have no idea why a superset of the existing civilty rules imposed on a single user makes any difference, given that the existing civility rules are perfectly applicable im the vast majority of situations. Of course, the way they're applied is inconsistent, but that logically means that these rather vague options would be as well. Pointless. However, I agree with Moreschi and others, and Ottava - making completely unfounded accusations such as the meat-puppetry one against Akhilleus above is really not a good idea at all. <Black Kite 18:51, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose. Ottava can be annoying, but this is a disproportionate response. Also, rewarding attention-seeking behaviour with attention isn't always wise.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 18:57, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
• Support either, but if this doesn't work, we should proceed with the RFC Lara suggests above. Have to start somewhere. It should be obvious to all observers that Ottava has some special immunity from sanction and block. Antandrus (talk) 19:22, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
• Support either, with Alternate preferred. The editor's behavior has been incredibly disruptive. His responses in this thread have lacked both good faith and civility. --4wajzkd02 (talk) 19:45, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Could you provide a diff to said lack of civility or claims made by myself about anyone's motives (as that is what "good faith" is about)? Ottava Rima (talk) 19:58, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

This should be enough:

non-WP:AGF:

• assume that those who complain here are tag teaming, edit warring, … socks, … have things in common but "not me", … should be "kept from editing". (Note: I'm no sock, and have no prior interaction with you nor with the editors who've brought your behavior to the attention of the community): It isn't a coincidence that the same group of people who complain against me have a long record of tag teaming, edit warring, POV pushing, having discussions skewed by their members using socks, etc. That isn't building an encyclopedia, and the single common denominator there is not me. The problem existed before I was here, and would exist after I go. Until Jehochman, Moreschi, Folantin, Akhilleus, Antandrus, Bishonen, etc, and all of their supporters are kept from editing Wikipedia, there will always be these major disruptions by them. Ottava Rima (talk) 11:18 am, Today (UTC−7)

non-WP:CIVIL:

• ill-considered accusations of impropriety (proof of your 3 assertions is where?): Ncmvocalist is clearly forum shopping and operating inappropriately. He made multiple disruptive comments on the page as in violation of WP:TALK. … an abuse of an administrator of an ArbCom related board. Ottava Rima (talk) 10:30 am, Today (UTC−7)
• lying to mislead, including deliberately asserting false information (nowhere does WP:NPA require diffs): Furthermore, I don't comment on people's intelligence, but it is nice of you to accuse me of doing so without proofs and in direct violation of WP:NPA. The standard is really, really clear and you are violating it. Ottava Rima (talk) 11:57 am, Today (UTC−7)
• ill-considered accusations of impropriety ("Do you intend to destroy Wiki?". Plus where is the proof you demand of others of a record of meat puppetry?): You have tagged teamed at the Persian Empire page, and involved yourself in discussions with the same group of people ranging on many different topics, including Ludovico Ariosto. The range and constant backing up of the same people is in direct violation of our standards. This has been pointed out to you by multiple people for quite a while now. Do you intend to destroy Wiki? Who knows, but you do have a proven record of meat puppetry. Ottava Rima (talk) 11:29 am, Today (UTC−7)
• lying to mislead, including deliberately asserting false information (this is not proof of meatpuppetry): It isn't coincidence that you never disagree with Folantin, Dbachmann, Moreschi, etc, but you have appeared with them at dozens of pages all in areas you were never involved in previously and chiming in support of them. That is clearly not accepted by our policies. And yes, three Arbs publicly stated there was a concern. Ottava Rima (talk) 12:01 pm, Today (UTC−7)

both (A&C):

• (As) Assume lessened future credibility & (Ci) ill-considered accusations of impropriety: The blocking policy makes it clear that involved admins are not justified. By making such a claim as you do above, you do not benefit to Moreschi, but you undermine your future credibility in responses. Ottava Rima (talk) 6:29 pm, 1 November 2009, last Sunday (2 days ago) (UTC−7)

• Support either. The disruption is seriously hurting collaboration. user:J aka justen (talk) 19:54, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
• Support either. Ottava's communications with me were uncivil, and s/he failed to assume good faith. Ottava's edits on an article that I was working on were arrogant, verging on bullying. Over the past three years on Wikipedia, I have found that editors who are certain that they are right, in the face of counterarguments from multiple editors, are the most difficult editors, and unfortunately, Ottava felt certain s/he was right. I hope this discussion will help Ottava to work harder to collaborate with, rather than push around, editors who are working in good faith to improve articles. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:02, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

We've only worked on 12 articles together, and checking from the history, there was no communication. Can you be more specific? Ottava Rima (talk) 20:11, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Nevermind, I found it here, where it was pointed out that Ssliver was applying original research and was refusing to have it removed or have a link that actually connects the two together. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:12, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Discussion can be found here, with claims like "I disagree, and I don't think you know what WP:OR is about." when I have a strong record of spotting original research and plagiarism. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:13, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

• Support either. Ottava continues to act in an uncivil and tendentious manner, fails to assume good faith, and wiki-lawyers over the enforcement of basic Wikipedia standards. The account has been blocked repeatedly for such causes, and has occasionally been unblocked with promises to reform. This editor needs to comply with community standards or find another project. Since other means have not convinced him, that leaves blocks or topic bans as the only available remedies.   Will Beback  talk  21:23, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
• Support either Support the first, not the second Malleus and Lara, above, both point out that encouraging admins to block Ottava is problematic because admins misuse or abuse blocking power. But that's less of a problem than Ottava continuing to burden so many people with his repeated bad behavior. In this case, a little encouragement or authority to block is helpful because it's more likely to make a block stick. I'd rather not see admins topic ban him, because I think there's more potential for admin abuse there and blocks of increasing severity should be able to fix the problem one way or the other. Disclosure: I had one run-in with Ottava (that I can remember, anyway) here. [25] -- JohnWBarber (talk) 21:46, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
  • I've changed to "Support either" because while it's not the best option, it's acceptable to me and I don't want to stand in the way of a consensus on this. JohnWBarber (talk) 02:51, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
• Support either. I note people pointing out Ottava's positive contributions, but that doesn't excuse his behaviour. An effective Wikipedian has to be both a good contributor and a team player - not one or the other. The current pattern of behaviour is wasting everyone's time, unnecessarily raising tensions and is generally disruptive. Ottava needs to change his direction but I see no evidence that he's willing even to acknowledge that there's a problem with him rather than everyone else (this is a case in point). -- ChrisO (talk) 22:33, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
• Support either. They will probably do little good, but they can do little harm. In my view, OR has a tendency towards both belligerence and grandstanding. Sometimes he is right about the point in hand; sometimes he is wrong. It doesn't matter: whatever the circumstances, such posturing is good neither for him nor for the encyclopedia. I support any measure that has half a chance of encouraging him to take a few deep breaths and perhaps walk away from the keyboard when he starts to get worked up. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 23:47, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
• Support either. Just because he is a good content contributor does not mean that he can act the way that he has been. He does have a good side at times, and I do respect him as a content contributor, but his uncivil comments cannot be excused. That's akin to simply getting a slap on the wrist for multiple instances of unsportsmanlike conduct while being the best player in the sport... there needs to be repercussions for his actions, whether positive or negative. Until It Sleeps ^{Talk • Contribs} 23:55, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose But consideration should be given to the need for blocking the drama mongers and trolls promoting and continuing this disruption. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:59, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
• Support either, as it is about time to put an end to this endless and pointless disruption by a single user. As it has been said before, good editing does not excuse bad behavior. And we could also do without CoM's usual shtick of railing against those who try to propose or enforce sanctions at AN/I, but that is another can of worms that will hopefully be dealt with down the road. Tarc (talk) 00:09, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
• Support either; prefer the first as it seems simpler. --John (talk) 00:14, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
• Support either - preference to the first one though. The sooner that Ottava's immunity to sanctions is bought to an end, the better. Jeni ^(talk) 00:41, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
• Support either - first looks simpler. A good balance between reigning in the incivility, avoiding the need for long tedious process in doing so, and allowing him to continue to edit productively. This appears to be in place already, and questions of legitimacy from the sanction target or others should not require us to establish consensus anew. Additionally, it would be helpful to make clear as an implementation note, as with most Arbcom general sanctions, that prior consensus is not required for an admin to block under the sanction, and any proposed early unblock should require a consensus to do so, not a single admin's decision to undo the sanction enforcement. - Wikidemon (talk) 00:52, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

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

Applying normal civility Guidelines

I cannot help but notice that the majority of the oppose votes (Currently 5 our of 5) mainly focus on the matter that we should enforce normal civility guidelines, rather then creating a new set of them specifically for one user. From my perspective none of the opposes currently argues that no action should be taken - but rather that a community sanction is not the right way to go. If i am correctly interpreting this, what would the "Normal" sanction be? And should the "Normal" civility guidelines be utilized instead of new ones? This to prevent a fragmented discussion where one group focuses on the nature of a community sanction, while the other group seems to focus solemnly on this specific case. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 19:02, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I am sure there are only two reasons why OR isn't blocked for a long time yet: (1) Most admins are afraid of this bully. (2) Almost all admins who have met OR have been declared a mortal enemy by him because that's his usual modus operandi. Therefore our best admins, who are not afraid of him, feel they are involved.

Ottava's two 1 week blocks in October were ended (very) prematurely. It appears that this was a mistake. Perhaps we can get a strong consensus here, instead of the restriction, for 1 week block that will not be followed by an unblock without a previous consensus here. Hans Adler 19:16, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

No one is afraid of me. The reason why no one has blocked is because I don't give them an excuse. My comments are impeccable and I make sure not to have anything that could result in a block. This is why when the blocks do come they are reversed as completely inappropriate. It is harassment to keep this up. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:18, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I am afraid of you, every time I have attempted to enforce community standards towards you I have been attacked for it by you, sometimes for weeks afterwards. Your reaction to my attempts to enforce policy has made me consider leaving this place. Chillum 22:21, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

"My comments are impeccable" -- oh, you mean the ones like "Are you done wasting our time?", "Do you even do anything around here worth while?", and "You have no legitimate argument and you pushed absurdities"? SarekOfVulcan

You think it is "Gang Harrasement?". You poor victim. You warn, threaten, and what state of mind are you even in? You lack the capacity to be an effective debater, and your inappropriate actions verify that. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 19:27, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Excirial, you clearly don't understand. OR wanted to know if they were done wasting his time, so he asked. How could you consider that incivil? OR wanted to know if they did anything worth while, so he asked. How could you consider that incivil? OR wanted to point out that the person obviously had no legitmate argument and pushed absurdies - perhaps they were unaware that they were wrong and absurd, and needed to be told, so he told them. That's obviously civil - especially compared to such tortures as "Next time you post on this subject of another editor's alleged drug use, you should be blocked for harassment and personal attacks." Hipocrite (talk) 19:34, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Accusing 9 editors of personal attacks, threating two with reports on ANI and ARBCOM, and accusing a load of editors of "Conspiracy" is what qualifies as bad faith in my opinion (Actually, those numbers are higher by now). I do not deny Ottava the right to ask anything, but i do deny the right to shout "Personal attack", "Warning" and "You will be reported" at every editor who seems to disagree. Would you honestly argue that 9 editors among who several admins don't know the rules, even though their comments overlap on a large section? Besides, "Wrong and absurd" are opinions. By now i actually share them, but from an entirely different perspective. Also, to get things straith, would you deem my above comment on gang harrasement to be uncivil? Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 19:50, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

OR, may I remind you of this dialogue.

• You previously to Chillum: "You bully, threaten, and what state of mind are you even in? You lack the capacity to be an effective admin, and your inappropriate attacks verify that." [26]
• Me to you: "You bullied Chillum to answer a question which he made very clear wasn't going to answer. You threatened him with various things (don't remember the details, something like RfCs or ANI reports). I wonder in what state of mind you were when you did all that. It's a good thing you are not an admin, because you would lack capacity to be effective as one, and your inappropriate attacks verify that. // I know that you don't like being criticised and tend to accuse people of using personal attacks etc. To make absolutely sure I don't accidentally insult you I phrased everything in a way [27] that you just explained is OK. I hope you appreciate that."
• You to me: "Bullied to answer a question? How? Furthermore, he refused to answer and people claimed he was joking. If he refuses to admit it to being a joke, then he is aiding in disruption. Hans, your understanding of policy is completely flawed and your accusations have crossed the line."

You are either the most stupid bully I have ever met in my life, or you are roleplaying. I don't care which, but it must stop. Hans Adler 19:40, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for calling me either stupid or someone who is playing games. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:59, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

You are welcome. I can do this safely because, according to your strict reading of WP:NPA, it's not a personal attack since the evidence is on this page. Hans Adler 20:03, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

The term "stupid" deals with myself, and not my actions. That is clearly a personal attack. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:07, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I said you are either stupid or roleplaying. Actually I think it's more likely that you are roleplaying. That's a claim about your personal behaviour, and the evidence is on this page. Hans Adler 20:25, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

And "stupid" wasn't in isolation. Saying you are a "stupid bully" amounts to saying that you are a bully, and a bad one too. By allowing the possibility that you are roleplaying I intentionally left it open that your apparently obsessive behaviour is just behaviour, as opposed to a manifestation of a personal characteristic of yours. Hans Adler 20:29, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

So, you are either stating I am dumb (personal attack) or I am purposefully disruptive (lack of good faith). Most people would be warned or blocked for such things. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:44, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Not when saying this to a habitual bully of epic proportions such as you. Because then the admin would have to block you as well for symmetry's sake. Hans Adler 20:53, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

What purpose do you think hyperbole serves? Ottava Rima (talk) 21:08, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

If it was hyperbole I wouldn't bother. Hans Adler 21:13, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

If that is true, why has no one else agreed that my "bullying" is of "epic proportions"? Ottava Rima (talk) 21:21, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Warning a lot of editors and threating with ANI and ARBCOM reports is in my eyes bullying, so yes i would say that it is, or rather i deem it, outside acceptable tolerance levels; Epic is just a buzzword trying to make things look astronomical. But seriously, do we really need to start a stupid "He did, She did" style of debate on this topic? The above section isn't exactly the most helpful to actually solving the problem. Rather it just makes it worse. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 21:47, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

How would stating that you want to have something go to ArbCom for oversite of an action be "bullying" if they did nothing wrong? Furthermore, seeing as how there has been constant forum threads opened on me by the same group of people after each one is closed definitely meets bullying per your standards. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:50, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Ottava, unless you support that claim with diffs i cannot really judge on that. I do not know who had negative interactions with you before this case started, thus i cannot say if this is would qualify as hounding or bullying. I am not saying i don't believe you outright, but i need to see the evidence myself before i can say if something is suspiciously close to "Bias".

My main issue with your behavior is the incredible ease with which you seem to accuse people of personal attacks. Ill take RxS as an example: [28] He stated he deemed it a ridiculous questions, and you accused him of being uncivil. Then you gave a warning for incivility followed by an ANI report threat. My question is, why so incredibly harsh? What would it cost to ask "And why is it a ridiculous question then?". Just that line would probably have turned the discussion an entirely different way. You are, in all due rights, incredibly direct in your wordings, with little nuances to take the, lets call it venom, out of them. What is the use of immediately calling the uncivil policy, followed by one liner about warnings and ANI reports? Why the heavy language and the one line threat with sanctions? The only thing that results from this is that people directly go onto defensive which will result in the current results. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 22:29, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Straw poll: Is Ottava's bullying of epic proportions?

• Closing this discussion. I don't see anything coming out if this than some epic drama. As mentioned before numerous times, WP:RFC/U is just down the hall. ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 03:01, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Incivility in this discussion

Is accusing someone of a "proven record of meatpuppetry" without providing diffs in an appeal for a civility restriction blockable under the current editing restriction, or just really really... um, unwise? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:52, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I think it falls under irony (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 19:12, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

There was an Rfar which Akhilleus was aware of and participated in about his and their meatpuppetry. The result was 3/3 and closed because there was not enough arbitrators around to respond. It was closed without prejudice. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:19, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Diff of Akhilleus's participation in the Rfar verifying that he has seen the evidence against him. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:20, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

In what universe does "seen the evidence" = "proven meatpuppetry"? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:28, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Why would they have to be the same? I could say in what universe does "in what universe" = "without providing diffs". Taking two different statements from two different sentences and complaining they do not equate is like complaining about 2 not equaling three. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:43, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

The appropriate diffs of my "participation in the Rfar" are probably [29] and [30]. --Akhilleus (talk) 19:38, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I assumed you would prefer the -last- entry by you on that Rfar so people can see all of your statements in order to ensure that I was not "hiding" your comments there. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:41, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps I should have explained myself more, then. I thought the Rfar was absurd, you presented nothing coming even close to evidence, and my comments there only show that I think your accusations are total nonsense. --Akhilleus (talk) 19:47, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, your contempt of my posts, and just about all of my posts, is well-known. That does not mean that you haven't been shown to have a long history of interacting with the same users, in varied topics, and never do anything but agree with them and side with them in debate. Why do you think such a thing is appropriate on Wikipedia or how it helps in the spirit of collaboration in which you have an "us vs them" mentality? Ottava Rima (talk) 19:51, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I have trouble seeing your last post as anything but ironic self-commentary--especially the part where you say "Why do you think such a thing is appropriate on Wikipedia or how it helps in the spirit of collaboration in which you have an "us vs them" mentality?" --Akhilleus (talk) 19:56, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Please provide evidence where I have joined with one or more users on multiple pages backing up their statements and never disagreeing with them, while also making talk page statements about them and other such things. All of the people I have majorly collaborated with have been individuals which I have had disagreements with on many issues. As such, there cannot be claims that I have meat puppeted for anyone. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:02, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Sound and fury, signifying nothing. Either take it to Arbitration, or shut up. There is far too much discussion of Ottava here that never gets anything accomplished. 99.166.95.142 (talk) 19:35, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Archiving

I am astounded by the archiving (now reverted) of this thread. A community sanction is in place, and the community needs to decide if it stands. An important discussion about admin ability to enforce Wiki policy needs to be held. Is this the usual admin-brush-it-under-the-rug and push it over to RFC or ArbCom, where nothing is solved? Keep it open: deal with it! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:32, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Sandy, I archived the thread, because I believe that it (like others before) is not going to help resolve the issue, and an RFC, where the evidence can be better collated and presented, would be a better venue. I still believe that, but realize that I am in a minority (of one ? ), and won't re-archive. Hopefully, my original action won't be a yet another distraction from the central debate. Abecedare (talk) 20:01, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification; my concern is that a sanction is in place, and kicking this over to RFC or ArbCom won't resolve the status of that sanction. We need time for admins to weigh in. It's a personal pet peeve of mine because I once was involved in an ArbCom, after I announced I would be busy for two hours, and then involved parties archived the thread and kicked it up to Arb in my absence. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:12, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

It has been pointed out that a community sanction is not in place via the standards for making a community sanction. The above was Ncmvocalist trying to start a new community sanction to replace the one that was clearly inappropriate. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:38, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Um, no. It's in place. Just because you "pointed it out" doesn't make it invalid. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:50, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

[31] "could we have some discussion of whether the person logging the restriction here could be the person (hopefully an 'uninvolved' admin) that both assesses consensus at the community discussion, closes that discussion, and records the restriction at a user subpage (if needed) and on the user's talk page? This seems to be how things are done at the moment" Carcharoth (talk) 18:30, 16 August 2008. That makes it clear that it is invalid because of 1. not an impartial admin, 2. never was closed, and 3. lacked consensus. Furthermore: "The list is a convenient index; nothing more. Any editor in good standing can fix what is written here if it is not correct." Jehochman Talk 00:30, 17 August 2008 Ottava Rima (talk) 19:53, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Another good one: "As suggested above, Wikipedia:Editing restrictions is nought but a convenient index. When the thread surrounding the ban proposal is closed, meaning that no further comments may be made and hence the consensus at that instant is what is to go into effect, the sanction is considered to be in effect. Anthøny 01:46, 17 August 2008 (UTC) " Ottava Rima (talk) 19:54, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, i deem the previous discussion largely invalid because it was open only 6 hours - which is incredibly short seeing the magnitude of the discussion. Similarly this provided issues with geographic locations among users as i, for one, was not capable of being online at that time simply due to my timezone. Yet currently we have a 10-6 consensus to actually impose the sanction. Similarly 5 of the oppose votes are made because this should be dealt with trough the regular civility guidelines, rather then trough separate measures. Only 1 oppose vote is currently stating that this should be closed as "a disproportionate response" which essentially means no measures taken. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 20:03, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, so it seems best to keep this open for another 12 hours or so or until discussion has died down, and then either implement the restriction or discuss an immediate block, as appropriate. Hans Adler 20:07, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

You do realize that meat puppetry and revenge posts are not acceptable in a community discussion, and that this thread has already been closed as inappropriate continuation of previous matters that the community as deemed to be closed? Ottava Rima (talk) 20:15, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Irrelevant, as the discussion is now open, and this is an appropriate location for discussion of a community sanction. Continuing accusations of "meatpuppetry" and "revenge posts" may get you blocked, even without taking the community sanction into account.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:22, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Irrelevant? Officially, you have entered into harassment, since this has been the same group of people trying the same stuff that has constantly been shot down as inappropriate. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:41, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Ottava, wouldn't it be best to get this entire thing done for without having the risk it just acts like a phoenix and resurrects again? We had multiple discussions being closed and yet they opened up again and again - i doubt that would demonstrate the community deemed it closed. Also, please get it out of your head that everyone is just here to take "Revenge" on you. For one i opened one of the threads and as far as i could trace back the only "Interaction" we has is that we both voted "Oppose" on some proposal without further discussion. I cannot speak for every editor but i highly doubt that the only thought for the majority editing here is vengeance. I

So i say please. Can we handle this thing like a sour apple that has to be eaten entirely to prevent it from sparking another apple tree with more sour apples? If we let this entire thing run its course and finalize it properly this time it can be archived and we can be done with it. Otherwise we will just end with a lot of friction that kept this issue going for three days now. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 20:36, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Excirial, your statements are inappropriate. "everyone is just here to take "Revenge" on you." - I never said that, you did. I have pointed out people who have attempted to have me banned since March 2008, and they constantly attack me on their talk pages, follow me to other pages, and the rest. To say that they have not done it would be inappropriate. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:41, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

My apologies for that Ottava, i should have made more clear that this was a personal perception. What i meant to indicate was that you should be aware that not everyone here is someone you dealt with before. In this thread you raised the issue of other editors biases towards you several times, which i translated as them being biased to you because of previous interaction (EG: Negative bias against you, so out to take "Revenge". I have never said that this did not occur. The message i tried to relay was that i don't think every editor is just here to bully you away. For one, that is at least not my intention here. Again, my apologies for this misconception caused by my wording. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 20:55, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

(ec re to Excirial) For gosh sakes, the thread has been open for less than three hours, which doesn't give most admins a chance to weigh in. Anyone who thinks three hours is too long to decide if a sanction stands might benefit from a walk on the beach. Must we always close discussions prematurely and shuffle them off to another page, or can the admin community be relied on to make decisions? Must everything be kicked over to a busy ArbCom or useless RFC? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:47, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Sandy, just as a question, was this above reply incorrectly indented or attributed? You seem to state that i think that the thread has been open to long without a discussion, yet your reply seems to go along the same lines as i was reasoning. What i stated was that the previous discussion in which the sanction was invoked was closed after 6 hours which means that the chance for people to actually reply was very slim, thus not indicating any real consensus.

Perhaps you were thrown of by the wording of the second part i wrote? That was a response to Ottava's line "When the thread surrounding the ban proposal is closed, meaning that no further comments may be made and hence the consensus at that instant is what is to go into effect, the sanction is considered to be in effect". I interpreted that line as a reason to close the current discussion as we already had a currently closed no consensus vote - to which my reaction was that we were currently busy establishing some form of concensus that would not be based upon a prematurely based thread, and therefor prevent the lack of user input or true consensus in the previous discussion. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 21:05, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Excirial, my apologies for the delay. Yes, I was caught in several edit conflicts and was working on a dinosaur laptop while I was getting the abominable Windows Vista replaced (success, yea!), and my threads were incorrectly indented. I believe you and I are agreeing, I was making a general comment and later added on my ec re, and I apologize for any misundertanding. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:07, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree. There is absolutely no reason to close this early. It's strange how most ANI threads involving Ottava are closed prematurely. Let's lay this suspicion to rest and let it run. If it gets too long it can always be moved to a sub-page. --Folantin (talk) 20:50, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

It is suspicious how most ANI threads involving Ottava have posts from the same people such as Folantin. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:52, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Sandy, an ArbCom case would be good because it would slow down the mob attacks, would have a neutral committee analysing actual evidence instead of unsubstantiated claims of "incivility", and would be able to desysop the many admin above who have shown direct violations of our policies. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:52, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Addendum: there's currently a useless RFC/U underway because no uninvolved editors can be bothered to come by and weigh in; if this is kicked over to there, the same people responding here will weigh in there, and it will just be a waste of time. Admins are supposed to know blocking/banning/etc. policy. This is an admin decision: make it here! I'm not an admin, so I don't have an opinion, other than asking that no one be banned from FAC or FAR unless by ArbCom. Ottava, if you think an ArbCom case can slow down mob attacks or is conducive to impartial input, you aren't paying attention. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:57, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Sandy, the restriction proposed is that they would instant block me for long term for anything they claim as "incivil" or the rest, even if its not as the last three blocks were shown. And ArbCom did redeem the Russavia guy who was being treated in the same way. I am confident in an equal decision, and the people involved will finally be stopped, which can only help the Wiki. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:05, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

The question here is whether there is consensus for a restriction, as currently lodged. That has to be solved, or that board becomes like CSN was. If the restrictions are upheld, then you can appeal to ArbCom. If there is no consensus here, then AN/I doesn't work, and we have admins screaming at other rather than deliberating over solutions. We'll see. I'd like to think the admin community can find it within themselves to deal with issues constructively. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:29, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

If you feel there is no solution, you have another option as per this. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:36, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Nope. I don't have or want that power; I do want this board to stop being so childish. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:00, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Well fine, you can pick a proxy if you want. :P But seriously, if you wanted me gone, I would go. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:05, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Someone mentioned a useless RFC/U because no uninvolved editor was willing to chime in. It might have been Sandy. I have never had a conflict with Ottava. I have never edited an article that Ottava has been involved in. I’m from a different world to Ottava. A small, insignificant, quiet part of Wikipedia, away from the GA’s, the FA’s, the cabals and, hopefully, most of the drama. I’m “uninvolved”.

As Caesar said to Anthony about Cassius, “He reads much; He is a great observer and he looks Quite through the deeds of men: he loves no plays, As thou dost, Antony; he hears no music; Seldom he smiles, and smiles in such a sort As if he mock'd himself and scorn'd his spirit”. So I read what goes on here and other places where the great and the good meet and ply their trade - daily. I observe many names – daily. Ottava is a regular here. Ottava IS the regular here. He possesses the forensic knowledge of policy as that of a barrister, the skillful conniving of a politician and the righteousness of a bishop. Why, he even has his own cult following! To many he is the BSD of Wikipedia – forget Jimbo. “Why, man, he doth bestride the narrow world Like a Colossus, and we petty men Walk under his huge legs and peep about To find ourselves dishonourable graves.” Nothing will ever stop Ottava (short of a total ban). Only Ottava will know when the time to stop the vitriol, incivility, warring, baiting, bullying and insensitive attacks that everyone has commented on. Just remember though, Wikipedia is not a High Court, not a legislature and not a place of worship. It doesn’t need barristers, politicians or bishops. It does need lots of genuine people contributing as best they can, without the drama, and without fear of being driven away. So if all this drama concerns only those who thrive on drama let it continue unabated. If it affects the general wellbeing of editors at large you need to act, soon. Just a thought.... Leaky Caldron 22:13, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

My comment was about another, unrelated RFC/U that is getting no feedback. RFC/U doesn't work for the same reasons CSN didn't; the involved go there, the uninvolved don't, and there is little outside input, so we'll get more of the same. Might as well deal with it here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:09, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

No consensus for sanctions at this time - more discussion needed

As a passing note, I would argue very strongly that there is no consensus for a sanction against Ottava - those in opposition to sanctions specifically oppose anything additional to the present civility guidelines, and sanctions are to be imposed based on a consensus of uninvolved editors (see WP:BAN - will check this is the right link), with many of those favouring a ban expressly indicating that they have had negative interactions with him. This clearly needs more discussion with those uninvolved in prior disputes with Ottava - and please spare me the cries of "he's interacted negatively with everyone", because that is patently not true. I do think Ottava needs independent advice about his manner and portrayal thereof, and would thus recommend we adjourn to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User - but there is no consensus satisfactory under policy to ban Ottava from anything at this time Fritzpoll (talk) 20:30, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

This is getting ridiculous. We keep moving from one forum to another. And what does WP:BAN have to do with this? We are talking about a restriction involving blocks. Hans Adler 20:36, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

The fact that you keep moving from one forum to another is evidence of forum shopping harassment because you can't stand the community consensus. If an admin was doing their job, they would have warned and/or blocked every single person who has been in all of these discussions and continues to push for things that the community says no to. I am working on articles, who else here can say that they are? And if they are, why are they bothering this over what? Nothing. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:43, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

When I get the time I, too, work on articles. It takes a lot of time, especially when I am initially not a specialist, such as in the case of Apothecaries' system of weights or Pigeons in aerial photography. Not everybody who avoids FA stuff is afraid of articles, you know. Some merely want to avoid the negativity of the place. Hans Adler 20:50, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Why not spend all of your time working on editing articles? You seem to have a fascination with my edits. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:53, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Why not spend all of your time working on editing articles? You seem to have a fascination with attacking others. Hans Adler 21:04, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Check my contribs. I spend the majority of my time working on articles. I am working on 7 right now - plus a 9 part set at DYK and 2 pages at FAC. I don't attack others. I don't go out of my way to interact with people or deal with anything but myself. This all comes to me and is constant trying to disrupt and cause problems. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:07, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh yes, I forgot. It wasn't your fault that you asked Chillum the same question dozens of times over several hours. He forced you by not responding. He didn't give you a choice. Since you didn't get a chance to stop harassing him it's unfair that people take you to task for your actions. Because you are not responsible for your actions in that case. Chillum is. At least you are convincing yourself... Hans Adler 21:16, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Because we are talking about restrictions, the violation of which would lead to blocking. That is, in essence a series of restrictions imposed by the community that fall under BAN. Regardless of the kind of restriction, uninvolved editors are required for a consensus to implement. That was the main thrust of my argument Fritzpoll (talk) 22:11, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

• As a truly outside opinion to this mess of a topic: Would all of you kindly shut the fuck up, please? HalfShadow 21:18, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

• +1 Seriously. Protonk (talk) 22:44, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
• +1 here too. I've tried weighing in my opinion on this a lot earlier in the piece, but this is just getting beyond ridiculous. SMC (talk) 01:17, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

ANI is useless

Things move too quickly on this board. It is not conducive to a patient, thoughtful discussion. Unfortunately some WP:CSN haters decided to delete that board without providing a suitable replacement. I think we should reinstitute that page, and place an index of the ongoing discussions there on ANI and AN for all to see, to help increase participation. It is utterly hopeless to try to conduct a sensible discussion here in this forum. Jehochman ^Talk 21:29, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Or, maybe alternately, create Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Community sanctions instead. It does sound like a good idea to me, because I tend to think these sorts of discussions get the most attention, and that keeping them on this page distracts attention from the other matters. John Carter (talk) 21:38, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Agree in general - ANI generates more heat than light, and proper, specific processes could be instituted in another location to separate those involved in a dispute from those who are neutral commentators. Fritzpoll (talk) 22:12, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

If ANI generates more heat than light, then some admins may need to grow up and learn to discuss reasonably. Isn't that why we choose them? Who decides community restrictions if not the community? Why doesn't someone go over to the 'crat board and ask one of them to close this in 12 hours and determine if there's consensus here? Isn't that what they do on RFAs? Or would that be too unsensible? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:57, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Done. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:13, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

In what way is Ottava Rima different than Jeff Merkey here?

Belligerent and "my way or the highway" attitude. Constant allegations of victimization backed up with no evidence. Just sayin' 64.139.4.129 (talk) 20:54, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Basing myself on your contribution history i would assume that you are a registered user editing under an IP address. If so please log in and sign your comment. If you wish to accuse someone of something please do so in person and don't accuse without the ability to be tracked back trough normal means. My apologies if i am mistaking a pure IP user here with a registered editor though. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 21:14, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

You would be incorrect, but that's ok. I watched the Merkey wars unfold and was a key player in them. I see very clear analogues in OR's behavior and I just wanted to point that out. In my experience, people who fit this profile rarely change their approach to other people. Take my views for what you will. 64.139.4.129 (talk) 21:25, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Your views have the value of the views of any other admitted sockpuppet. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:25, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

To answer the question on its merits, please search for "Ottava Rima" on this page. Durova³⁵⁵ 22:22, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Start an RfC, or get off the pot

Aside from the creation of yet another round of epic lulz, this "discussion" is going nowhere. Frankly I was torn between just closing it or posting a comment.

I find it absolutely ridiculous that Wikipedia:Requests for Comment/Ottava Rima remains a redlink while there are apparently so many people willing to bitch about him ad infinitum. WTF is the issue? If you all have so many things you want him to change about his behavior, why not just open a doggone RfC and let him know? Are you scared of him or something? You needn't be.

Ottava either (a) doesn't understand why people get so frustrated with him, or (b) he's a very creative and skillful troll. Whether you believe (a) or (b), it's obvious that this discusion ain't gonna get where you want it to. --SB_Johnny | ^talk 22:37, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I posted this to offer him a non RfC venue. Now, if anyone wants to start an RfC, I will personally wave any "requirements" for the RfC. You can start one on me and say anything - I won't hold lack of evidence, trying to resolve matters, etc, against anyone. If people I've never seen before want to start one, feel free. I abide by the community decisions, and the last time Moreschi and Bishonen pushed for my indef I said my goodbyes and was quite ready to accept it. I am here mostly to work on the encyclopedia and many people feel the need to take away from my time and attack me. Either let me work, or get rid of me. I don't like being Sisyphus. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:43, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

This seems to be sufficient. My only concern about an RfC would be that folks would spend the majority of time lawyering over "certifying that the dispute exists" and garbage like that. Let's expose the criticism to the light of day in a venue that is less mad-cap than AN/I. Protonk (talk) 22:46, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I have stated that I wave any such "certifying". I hope that would be sufficient. However, my opinion holds little water. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:49, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I know. That comment obviates what would have been my only concern. I think an RfC would be good, and definitely more fair to you than being dragged back to the stocks every month or so. Protonk (talk) 22:50, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Since Geogre was desysopped, I've been dragged to a noticeboard or been blocked approximately once ever 3 days. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:52, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Or another possibility might be that nobody believes an RfC is going to have any effect in changing/moderating Ottava's behaviour. Has he even acknowledged the validity of the criticism? If so I must have missed it... -- ChrisO (talk) 22:43, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I am a loyal dog. When Jimbo approached me and others about problems of some people at Wikiversity that I considered friends, I accepted the project bans that was put forth. When Cary Bass ever has a concern about me, I listen. When Arbitrators make declarations to me, I abide by them. Raul, YellowMonkey, and SandyGeorgia are three people that I listen to and would defend over myself. If any one of the above asked me to stop, to leave, or to never bother with this place again, I would. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:51, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) This discussion is so complex I'm not sure where to put it. Ottava is constantly asking for diffs to his incivility, well, here is one. I wrote this at Talk:Linguistics. Ottava responded with this insult not just to me, but to the university where I received my doctorate. My comment was backed up with this, this, this, and this from other professional linguists. Even after being insulted by Ottava, my own response remained civil. After all the linguists supported my position, Ottava then responded again with this further remarkable insult to the collective professional linguistic opinion, claiming to have more educational expertise in the field than anyone else speaking (several of whom are professors of Linguistics at major US universities) (here he admits that his expertise is not really linguistics, but philology). And even with that, the linguists' responses to Ottava's insults remained civil and respectable. Despite the linguists' continued civility, Ottava continued to hurl insults here and here at our credentials and academic integrity. This discussion at Talk:Linguistics continued on, but the actual linguists in the discussion began ignoring Ottava and he continued throwing insults despite the linguists' continuing civility as here and here. Towards the end of Ottava's contribution, s/he became less insulting, but there was a stretch cited above where his/her behavior was insulting and definitely uncivil. (Taivo (talk) 22:52, 3 November 2009 (UTC))

Why waste time on RFC/U? If Ottava makes trouble, he's simply upset about something. You could then simply offer him some cake and forget about it. Count Iblis (talk) 22:53, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't know what your university is, but I apologize if you believed I was mocking your university. I was merely pointing out the standard background on Derrida and his critique of Saussure as being standard discussion within graduate linguistics. I apologize again as I am sure you went to a decent school. It was quite over the top of me to phrase it in that way. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:56, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

• Ottava, I have stayed away from this one because no good can come of it. I suggest you do the same and be quiet. Only a fool broadcasts that he takes illicit drugs on the internet, there is no need for you to belabour that point. As a result of his edit Chillum has dug his Wikipedia grave, and probably, ultimately, his own real grave, so there is no need for you to try and bury him in it. That edit will be used against him every time he makes a controversial decision - as a respected Admin, he is finished. There's no need for you to say anything - Hush up and let nature and Wikipedia run its natural course - and as for you Chillum - do try to edit like a responsible adult - or go. I shall not be commenting further on Chillum or Ottava's conduct, both are self evident. The sooner this matter is dropped by all the better - it will solve itself. Giano (talk) 23:04, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

If you think anything I have done one Wikipedia is not "responsible" or "adult" you are welcome to draw attention to those edits. If your only basis for that comment is that I do drugs, well then I am not going to put much stock in it. Chillum 23:09, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Maybe Giano is of a different generation than I, but anyone who posts "I am under the influence of acid" has to be joking. Someone attempting to write under the influence of LSD would be lucky to write a coherent statement longer than a few dozen words, let alone remember to click "Save page" at the end. That is what makes me shake my head over this entire drug-related thread: it was a joke. Get over it. After all of this dramaz, I'd be surprised if anyone jokes about personal drug abuse on Wikipedia again. -- llywrch (talk) 00:12, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I really fail to see why editors like yourself are blind to the facts as admitted by Chillum. What Chillum actually said was "This editor is on acid. Please take any strangeness in stride."[32] Chillum himself had admitted that this was not a joke, so why do you insist that it was? Just to make another excuse for the appalling behaviour of Beeblebrox? --Malleus Fatuorum 03:32, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

It's great you mention this here, Taivo. This was one of the incidents that first brought me on the line of thought that he may be an impostor who uses his bullying to hide obvious gaps in his knowledge and scare away experts. Unfortunately it would be very painful for me to check his featured article work because his topics are so far removed from my main interests. Hans Adler 23:12, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Since the vast majority of his work here is in literary criticism and not linguistics, I am not able to comment on his Wikipedia contributions--only on the single interaction at Talk:Linguistics where he was dismissive of the linguistics professors and linguistics doctoral candidates who regularly contribute there. (Taivo (talk) 23:54, 3 November 2009 (UTC))

ArbCom and WMF have my personal information and credentials. All of my personal identification information was outed back in last September. I also use my real email as my wiki email. I have never hid my identity and most people here know it. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:14, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

My concerns aren't about your identity or degrees (which I don't know and shouldn't know) but about your knowledge and abilities. Your behaviour is not something that I have ever observed in a competent scholar. The confidence of a real expert usually makes them react coolly even to real attacks on their authority. They tend to like it when someone intelligently disagrees with them, because it gives them an opportunity test and, if necessary, correct their professional opinions. Hans Adler 00:32, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Then it may surprise you that most academics have had some of the worse fights and there is a tradition dating back hundreds of years. Everyone from John Hawkings to Ludwig Wittgenstein have been involved in petty fights over academia and opinion. Academia is primarily based on reputation, and reputation provokes the greatest emotional response possible. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:39, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Re concerns that an RFC would be useless as OR wouldn't listen: Then go straight to AC and convince them the case is already ready for arbitration. If you can't do that, then go ahead with the RFC. ANI's not going to solve anything: even if the above civility restriction were to pass, those restrictions are so vague and difficult to enforce that it wouldn't do much good. And it doesn't look like consensus is possible here, anyway. If there is to be sanctioning, it will have to come from a binding AC decision, so I suggest we cut directly to AC or RFC or, if unwilling to do that, drop the matter. There's nothing productive to do here, mark my words. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 23:38, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Heimstern Läufer, and leaning toward RFAR as the better venue for minimizing potential outing/reputational damage to one of the parties: relevant diffs or whatever could be sent to the Committee via email and clerks would be available to deal with inappropriate posts promptly. Would start RFAR procedurally for that reason, except that one other individual who recently involved himself in this believes I hold a personal grudge against him and accuses me of wikihounding. So it's best to defer actual action to other editors whose impartiality is unquestioned. Durova³⁵⁵ 00:26, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

My view

I already waived any requirement for an RfC, but not one has yet appeared. I've waived one for a long time, and also offered for people to take me to ArbCom. I also have a page connected to my talk page for complaints and yet no one bothers to post there. If people want me gone, then ban me. If people want me to stay, then let me edit like a normal person. For a very long time, I have not had the liberties as most people here. If I ever thought of making two reverts in a row, called someone "stupid", or anything like what has happened with many people above and in other posts, I would have been blocked. The standard for "incivility" has been incredibly low since Moreschi originally tried to ban me last year. This low standard means that most people above take advantage of it, threaten me, bully me, attack me in some of the nastiest ways without any thought or care about reprisal. I have been known as the Wiki Satan since August 2008.

Anyone paying attention would have seen that my name has been dragged into multiple noticeboards non-stop for quite a few months. The same group of people follow me to dozens of discussions and make it impossible to work. Yet I was still able to produce over 100 DYK, 8 FAs, and over 50 GAs. How? Who knows. It is impossible to work and concentrate with the constant attacks, criticism, following to pages, and just outright harassment. Any "restriction" is part of that whole battleground mentality of "ha, I beat you, and now I will let you know more that you are defeated". If you want to get rid of me, get rid of me. Don't put forth a systematic bias that is only permission to bully, belittle, and get in my way when trying to work. Most of the people wanting me to be restricted already said I provide nothing. If that is so, get rid of me. If not, stop. All the above does is constant draw things out and for what reason? To inflict pain? To be "better" than me? To "win"?

Is it really that important to "win"? And is winning this way even really winning? If you really think you are better than me, then please, constantly write articles, constantly work with people who disagree with you on pages, and put non stop works through DYK, GAN, and FAC. I only have 200 DYK, 50+ GA, and 10ish FAs. That isn't hard to beat. Anyone with a few months could easily pass that. You want to show you are smarter than me, put forth some great articles. You want to show that you contribute more to the encyclopedia? Start typing away. You want to prove that I am just an idiot? Out do me and show how great you are in comparison.

But if you want to just get rid of me, do it already. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:23, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't want to "win." I just want you to stop calling me a meatpuppet, accusing me of trying to destroy Wikipedia, and calling for my desysopping. That's a low bar to meet. --Akhilleus (talk) 00:31, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I want you to stop appearing along side of Folantin, Moreschi, Antandrus, and Dbachmann at various debates and issues echoing what they state and sometimes responding for them. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:36, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Akhilleus, have we worked together? If we have, I certainly do not remember doing so. I'd love to, though, as you seem to be a fine editor. Ottava, stop lying. Really. You need to stop making shit up. Thank you, Antandrus (talk) 00:53, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Antandrus, I have already pointed out various discussions in which you and Akhilleus were on the same side. Regardless, if I am lying then this is a simple request and will be processed quickly. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:01, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Ottava, I have read three threads now, all of which have said pretty much the same thing: you react disproportionately to any comment about you. Every response that I have read from you contains no statement where you say that you understand why so many separate users have made these statements...in fact you continue to have disproportionate reactions to everything that is said against you. As an un-involved editor I am shocked that you haven't already been banned, and can only assume that it is because you have made so many excellent contributions. I am still new here, but losing someone of your skill because you can't control your reactions would be an incredible loss, and I would hate to see that. So, as someone who is still learning the ropes here, and who needs people who can show how to write FAs, GAs, DYKs, and the like...Here is my request. Tone it down...take yourself off of "attack" mode and put yourself into "compromise" mode. Just because someone disagrees with you doesn't mean that they are attacking you personally. Listen to their points of disagreement and find some neutral compromise that is acceptable to both of you. WP is not about having an article be your way or not at all, and yet you seem to not only see that in yourself, but in everyone else. My experience has been that most editors are willing to compromise, if you can find a reasonable point of compromise (as well as meet the assorted policies), but no one will want to work with you, no matter how good you are if you keep attacking instead of compromising. Frmatt (talk) 02:23, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

If that is true (that it is shocking that I have not been banned), as you say, then why is it that I have not been banned? It seems obvious with the amount of threads on me and the countless warnings and blocks that people are not afraid of bringing up the issue, right? Ottava Rima (talk) 02:33, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

You missed his point entirely. user:J aka justen (talk) 02:36, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

if you see the above, it's time to move past AN/I. Xavexgoem (talk) 02:38, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

• I've reopened the archive box, reverting Xavexgoem. There is a reason for this discussion. Let it run, please. JohnWBarber (talk) 02:45, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
  • What's the outcome of protracted discussions at AN/I? This will run, but it will not run its course. Not here. AN/I regulars know that. The best course of action for an admin on this thread is to close it. Xavexgoem (talk) 02:48, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
    • "Support" in the "Original thread" subsection has what? about 30 participants, with more than 20 supporting the proposal. Seems like a consensus is forming. JohnWBarber (talk) 02:54, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
      • Oh, I agree. But I don't think any admin is going to say "OK, I've made my decision"; I agree with Sandy that maybe a 'crat would be better, but I've not known crats to do that.
      • If you'd prefer, I could make a decision. Shall I? Xavexgoem (talk) 02:57, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
        • Well, now I'm getting shy. I'm not a regular around here. I won't object if you do, but I don't want this to end as a "no consensus" if a little more time might get us to consensus. That's my only concern. Consensus and a "resolved" check should be noted at the top, IMHO. JohnWBarber (talk) 03:06, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
          • A little more time, and we have another cupla kilobytes to sort through (and we'll still need this discussion). If I act now, we'll get to see what happens when an admin (and a completely uninvolved one, at that) makes a decision. I don't predict it ending well, but I'm fine with being a sheep to that slaughter. Xavexgoem (talk) 03:09, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
            • I always thought that the person who put up the box was the one who indicated the resolution. I think we have a consensus and the resolution should come soon, and I'd rather not see the box without the resolution. But I've reverted once and won't again. I've gotta go now. JohnWBarber (talk) 03:21, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

• JohnWBarber - when you determined consensus, which way did you place HalfShadow (21:18, 3 November 2009), Protonk (22:44, 3 November 2009), and SMC (01:17, 4 November 2009) as they have stated "Would all of you kindly shut the fuck up, please?", which suggests that the topic should be closed and ignores any desire to put forth anything? How did you also rate the other people that didn't "oppose" but made it clear that they disagree with this whole thing? Ottava Rima (talk) 03:27, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Yes Ottava, and "all of you" that that "shut the fuck up" was directed at included you too. Yet here you are arguing again, and I fail to see how the hell this is going to help you. This sort of pointless arguing by everyone is exactly the reason why we can never establish consensus for something like this, and you end up being dragged into ANI every two weeks or so. I agree with Xavexgoem that closing now would be the sensible thing to do. But we wikipedians don't do the sensible thing, and like to stand about talking bullcrap that has the remotest connection to the topic at hand. You can't develop consensus when we do that. From the way things are going now, I personally don't think that any decision made here would last for long and would probably be overturned just as soon as it's applied. So, we'll just have to let some more drama develop before closing this and someone will probably start over again in a few more days, until we get tired of it. ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 03:36, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
    • If questions are arguments, how do you propose I am to find out what someone else says when they have not immediately provided that information? Or should I not know that information? Ottava Rima (talk) 03:45, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

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

User:Arbcomknowswhothisis

Resolved

 – The user is blocked already. I presume he or she can appeal to arbcom. — Carl (CBM · talk) 22:00, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

User:Arbcomknowswhothisis looks like a single-purpose account intended for conducting either a breaching experiment or merely testing the boundaries of Wikipedia's tolerance. -- The Anome (talk) 21:32, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

My guess is something related to Scientology. MuZemike 21:39, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, what makes you think that? I don't see any edits related to that subject matter in the user's contribs. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:50, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

The best thing would be to ask arbcom if the do, indeed, know who this is. — Carl (CBM · talk) 21:55, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Isn't this user blockable under the username policy even if xe never edits anything other than their user page? The username is certainly intended to cause disruption... MirrorLockup (talk) 21:58, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Indeffed as a disruptive sock. I will bring it up to the appropriate folks on the oh so very slight chance that I got this one wrong.--Tznkai (talk) 21:59, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I've confirmed with an Arbitrator that this block as appropriate.--Tznkai (talk) 22:18, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Ed, Edd, n' Eddy's Big Picture Show

Resolved

 – Ed, Edd, n' Eddy's overly enthusiastic fans have been blocked and the movie title redirected to the article section where that topic is covered.ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:12, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Not sure if this is the right place to bring this up, but I want another pair of eyes on it. User:Tdinoahfan completed the above article, after Ed, Edd, n Eddy's Big Picture Show was deleted following an AFD vote. Because he provided no sourcing, I tagged it for speedy as a possible hoax; he's reverted it, and continued to do so every time I retagged it. I've hit 3RR now, so I'll go no further. I left a note on his talk page, which has gone unanswered: is there anything further that needs to be done? I'm willing to stop speedying for good if this can be proven to exist.

See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ed, Edd, n Eddy's Big Picture Show --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 21:52, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

It exists...not sure how close it comes to WP:N, but it definitely exists...I'd suggest you do a quick Google Search next time before bringing it here. I got 71,000 google hits when I searched it. I won't speak to the AfD because I can't seem to find it. Frmatt (talk) 22:05, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Ordinarily I would. In this case, precedent existed for a deletion, and it was recent (couple of days ago). I figured there was probably something else going on here that I didn't know about. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 22:13, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Now deleted. It was protected (inexplicably). Further attempts at restoration should go to deletion review. Protonk (talk) 22:06, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I think User:Tdinoahfan's most recent edit illustrates that he isn't here to participate in collaborative editing. Soxwon (talk) 22:12, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

It could illustrate many things. No harm, no foul. Protonk (talk) 22:13, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

It was protected, and the speedy should have been declined, as the AFD for previous discussion was because it was deemed a hoax. It never went to full discussion etcetera, and now apparently exists (or at least someone went to great lengths to pretend it does, complete with youtube video links of it). I am asking Black Kite to undelete it long enough to determine if it truly exists (there appears to be YouTube of it, etcetera).. (oh, and addendum: FRICKIN EDIT CONFLICTS) SirFozzie (talk) 22:16, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Can you give me a few minutes on this, please? I have quite a strong suspicion this might well be a G5 as well as a G4. Also, I'm pretty sure that's not the only AfD there's ever been on that article - there's a lot of ways of punctuating it. Black Kite 22:19, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Not a problem, there is no deadline, after all :). I was just looking at it from a procedural standpoint, that the AFD wasn't a valid speedy reason, and that the reason for the speedy last time does not appear to be true now. I have no opinion on the notability or appropriateness of an article on it. SirFozzie (talk) 22:24, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Found it. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ed, Edd n Eddy's Big Picture Show. Now, as for the G5 aspect... Black Kite 22:26, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

And Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ed, Edd n Eddy's 1st Movie! Black Kite 22:27, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

(de-indent) The last one really doesn't apply here again, it was deleted because of WP:CRYSTAL, which again, no longer applies (note that it said that it was fine to recreate after it was released), but this one [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ed, Edd n Eddy's Big Picture Show probably is a good deletion and it should go to DRV. (although I would support replacing the article with a redirect to the main Ed-article). Good work, BK :) SirFozzie (talk) 22:30, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) One of the AfDs that Black Kite is referring to is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ed, Edd n Eddy's 1st Movie. That was easily findable through the most recent AfD. While I've been assuming good faith with Tdinoahfan's creation of this article, the alleged EE&E movie has been the subject of repeated recreation. I agree with Protonk that, at this point, the correct venue for restoration is DRV. —C.Fred (talk) 22:31, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

If the speedy had been declined, I'd be fine with it - as I say, I have no opinion one way or another. My reasons for bringing the whole thing to ANI in the first place have to do with the way in which the creator handled the article, reverting my changes and making no attempt to handle my concerns properly. Also, I would note that it seems to have been raised at DRV already, if I understand comments on the creator's talk page correctly. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 22:32, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I've been EC'd so many times now many of my original points are moot now but I've been involved with this article for some time and there is a huge history here of bad article writing regarding this specifically so whilst it does exist it doesn't mean it's notable and the most recent AfD shows that, the create-protect for most variants of the title is because the fans are a little overzealous. treelo _radda 22:34, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Note User:Tdinoahfan has been blocked for incivility and edit warring. Martin451 (talk) 22:37, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I have indeffed the editor since they wouldn't stop edit warring on WP:DRV. I did try to explain the process to them. If they request unblock showing they can edit properly then fine, but they've already been blocked for disruption once, and their account's only 2 days old. And I'm pretty sure they're a recreation of a blocked user anyway. Creating an AfD with their 3rd edit? Um. Black Kite 22:40, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Tdinoahfan's specific style of grammar and spelling and speaking as if people hate the show seems familiar, xe is most likely a sock of someone but I'm unsure who, I'll dig around. treelo _radda 22:45, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I came up with nothing (though think it could be someone who was banned recently) but if anyone wants to tell me who created Ed, Edd n Eddy's Big Picture Show most recently it might help me make a case. treelo _radda 23:23, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

• Just a friendly reminder to admins. Don't ratchet up blocks due to post-block ranting (though it is hard to ratchet up 'indef') Protonk (talk) 22:53, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

• This is fairly normal for the fans, you'd be best not letting them go this far with their arguing, you'll be there all week. treelo _radda 23:23, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

• Same guy as CNGLITCHINFO (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Thatcher 23:49, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Can someone provide a link to the DRV? At the very least the deleted article titles should be redirected to the main article (Ed, Edd n Eddy?) and whatever cited content exists included there. The response to the articles repeated recreation looks reactionary and inappropriate to me. Why not try to solve the problem? ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:51, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

• The problem is easily solved. That's for the article to be written with sources showing notability, as opposed to re-creating the version that was deleted at AfD because it had neither. Black Kite 00:04, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Even easier would be to redirect it to the main article, perhaps with a small section all its own, indicating that it was selectively released but hasn't been widely covered as is noted in the consensus of this AfD discussion [33]. Redirects can be protected you know. That would solve the problem once and for all. (It turns out the section already existed. So all that's needed is a redirect. See below) ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:24, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Admin assistance needed

Could an Admin please redirect Ed, Edd, n Eddy's Big Picture Show (which has been protected) to Ed, Edd n Eddy#Ed, Edd n Eddy's Big Picture Show where this content is included. Thanks. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:56, 4 November 2009 (UTC)  Done

Thanks Protonk. I think this thread is resolved and exhausted. Unless of course we can work in something about Ottava? ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:06, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

CoM, a friendly word - please do not try to antagonise other editors. Mjroots (talk) 06:27, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

As one who is beginning to understand Ottava's side of these controversies that he seems to find himself in frequently, I might have made the same satirical comment if I had thought of it first. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:04, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Good advice. I'm not sure which bit you're referring to though as my comment just above was meant as a harmless joke. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:31, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Block review: university wants notified of vandalism, not blocked

The students at Lancaster University have been busy on Wikipedia. While some edits are without doubt constructive, others are far from it. Today's vandalism from 194.80.32.8 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) includes some really creative stuff. However the IP's talk page also has seven notations indicating that vandalism should be reported to the school rather than on the talk page, and that the university would prefer to deal with it, rather than have us block the IP.

This issue was brought to my attention when I processed a block request for the IP at WP:AIV. While I would normally be inclined to let the university administration deal with the issue, the 13 previous blocks combined with the steady and continuous stream of vandalism (which shows no end in sight) leads me to the conclusion that enough is enough. As such, I have applied a {{schoolblock}} with a one year duration.

Any admin who feels I have been too hasty should feel free to reduce or remove the block as they see fit. — Kralizec! (talk) 01:02, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Completely support this block. Tan | 39 01:04, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree. I saw where the one user claimed that this will block 20000 people. I don't see the problem with that. If they want to edit, they can register an account from elsewhere, and not be inconvenienced. While it is good that they are reacting to it, it does not change the fact that each of those 20000 could potentially make 4+ bad edits, and that quite a few seem to have taken that chance. Sodam Yat (talk) 01:38, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

steveb: and I have to say, we have received no notifications via email. Not one. Apparently the tools that WikiAdmins use (Huggle?) simply revert and write to the page (seems like a bit of a fault to me), so my efforts have been spitting in the wind. Steveb (talk) 08:58, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

steveb: as things stand at the moment, unless someone here camps on WP all day, vandalism reports will go unnoticed. As the last week has shown, even responding to complaints is not enough. Steveb (talk) 08:58, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

←I have notified Steveb (talk · contribs) of this discussion after seeing that they have responded to most of the warnings on the IP's talk page in an official manner indicating that they are an official of the university. (Could this be a shared account? I say that because of the almost constant usage of we in their replies) -MBK₀₀₄ 01:56, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

steveb: I use the term "we" because I work as part of a team. Steveb is a thinly veiled disguise, my real name is Steve Bennett, I work in ISS (the University IT department). Steveb (talk) 08:58, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I've allowed account creation. If a vandal registers, it'll be easier to narrow them down for the administration, I'm thinking. Also: they're students. May as well... Xavexgoem (talk) 02:27, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

steveb: Thanks for that, most of our users are away from home so the "register from home" thing is pretty inconvenient. Steveb (talk) 08:58, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Makes it harder for us to track, plus they will still get autoblocked... Prodego ^talk 02:38, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I guess it's just IMO. <shrug> Xavexgoem (talk) 02:43, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

The school may be trying to prevent autoblock from causing massive disruption. One student could cause much of the university of lose Wikipedia editing access. For that student, it's fun. For others, it's hell. For that student, just cause a block and other computers get blocked. Just one visit to the computing center and another to the library could disrupt a lot of users. Ipromise (talk) 04:05, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

• one year is excessive. The students change from year to year, and this year's sins should not be visited on the incoming class also. The block should run at most till the end of the school year this spring. DGG ( talk ) 03:57, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
  • It's a British university, so they're only a month into their new academic year. Black Kite 08:20, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
    • Yes, DGG - if you want a block to run until the end of the academic year, it would need to be a 9 month block (end of the school year is officially 31st August) -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 11:34, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Has the individual (Steveb) that claims to have jurisdiction over this IP verified their identify with OTRS? Just a thought. Netalarmtrick or treat! 06:10, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

steveb: If I had ever heard of OTRS I might have used it. Steveb (talk) 08:58, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Steveb, you can read about it here -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 11:34, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

steveb: I don't really see that proving my identity makes any difference if WP admins will never read a response to a complaint, and it's moot now anyway - my institution has what amounts to a permanent ban on anonymous contributions, so it really doesn't require any further input from me.
It would be great if account creation can be left in place so that those that wish to make a positive contribution can do so with a minimum of fuss. Steveb (talk) 12:40, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

We see here another edu institution trying to do the right thing - allowing students to edit and taking action against those who are making bad faith edits. It seems to me that WP should welcome this editor, and try and link them with others in similar situaions, and create some policies / guidelines to help them do their jobs and help keep wp clean. Misuse of computers in english unis is taken pretty seriously. Remember Civility (talk) 20:23, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

IP Ban?

This IP has been warned a few times before [[34]]. Now the editor from this IP has removed sourced information without any explanation [[35]]. Maybe some administrator may deem it fit to ban this IP. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.193.240.57 (talk) 01:45, 4 November 2009 (UTC) Another example of this editor removing sourced information without any explanation [[36]] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.193.240.57 (talk) 01:57, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

77.109.205.218 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

 Not done Last edit was over 2 months ago. DMacks (talk) 02:16, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Either a troll or a sock of Dubbawubba

Based on these diffs ([37][38]), BuckyBKatt (talk · contribs) is either a sock of Dubbawubba (talk · contribs) (see the section above) or a troll. Looie496 (talk) 02:44, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Threats

Resolved

Editor warned, looks like an isolated event so no further action needed unless it is repeated. Mjroots (talk) 08:41, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Look at the recent edit summaries of Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) starting at 18:17, 3 November 2009 and going before that time. It looks like to me he is treating users with profanity, don't you think?  Btilm  06:20, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

• Notified. Netalarmtalk 06:30, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I've issued a uw-wrongsummary and pointed the editor to WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL. If the hint isn't taken, then a block is in order. Mjroots (talk) 06:37, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you!  Btilm  06:40, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

User:CharlotteGoiar

(moved from WP:AIV) CharlotteGoiar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Retaliatory vandalism to Andrea James.[39][40] Permanently blocked on Spanish Wikipedia recently [41]. User promotes her fake disease "Harry Benjamin Syndrome" on multiple Wikipedia projects; disrupts Wikipedia when that fails.[42][43] Engages in sockpuppetry.[44] Clearly a single-purpose account violating numerous policies. Recommend block or ban. Jokestress (talk) 07:10, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Indef blocked for disruption - coming back and vandalizing related articles after the article deletion was not acceptable, given the history and socking.

However, you didn't notify them when you posted that, please do so, so that they're aware it was brought up here... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 08:07, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Accusing of Sockpuppetry orn troll

user:Looie469 (Or something weird like that) has accused me of being a sock puppet of User:Dubbawubba, which I am not, or a troll, which I am not either. I think it might be because I was trying to put a picture on a article, but I couldn't. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BuckyBKatt (talk • contribs) 18:47, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

User:Dbachmann abusing Admin rights at Telugu article

Resolved

 – no abuse found Toddst1 (talk) 12:40, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I want to report Dbachmann for making this page semiprotected against IP editors without any explanation. Here is the story. Yesterday I found two issues, that I had corrected. The first one was, that somebody turned the language ranking by speakers from "Telugu is the third most spoken language in India" to "second most". Later I found a headline of "Lexical traces in Prakrit epigraphy" and turned it to "Early Telugu epicgraphy", because this article is about Telugu, not Prakrit, a completely different set of languages. Dbachmann reverted my first edit, which was referenced and sufficiently explained in the summary. I put a warning template on his user page. Now he basically reverted again, with "third most language" being kept in the article. Now, the problem is, that he had also protected the page against me with no reason given. The intention was obviously, that I shouldn't remove his Prakrit edit. Please take action against this disruptive behaviour. --91.130.188.8 (talk) 10:04, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

You reverted one of his edits as "vandalism" and templated him for disruptive editing? Look, I'm all in favour of "do template the regulars", but wasn't there a little more poking rather than following the be bold, revert, discuss process? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:08, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

But he reverted a perfectly sourced statement. Who wouldn't consider this as vandalism? --91.130.188.8 (talk) 10:15, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Read the definition of vandalism and WP:BRD ... let me know the answer :-) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:21, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, I couldn't identify any good faith in his edits, since he reverted everything without explanation on talk page or in the summary. --91.130.188.8 (talk) 10:36, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comment According to the cited source, the 5 most spoken languages ("mother tongue") in India are:

1. Hindi 257,919,635
2. Bengali 82,462,437
3. Telugu 73,817,148
4. Marathi 71,701,478
5. Urdu 51,533,954

Going by the "Language", which includes various mother tongues grouped together, we get:

1. HINDI 422,048,642
2. BENGALI 83,369,769
3. TELUGU 74,002,856
4. MARATHI 71,936,894
5. TAMIL 60,793,814

Just my 0.02 -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 10:48, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

This is not disputed here by anyone. --91.130.188.8 (talk) 11:06, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

It was one of the issues raised by you above, so I thought I'd leave this comment (the comments about "third" being kept didn't appear until after I wrote the comment). -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 11:38, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Dbachmann may have an explanation, but it looks like less than exemplary adminning on this page. He made a content edit [45]; then the IP made an edit reverting that (with appropriate edit summary) and making another, sourced, change. [46]. Dbachmann rolled back that edit, and when the IP undid that and referred to "vandalism", he incorporated some of the changes made (the change from "second most" to "third most") and then semi-protected for two weeks. At no point was the article talk page used, or the IP user talk page. The vandalism template given by the IP to Dbachmann has already been noted, and unlike Bwilkins, I think WP:DTTR is important - but the response to that seems to have been lacking WP:AGF. If there's a prior history that would justify that, fine, but otherwise, it looks like a bad hair day, notably on the apparent violation of WP:SEMI. Blocking should have been preferred, if justified, if it's based on this IP's behaviour alone (and I don't see a history of vandalism by others). Rd232 ^talk 10:50, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

• Looking at the history, it seems that the removal of the "third most spoken" language reference was Collateral damage - the aim seemed to revert the "Lexical traces in Prakrit epigraphy" comment. I notice that the last revert Dbachman did (where protection was made) left the "third" statement, but changed the "Lexical traces in Prakrit epigraphy" statement. -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 10:54, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

• Pending Dbachmann's explanation, the semiprotection seems disproportionate to what was happening on the page. However, I feel that we should allow Dbachmann the chance to respond here. Incidently, with regard to the warning that 188.8 put on Dbachmann's page, although I think that sometimes it is OK to Template the Regulars, this was a level 3 warning! Threatening a regular with a block is maybe more than would be acceptable! -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 11:02, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Should I use the "Welcome to Wikipedia" template instead? --91.130.188.8 (talk) 11:04, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

No, try "discuss" from the Bold, Revert, Discuss process. A template is not a discussion. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:22, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Don't shout at me. I have made my point in the summary. The discussion here is aimed to make me the guiltiest person of wikipedia, I guess. --91.130.188.8 (talk) 11:26, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Who's shouting? Talking in ALLCAPS is shouting, I simply bolded the important word. Nobody is aiming for anything but to have all sides involved and understanding policy and the situation as a whole. You know, teach a man to fish ... blah blah blah. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:30, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Being thin-skinned and claiming persecution is rarely an effective way of presenting one's argument. Perhaps, instead of lashing out at those who are discussing the matter with you, you could instead state more clearly what specific issues you disagree with them on, and why. It seems a very valid point was raised as to the appropriateness of the template you used. Your response to that point did not help your case that the admin in question was acting erroneously.

None of this is intended to insult you, but rather to help you represent yourself better and better convey your thoughts on the issue that you feel is important. Throwaway85 (talk) 11:36, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I feel, no admin should be allowed to semi-protect an article without any clear reasoning. I wrote this in my intial posting. However, people here don't discuss this issue at all. Instead, they prefer to lecture me about life in wikipedia. --91.130.188.8 (talk) 11:57, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

• I think we are all waiting for Dbachmann to give us his explanation before commenting one way or the other. I don't know what their hours of Wikipedia-ing are, but I think they have the right to explain why they semi-protected the page before we go further.

Incidently, you complained about them removing sourced information (the "third most spoken language" statement) - well, they made sure that went back into the article before protection. The other editing you did wasn't sourced, was it? As I say, with regard to the protection of the page, I'll await Dbachmann's comments. -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 12:59, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

No, the "Welcome to Wikipedia" template wouldn't have been appropriate, neither would level 2 ("please experiment in the sandbox"). Yet a threat of a block is also unsuitable! That is why the general advice is not to template the regulars, as none of the templates are suitable - you need to hand-code the warning, or discuss it, rather than using a template which is not suitable. -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 11:38, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Incidently, BWilkins is referring to the essay Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, as mentioned in their first reply to you -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 11:44, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I think, that the template was very suitable as evidenced in his reaction by semi-protecting the page in his favour. So, how do you respond to that? --91.130.188.8 (talk) 11:57, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

It seems that you have taken the feedback you've received here personally. That is not what is intended. Rather, those with whom you are discussing this matter are attempting to illustrate the inappropriate nature of the template you applied. A level 3 template, such as you applied, is generally only applied after a user has received multiple warnings, and usually only to new users. A seasoned user is likely to feel offended by such a template, and is likely to view the editor who applied, rightly or wrongly, as a vandal. None of this is in any way meant to reflect upon the admin's actions, as that is a separate matter, and one I will leave to those more qualified to comment than I. Throwaway85 (talk) 12:33, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

• If you had not brought this up here, I would have suggested that you just went to Wikipedia:Requests for page protection and asked for it to be unprotected - or preferably, left a polite message on Dbachmann's talk page (not a threat to have them blocked), asking them to explain why they have protected the page. As you have brought this to ANI instead of RFPP, I will give Dbachmann a chance to explain why he semi-protected the page. Until I have heard from them, I will refrain from commenting on the right- or wrong-ness of his protection of the page. -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 12:54, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

What is this doing on AN? I am, of course, happy to discuss my edits, with people interested in working on the article, on the article's talkpage. What we have here is a logged-out editor edit-warring, wikilawyering and posting bogus warnings to my talkpage. All of this, mind you, without bothering to make a single comment on the article talkpage. I have semiprotected the page to stop the anon's misbehavior. Let them use their account, or come to talk and make an actual point. --dab (𒁳) 13:10, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I sufficiantly described my changes in the summary. You have no point of semi-protecting, violating WP:SEMI. You're only motive was to block my edits in your favour (without reasoning). I will bring this up again and the administrator who "saw no abuse". --91.130.188.8 (talk) 13:29, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

AbdulHornochsmannn

Can someone please do something about User:AbdulHornochsmannn? I could do it but I'm not uninvolved. This editor has never done anything except harrass and insult other editors. Highlights:

• Insulting or mocking responses to polite comments: [47] [48] [49]
• Describes polite attempt to reason as "Irreslevant discussion with an irrelevant person": [50]
• Rude response to warning: [51]
• Insulting reply to editor who did not write and didn't even defend the text he doesn't like: [52]
• Rather than helping to fix the article, prefers to attack the editors who are working on it: [53]
• Deliberately vandalises article to "make a point": [54]
• Pretends to add content but somehow the sources stayed the same. [55]
• Original research [56]
• Inserts commentary into article text: [57]
• Adds obviously unacceptable text: [58]
• Deletes relevant sourced text: [59]
• Adds text, pretending it comes from a source that in fact does not have it: [60]
• Adds text irrelevant to article: [61]
• Edits another editor's Talk page comments and adds insults "Couldn't you have at least TRIED...": [62]
• Makes completely false claim about another wikipedia article: [63]
• Fatuous reply to reasonable request: [64]

Sorry about the length of this list, but this is all from quite a short period and is a large fraction of all the edits by this editor. Zero^talk 10:35, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Not sure though what the whole Muslim Invasions vs. Muslim invasions edit was all about. (...Vandalism?) I tried a RfC, but that was deleted. Each and every possible attempt to introduce the fact that JEWS EXISTED PRIOR TO 1948 has been thwarted.

Res Ipsa Loquitur —Preceding unsigned comment added by AbdulHornochsmannn (talk • contribs) 10:52, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Judging by this editor's name ("Hornochse", in German, is a euphemistic word for "idiot"), this guy is probably not here to please. Perhaps a disruption-only account?

Cheers, pedrito - talk - 11:13 04.11.2009

Nice catch Pedrito. I would also mention that "Abdul" in Arabic, means "servant of". His Wiki name therefore translates as "Servant of idiocy"-mann. I will let others determine if the moniker is an apt description for his editing contributions to date. Tiamut^talk 11:20, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Best of luck to the editor in question on his travels elsewhere on the internet. Clearly does not belong here. It's a touchy subject, bound to attract all types, but his editting style is merely that of a bored and uncouth teenager. Permaban. Throwaway85 (talk) 11:25, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

And judging from the name Zero, it would appear that you mean nothing.

Cop out.

Are Jews a Semitic People or are we not? AbdulHornochsmannn (talk) 11:22, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Apparently Pedrito is a Spanish football player. This guy is probably here to play football.

Non-sequiturAbdulHornochsmannn (talk) 11:30, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Once again:Are Jews a Semitic People or are we not? AbdulHornochsmannn (talk) 11:30, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Such silence to such a simple question. Perhaps I should rephrase it in a more objective form.

Are Jews a Semitic People or are they not?AbdulHornochsmannn (talk) 11:33, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Still nothing. (Nice try to cover up the "i" "I" thing Zero, but it's all still in the diffs.)AbdulHornochsmannn (talk) 11:39, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I now ask Zero DIRECTLY: Are Jews a Semitic People or are they not?

Indeed, such a touchy subject. Yet such a simple question.

Are Jews a Semitic People or are they not? How uncouth a teenager can one be to avoid such a simple question?

Are Jews a Semitic People or are they not?

Your silence speaks volumes.

Perhaps I do not belong here in this village of idiots and/or anti-semites who cannot answer the simplest possible of questions. AbdulHornochsmannn (talk) 11:50, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Either way, I suppose this little attempt to "do something about me" is going nowhere.

(You people actually don't know who I am, do you! Fascinating!)

Jews are a Semitic people. That has nothing to do with this discussion at all. What is in question, is your disruptive and aggressive behaviour and your inability to follow Wikipedia policies and guidelines, even when you are directed to them with politeness. Tiamut^talk 12:02, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure that engagement is the wisest course of action here. Throwaway85 (talk) 12:07, 4 November 2009 (UTC) Throwaway85 (talk) 12:05, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Dude, I filed an RfC that you deleted offhand.

Zero has actually sunk to VANDALISM

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Al-Bassa&diff=323615218&oldid=323576081

The article alleges that Jews ``stole`` land from poor little innocent villagers.

I suppose I was being aggressive and disruptive indeed! I was trying aggressively to disrupt the absurd POV of an article that paints my people as nothing but evil, cruel alien demons taking land away from innocent villagers! Hey! Can`t do that! Won`t let you! We`ve been through that before! Won`t let it happen again! Not on your god-damned life! —Preceding unsigned comment added by AbdulHornochsmannn (talk • contribs) 12:20, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

• I've indefblocked AbdulHornochsmannn. There's a strong suggestion above that this editor has been here under before other guises, and in this incarnation they've achieved little other than to disrupt articles and antagonise other editors. I see no net benefit in allowing them to continue in this vein. Block review welcome as always. EyeSerene^talk 12:51, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately the only appropriate course of action. Their comments to my user page [65] led me to believe that they were simply looking for a fight. Good block. Throwaway85 (talk) 13:27, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not really sure what else you could have done. It's not like s/he wasn't offered a chance to discuss it on a normal level playing field like a talk page and was asked for sources just like anyone else trying to make a statement. Even after ignoring a few warnings, you showed a whole lot more patience than a lot of admins seem to have (which is good, of course). ♪ daTheisen(talk) 16:48, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Vandalizing sinple-purpose IP editor

Resolved

 – school IP Toddst1 (talk) 12:41, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

This should be fairly straight forward. Here're the edits in question. I contacted the BC legislature (where the IP resolves to) and they said it belonged to a school district. Not too sure what that means in terms of corrective action. Blocking 1 IP wouldn't stop the particular user, but would prevent other users from using that computer/network. Does anyone have any ideas as to how to address this? Currently it looks like the vandalism has stopped, but it'd be nice to know how these things are usually dealt with. Throwaway85 (talk) 11:19, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I've put a shared user template on it for 'Province of British Columbia' which was all I could verify. They should have been given a warning at the time, but no warning was placed. If they'd continued the warnings could have been escalated and if they didn't stop they would be normally given a block - probably a 'schoolblock'. Dougweller (talk) 11:55, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

This is the reply I received to my original email:

Good morning [Redacted],

That IP address [142.35.61.59] is assigned to School District 37. I have forwarded your email to the appropriate group with the request that they investigate and address as appropriate.

[Redacted] Senior Security Specialist Investigations Unit IT Security Operations Branch Shared Services BC - Workplace Technology Services Ministry of Citizens' Services Phone: 250-387-8833; Fax: 250-387-3240

Hope that helps, although the problem is, at this point, dormant. Throwaway85 (talk) 12:10, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Constant vandalism and disruption

This was just posted on my talk page [66], however I am running late for an out-of-town meeting and will not have internet access most of the day. If another admin could check it out, I would appreciate it. Thanks, — Kralizec! (talk) 13:00, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand why you admins turn blind to Tajik (talk · contribs) when he goes around use sockpuppets in your faces and vandalize pages after pages. Is Wikipedia some type of gang related website? User:Tajik is removing sourced material from articles, this is vandalism and you admins allow it. He uses the excuse "falsification and POVs" but it's really him doing those if you concentrate on his edits. These are only few examples: [67], [68], [69], [70], [71] He and Inuit18 (talk · contribs) (sockpuppet of Anoshirawan) pops up as a tag-team and usually at the same time, I believe that account is shared by him and someone in USA who's English is not so great. It's so strange that he comes everyday but only edit very little, so it's very likely that he's using sockpuppets to evade his 1 RR restriction. Tajik pretends that he is against POVs but it's he that is a POV pusher."The author - in this case al-Biruni - is referring to the Suleiman Mountains. In that case, it is highly probable that he was referring to Pashtuns, because he had described them as a "Hindu people" before.... Tajik (talk) 01:10, 26 June 2009 (UTC)". It's very clear for readers here that Tajik hates Pashtuns with great passion so he wants to give them a new history which would make them being Hindus when all the scholars, history books, encyclopedias, and the Pashtuns themselves, disagree. There is "zero traces" of any Hindu culture among the Pashtuns. Anyway, Tajik was blocked 17 times and banned for a whole year but he doesn't seem to care about any of that, he just wants to remove things from articles that he doesn't agree with or doesn't like. This is a serious problem and you guys should put an end to it. I also believe Muxlim (talk · contribs) is him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.73.0.122 (talk • contribs) 07:49, 4 November 2009

I'm not sure that the IP's spamming two fistfuls of administrators is the right way to get us to investigate his concerns. I'm half tempted to roll them all back, especially since it is now HERE. Syrthiss (talk) 13:06, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Rude sock

A blocked user confirmed that they created a sockpuppet account to continue editing while blocked. 24.148.0.83 (talk) 12:52, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Sock of who? I warned him to cut the personal attacks.--Unionhawk ^{Talk E-mail Review} 13:22, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

This guy, apparently. 24.148.0.83 (talk) 13:24, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Oh. this guy. Looks like a WP:DUCK to me.--Unionhawk ^{Talk E-mail Review} 13:27, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Nuked the account. Syrthiss (talk) 13:28, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! I knew I was pushing it with my reverts; I've been warned not to edit war, so I will not, and I will come here instead if the user resumes this behavior. 24.148.0.83 (talk) 13:29, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I want to make it clear that I blocked him solely for the personal attacks and the block evasion. I'm not taking a position on the edit war (tho with his socking to the account, he did violate 3rr I believe). I can think of many other productive things to do than to edit war over a comic book character. Syrthiss (talk) 13:36, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually, technically, if he starts up again, take it to WP:SPI.--Unionhawk ^{Talk E-mail Review} 13:43, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

And yeah, that was kind of a trivial edit to war over too...--Unionhawk ^{Talk E-mail Review} 13:44, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

User:Toddst1 ANI resolve abuse and User:Dbachmann semi-protection abuse

Resolved

 – This is non-issue. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 14:11, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Here is the discussion of the previous ANI, that I filed exclusively against Dbachmann: discussion

Toddst1 resolved the issue with quote "no abuse found"

WP:SEMI states: Administrators may apply indefinite semi-protection to pages which are subject to heavy and persistent vandalism or violations of content policy (such as biographies of living persons, neutral point of view). Semi-protection should not be used as a pre-emptive measure against vandalism that has not yet occurred, nor should it be used solely to prevent editing by anonymous and newly registered users.

I challenge the decision made by Toddst1 and want to know a detailed explanation of his action in light of wikipedia semi-protection policies and the previous mentioned discussion. I still request sufficient action against Dbachmann, who accused me in the discussion of edit warring, lawyering etc. --91.130.188.8 (talk) 13:47, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Speak with them individually. This is not the place to discuss this.--Unionhawk ^{Talk E-mail Review} 13:50, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

And you were edit warring, and you are wikilawyaring...--Unionhawk ^{Talk E-mail Review} 13:52, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

What's the big deal? If you're right, you'll be able to discuss it on the article talk page, get consensus, and the change will still get made. You ought to do that anyway, before repeatedly reverting to changes when you can see that others disagree with you. I'm an administrator, but I don't know anything about Telegu, so I don't know who's right in this content disagreement. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 13:57, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

The big deal is, that I already made my point in a summary and Dbachmann ignored it and semi-protected the article.--91.130.188.8 (talk) 14:01, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Going after your logic, every admin can protect a site whenever they want (also in case, they were part of it).--91.130.188.8 (talk) 13:58, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I checked your contribution history, and I can't see any posts from you at Talk:Telugu language at all. If your goal is to get your desired changes made, that's the place to discuss why they are correct and get consensus for them. I don't think that a conversation about semiprotection rules at WP:ANI will help you get your desired changes into Telegu language as effectively. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 14:01, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I've been accused of a lot of shit, but abusing {{resolved}} tags - that takes the cake. Toddst1 (talk) 13:59, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Especially from somebody who claims not to be wikilawyering...--Unionhawk ^{Talk E-mail Review} 14:04, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to be abusing a {{resolved}} tag here in just a minute. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 14:09, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Any more of this, and I am not going to agree this is "resolved" unless measures are taken to impress basic wikiquette on 91.130.188.8 (talk · contribs), if necessary using blunt instruments. --dab (𒁳) 14:25, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

It just gets better. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 14:52, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

And forum shopping at RFPP. Syrthiss (talk) 15:11, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

• (E/C) FWIW, the IP address, in classic forum-shopping mode, asked for unprotection at RFPP. I declined it, and suspect that a block may become necessary, since two AN/I threads and a thread at Talk:Jimbo Wales is not enough drama. Horologium (talk) 15:12, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
  • I think you mean User talk:Jimbo Wales :-) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:00, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

• • • <facepalm> Yes, that was what I meant. (This is what happens when one is attempting to do several things at once; none of them turn out very well.) Horologium (talk) 17:54, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism from Sycamore Community School District / Hamilton-Clermont Cooperative Assn

Resolved

 – Schoolblocked for another 6 months.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:59, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

IP 204.10.221.32 was blocked from February to August 2009. Anonymous users from this school district continue to vandalize multiple articles, and frequent warnings have been posted on its talk page. Njsustain (talk) 15:31, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

*COUGH* HalfShadow (talk) 17:56, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Problems with duplicate image

Resolved

A while ago, User:Dan Pelleg made a change to File:EpitrochoidOn1.gif but instead of updating the image he created a new one File:EpitrochoidOn1b.gif on the commons. I am now trying to get these merged with the proper attributions to conform to WP:GFDL. As a first step to this I uploaded the original file to the Commons (commons:File:EpitrochoidOn1.gif) and submitted a deletion request for the duplicate file with a note to merge the histories so neither the creator of the original file or Dan Pelleg lose their attributions. The deletion request was denied however so there are still duplicate files and some versions violate the GFDL. What there should be is the current version of EpitrochoidOn1b.gif on the commons with the name EpitrochoidOn1.gif with the an upload history listing User:Sam Derbyshire as the original uploader and listing User:Dan Pelleg as uploading a modification. There shouldn't be any duplicates of this file other than the mirror of the updated EpitrochoidOn1.gif on Wikipedia. I have discussing this with Dan Pelleg on his talk page and have asked him to re-upload his edit to the original file in order to get a step closer to the goal, but it would probably be much easier for an admin to merge the histories and remove the duplicates.--RDBury (talk) 17:16, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Since GDFL images on en-wiki are mirrors of the Commons files, you'll need to speak to admins on commons about this. Admins here can't merge, delete and the like on commons unless they are also commons admins. Ironholds (talk) 17:34, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I'll repost on the commons, thanks.--RDBury (talk) 17:39, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

"van" or "Van"?

According to Tussenvoegsel, when a Dutch person whose surname includes a tussenvoegsel is referred to by their surname, the tussenvoegsel should be capitalised (e.g. Van Nistelrooy, Van Persie or Van der Sar). However, User:84.91.100.2 is ignoring this rule at 2009–10 UEFA Champions League group stage and continues to write "van Persie" despite my messages on his talk page asking them not to. Could an admin please have a word with this user? – PeeJay 19:02, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I've warned the IP with a van-3. Hopefully that will be an end to the matter. Mjroots (talk) 19:20, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

If the person in question was registered as "van Persie", then the correct way to write the name is "van Persie". This is not uncommon in Dutch. By the way, the word "van" is not a "tussenvoegsel". It is a "voorzetsel". What is needed here, is a wp:source for the specific name. There is no general rule for this. DVdm (talk) 19:25, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

• I did not know this - but then, I ain't Dutch. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:11, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Neither am I. I'm Belgian, but we have the same phenomenon. By the way, have a look at van Persie's article and look at the consistency in the spelling :-)

Cheers, DVdm (talk) 23:17, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I'd never heard of a "voorzetsel", but that's only because I was introduced to the concept via the tussenvoegsel article. Anyway, the article seems to suggest that, in the Netherlands, when the surname alone is used to refer to the subject, the "van" should be capitalised. I'm fairly sure that the names are capitalised in Belgian conventions too, but IIRC, aren't most Belgian names capitalised anyway (e.g. Anthony Vanden Borre and Daniel Van Buyten)? – PeeJay 23:42, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

User: StephenPaternoster

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

The above editor has been inserting unsourced material of low quality across Anglo-Viking and Anglo-Saxon articles, much of it reading as OR and fairly useless (possibly it was this. Or possibly that). He refuses to engage in any discussion over his edits on talk pages, even deleting other users' comments on article talk pages that pertain to his edits. He has also been reverting grammar and spelling fixes, declaring it to be 'fine as it is'. Following the latest reverts, he came up with this offensive edit comment. --Narson ~ Talk • 19:37, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Whatever else comes of this, he earned a block for the edit comment. You aren't coming off too sterling yourself (calling his edits dross in edit summaries), btw. Syrthiss (talk) 19:52, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Only 31 hours? For that inexcusable summary, I would have blocked him for at least a month, and brought it here for a review of an indef. Horologium (talk) 20:01, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Implied threat of violence in the edit summary. Paternoster needs to become Our Father Who Art Indef'd. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:34, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I support a longer block for that edit summary, a month would be fair. Off2riorob (talk) 20:39, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Maybe Our Father needs to have a month added to that proposed indef, for butchering the English language. I'm sorely tempted to revert everything he's done that's at least the most recent change to an article. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:52, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Syrthiss, his edits were dross (worthless) in my view, I was commenting on them and not the editor (who I'm sure has much to offer when he realises he is not a lone crusader). He refused to enter into any discourse over why his work was being removed/edited, so bluntness was all that was left. If people won't talk, there are few options available. Apologies if that seems overly harsh. --Narson ~ Talk • 20:57, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that a comment like that doesn't really explain the problem. My edit summary for the first reversion was simply "editorializing", since it reads like a little original research essay. And the second one I reverted (so far) I labeled "editorializing, speculation, and poor English", the latter referring to that guy's tendency to write like a 3rd grader would talk, in run-on sentences. Ugh. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:02, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually, now that I think of it, he writes the way Casey Stengel used to talk. However, when Casey wrote his autobiography, he worked with a professional writer. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:03, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I reverted a few items from his most recent updates, thus putting several articles about Vikings and such on my watch list due to the pillaging of those articles by the user in question. I feel as if I ought to post something on his talk page, but he'll just zap it like he did the block notice. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:43, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Harassment by User:Wdford

Background (I): It is now almost three years since I've made the first of my altogether 5000+ edits at Wikipedia, and I've learned at lot during these 3 years. So, at the upcoming Friday, at 10 a.m. local time, I will be giving a 30 minute presentation on Wikipedia at my University, for about 20-30 undergraduate students who are studying to become grammar school teachers and are having a session on web 2.0 teaching materials. One part of my presentation will be concerned with editing experience at Wikipedia, any I will give an honest account of my experience. Currently I am considering telling the students this story:

Background (II): Some articles at Wikipedia are about highly controversial topics. One of them is the article "Ancient Egyptian race controversy". The controversy is about the question which skin colour the ancient Egyptians had. Why is this topic so controversial? In short: Because some white people think that every person of African heritage who is interested in the topic is promoting Because some black people think that everyone who denies that the ancient Egyptians had a darker skin then people from Europe is a white racist who tries to deny them their heritage. Probably not unsurprisingly, it is almost impossible to write an article on the topic at Wikipedia. After during one of these discussion quite a lot of material was removed from the article, I though: Why not recycle some material - and I added this to the article Great Sphinx of Giza.

First Incident: Yes, there actually is a small debate about the question whether the the Sphinx depicts a black person or not, and why shouldn't this be discussed in the appropriate Wikipedia article? At least until somehow there is an acceptable general article on the topic. Of course, there was some discussion, but considering how controversial the topic is, everything went nicely. Until an editor called Wdford from South Africa joined the debate on the article. I won't bother with recalling the details, however, this resulted in me giving up on the article.

Second Incident: Wdford then did some work at the article Ancient Egyptian race controversy, which I have mentioned previously. As could be expected, they didn't actually managed to work it out in the discussion there, so at some point, Wdford and more then one other editor were banned from the article. I thought that this was my big chance. I previously had identified four good books on the topic, two by white authors and two by black authors, and I thought that I now had the opportunity to fix the issue. Initially, everything went well, and I was able to get the support of all other involved editors. And then, the ban, that kept Wdford away from the article, was lifted. Wdford almost immediately gave me an confrontation at the article, and after I had notified the adminstrator noticeboards two times and no one had intervened on my behalf, I gave up on that article, too

Third Incident: I mean, there are many other articles at Wikipedia that could use a good editor. Last month, for example, I noticed an article "colloidal silver". That stuff was used until the 1940s as internal medicine, resulting in an unknown number of cases in which people's skin turned grey as a side-effect; currently that stuff is marketed again as an alternative medicine, with the same side-effects and unsubstantiated claims of effectiveness. There was a discussion of the article at the noticeboard, and I took part at this discussion. This discussion was rather long and ugly, and after it was over, Apparently everyone was so tired of the flame war, that no one wished to continue the controversy at the article - well except from one unacceptable edit by whom? Wdford, who had not participated at all in the discussion. I asked myself, what he possible might want to to do there. Harass me? But despite my instincts, I started to work on the article. But to my surprise, it went quite well. I turned out that it even was possible to have a constrcutive discussion with one of the editors, with whom at had a very confrontational discussion at the noticeboard previously. But this ended, when Wdford decided that he wanted to rewrite the lead and to restructure the article.

His edits were, honestly, bad. Again, I will not go into the details (you can read the discussion online at Talk:Medical uses of silver yourself, if you want), but there was no way I could agree to his edits. I tried to explain this to him, but after one day of discussion I noticed that it was still impossible to have a discussion with him.

The End? How does this story end? I don't know yet. But I think it wouldn't be fair if the first people I told this story to were some students who have never edited Wikipedia. So, I am giving the Wikipedia community, and especially its administrators, a chance to deal with the issue now. I am feeling harassed, as in "wp:harassment", by Wdford. Probably he is not actually trying to harass me, but he is trying to prove that he can write a better article than me, and honestly, he simply can't. He is lacking basic skills necessary for that, like the ability to evaluate sources. But he is also unable to accept criticism in any way, and every time I criticise him, he responds by accusing me of "acting like I own the article" or that like. Under these circumstances, there is no way I'll be able to recall the positive experiences I've had editing Wikipedia on Friday, so I decided to post this thread now, which at least gives this story a (small) chance of a good ending before then. Zara1709 (talk) 20:09, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I think presenting the problem concisely with diffs would have been more helpful than writing a detailed story. In any case, this is clearly a content dispute, as you seem to acknowledge, "Probably he is not actually trying to harass me, but he is trying to prove that he can write a better article than me, and honestly, he simply can't." Dispute resolution is the appropriate way to get this matter resolved, I don't see how an administrator is necessary or could help any more than any other uninvolved editor could. -- Atama頭 21:10, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I can't describe this issue with full diffs, it was already depressing enough to write it this way. And probably he is not actually trying to harass me, but the effect is the same. He is making it impossible for me to edit the article, and he is effectively driving me off Wikipedia. Why would I spent about 6-8 hours fixing the structure of a controversial article when he can come along and simply wreck it up again? And since this is already the third article where there is a problem, this is certainly not a contend issue, but a problem with the editor. An administrator could have fixed the issue a few months ago, if he simply had restored the topic ban against Wdford. An administrator, or any other motivated editor, needs to get down to it, read Wdfords comments and the discussions on the article I've mentioned, and then, if he comes to the same conclusions as I, needs to explain to Wdford that I mustn't continue what effectively is harassment. But if no one is willing to support me here, I am going to take a break from Wikipedia for 6 months, advise a group of 20-30 students not contribute to Wikipedia (writing articles is fun, but the discussions about them often aren't) and this article, medical uses of silver, will likely be again the topic of a few threads at the noticeboards, since Wdfords edit restored similar ambiguities and misquotations like the ones that made the article an ANI case in the first place. Zara1709 (talk) 21:35, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Westbang

Resolved

 – Undeleted, sent to afd. henrik•talk 20:55, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I added multiple reviews to Westbang, but it was speedied. There is also no speedy criteria for it. Can one of you restore it? Joe Chill (talk) 20:14, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

The criteria was "notability not asserted" (which would be |A7 No indication of importance (individuals, animals, organisations, web content)) -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 20:18, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Deletion review is --> this way. – ukexpat (talk) 20:21, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I know. I added three reviews in reliable sources to the article and there is no speedy criteria for iPhone applications. Why should I go through DRV when there is no speedy criteria for this? Joe Chill (talk) 20:23, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to undelete it, but I think it's probably worth to have a real discussion on what kind of coverage iPhone apps need for notability, thus I'll pass it on for wider input in an afd discussion. henrik•talk 20:30, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

After you undeleted it, I added four more sources. Joe Chill (talk) 20:37, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

And now I just added a PC World review. Joe Chill (talk) 20:43, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Harassment/possible stalking issues

Many users here, including myself, are being stalked/harassed by someone on the 69.171.160.X range, and the person is somehow finding people's real life names posting them on the user talk pages. I've contacted the ISP via telephone, and they informed me that they only take action if law enforcement or the government is involved. Currently I have an informal complaint filed with the Division of Consumer Services at the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services in hopes that the issue can be settled without the need to file a sheriff report or FBI report, but it could take few weeks for the case to be settled through the Division of Consumer Services as that involves the complaint being read by the division, the division sending a letter across country to the abuser's ISP in San Diego, the ISP taking action (or not) and a letter being sent to me with the result of the complaint. In the mean time, I'd like to semi-protect User:PCHS-NJROTC, User talk:PCHS-NJROTC, and Port Charlotte High School, and maybe put a soft block on the range with a "have your ISP help desk contact me or an administrator" note on the range block. Also, if an oversigher is reading this, would you please oversight http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:PCHS-NJROTC&diff=prev&oldid=323857164. PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 20:45, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I've deleted that revision -- still needs attention from oversight to remove it properly. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:55, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

And semi-ed your user and talk pages. Left the high school page alone for now, as the vandalism seems manageable.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:59, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I just updated the LTA entry for someone that might be responsible; I've been meaning to do that for the longest time now. Perhaps if they actually read that they'll go away knowing that their smear campaign won't work anymore? PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 21:15, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Harassment by ChildofMidnight

I feel that with this series of aggressive accusatory postings to my talk page: [72], [73], [74], [75], [76], ChildofMidnight (talk · contribs) has stepped well over the line into block-worthy harassment. CoM doesn't agree with an administrative decision I took in blocking another user (Jacurek (talk · contribs)) the other day; I myself brought this block for review at WP:AE; this review was closed as fully endorsed today. Of course, CoM is free to express his disagreement with my decision, but he has been expressing it with repeated, totally bizarre and fabricated defamatory claims about there having allegedly been an outside admin consensus that my actions were "out of line", "abusive", "disruptive" and whatnot. (As everybody can see when reading that block review, there was no such thing: there were some mild questions about whether the block could be shortened, but – apart from the usual partisans – nobody seriously arguing that the block as a whole was inappropriate, and not the slightest hint from anybody but CoM himself of anything like misconduct on my part.)

I told CoM in no unclear terms and more than once that accusatory and harassing postings in this style were unwelcome on my talk page [77], [78], [79], and he was told clearly by a neutral outside administrator to heed this request [80]; nevertheless he continued in the same style.

At this point, I feel seriously harassed by this and want C.o.M blocked. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:18, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Harassment of good faith editors by Future Perfect at Sunrise

This is a vicious and abusive attack on me by an administrator who objects to my questioning their month long block of a good faith contributor. It's chilling.

I haven't harassed him but I have expressed my concerns over a month-long block doled out without any discussion or mediation. I find it exceptionally abusive and am uninvolved in the dispute itself. Numerous editors and admins have commented that both disputants made mistakes, but that a month-long block is exceptionally punitive.

It is most certainly appropriate to post concerns about an admin's actions on their user talk page. He's free to remove anything he doesn't care for. That said, I find Future Perfect's unwillingness to discuss the issue unbecoming of an admin.

At this point I feel seriously harassed by this aggressive and atagonistic ANI posting. Admins should not be encouraged to intimidate good faith contributors in this way. I stand by my statement that admins who engage in abusive behavior and block good faith editors are a real problem. I have no interest in picking fights, but it's important to speak out when the project and our collegial editing environment are being damaged by abusive unilateral action.

Lots of uninvolved admins and editors have suggested that Future Perfect's actions were inappropriate and over-the-top. He hasn't been any more responsive to them than he has been with me. Numerous admins, who usually back each other up, have noted that he was has acted punitively and suggested that he fix this problem so the damage and disruption can be stopped. I don't have any involvement in the dispute, but civility and collegiality require that admins repects their fellow editors. The failure by Future Perfect to do so is very damaging to our project and that he's come after me now with this aggressively titled thread is more evidence of his lack of fitness for administrative duties. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:46, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

In my view ChildofMidnight only expressed his disagreement with Future Perfect's erroneous decision in a wider discussion on his talk page (wider in the sense that many people participated). I don't see any harassment. Since Future Perfect also based his block of Jacurek on a not correct asumption that Jacurek was harassing Varsovian it seems to me that Future Perfect has some trouble understanding the concept of harassment. As such there are no grounds for blocking CoM but rather FP should be advised to stop making bogus accusation of "serious harassment". Loosmark (talk) 21:44, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

• This seems to be becoming a bit of a trend. An editor disagrees with some action or another of an administrator and tells that administrator so, attempting to open a dialogue with that administrator. The editor is then accused of harassment, and threatened with a block. Future Perfect ought to be looking into his own behaviour, not the behaviour of others. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:50, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
  • If CoM had "disagreed" in a reasonable manner, it wouldn't be a problem. Those diffs linked by FPaS aren't "attempting to open a dialogue", they're just slinging accusations without any evidence. This [81] diff on its own contains allegations that FPaS is "abusive", "disruptive", "uncivil", "aggressive", "arrogant" and "drama-mongering", all without a shred of evidence. That's not how you conduct a dialogue in any situation. Black Kite 21:55, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
    • Presumably your idea of "dialogue" would be more like "an earnest and humble supplication to a superior". --Malleus Fatuorum 21:59, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

• FPaS, you're an admin. Deal with it. Getting abused is part of the job. Just erase the content from your talk page if it is uncivil. CoM, stop drama mongering, baiting, stirring the pot, and feeding the flames. Loosmark, EE battles should not be imported to this page. Nothing good will happen by continuing this discussion. You all should go edit an article. Jehochman ^Talk 22:02, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

• "Getting abused is part of the job" is perhaps a bit extreme, though de facto it does seem to be that way. Still, that doesn't mean repeated abuse should be tolerated. I can't see being ready to block CoM unless he edit wars to keep adding his comments to FutPerf's talk, which hasn't happened yet, so I don't think there's much to do here now, but I do think GWH below is right that something ought to be done if this continues. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 23:38, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I have unarchived and wanted to add 2 things:

1. There is a pattern of behavior here: see User talk:Georgewilliamherbert#Civility warning, where CoM did the same thing to me recently.

2. Admins should expect, and be prepared for, a certain amount of upset user complaint activity, and a sufficiently thick skin should be considered a job requirement. That said:

2.a. Being an admin does not mean you are required to put up with unreasonable abuse and attacks.

I didn't bring the incident on my talk page to ANI because I have a thick enough skin and he walked away from the confrontation after two posts, presumably off to editing articles again.

However - if this is to become CoM's standard response to admins doing things he does not like, then this is a problem, and is going to have to be dealt with. The emerging pattern exceeds reasonable limits.

I agree that everyone going off to edit an article is an appropriate response. But IMHO, if CoM does this to a third admin, he should be warned, and a fourth offense would rise to blockable. If other admins severely disagree with this opinion you should probably say so now... I am all for encouraging dissent and constructive criticism, but there's a limit. One being a dissenter or critic does not entitle one to violate WP:CIVIL or WP:NPA. The most effective critics are extremely polite, and more persuasive for it. Merely attacking people when you feel they've done you wrong is not acceptable. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:59, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I just wanted to say that if you clearly ask an editor to stop posting on your talk page that the request is final and after being asked not to post on a users talk page you should not post there again without permission. Off2riorob (talk) 23:06, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I absolutely agree and was very frustrated when my own requests for an end to pernicious harassment were ignored repeatedly for months with no assistance from these same admins.(I am happy to report that while the worst offenders were finally stopped after many months of abuse, though the trolling and baiting by Tarc and others continues.) As far as communicating with an admin about their tool use is concened, however, editors must be able to express their objections and questions. It's simply not appropriate for an admin to block someone for a month and say: "I don't want to discuss it." ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:13, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

GWH, don't you think you're being disruptive reopening this thread to rehash some kind of grudge over having your one-sided and uncivil admin enforcement pointed out to you? If you want to discuss why you shouldn't be going after good faith contributors and defending an admin who was refactoring other editor's comments on their talk page then by all means let's discuss it. As far as I can tell the policies are quite clear that refactoring another editor's comments to change their meaning is unacceptable. And that's exactly what was done repeatedly. Do you have a different take on our policies? And where are you and your admin brotherhood when Tarc and an editor who is banned from interacting me are trolling my article contributions and trying to pick fights? I'm sorry that Future Perfect at Sunrise objects to having his admin actions questioned and that he doesn't care to discuss or explain himself. Perhaps he will think twice next time before abusing his tools to issue a punitive month-long block where there is no ongoing disruption and where he has made no effort at mediation. One can only hope. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:13, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

It was one-sided at the time, because I felt that after the first most glaring offense there were a bunch of people who equally deserved lesser warnings, but I didn't have time to spend another couple or three hours doing properly written up polite warnings to the next dozen or so people. The next day when it came up on ANI I did make another comment about another involved party, which Ottava even came to my talk page to note and thank me for. One-sided enforcement at a particular instant does not mean that one has concluded that only one side was involved in causing a problem. Admins are required to be impartial, but we're not required to spend all night responding to every aspect of a problem just because we responded to the first most glaring (in our opinion) aspect of it.

You (still) have not explained how it was uncivil. If you did think it was really uncivil, you should have reported me to ANI - I certainly hope and expect to be held to the same civility standards I am promoting for everyone else.

It appears that you decided to do a variation on "Template the regulars" - in this case, civility-warn an admin - in a situation where even if you disagreed with underlying aspects of the uninvolved admin enforcement action there was no civility issue and no abuse issue.

I have no problem with you or anyone else asking about my admin actions or challenging them. The format of the challenges in this case (and with FPaS) were abnormal, improper, and abusive. You could have made your point perfectly politely and civily - Ottava and I had a very polite conversation about it on my talk page. He could have taken it to ANI for further review and it would have been fine with me as well. What you did was different, and not ok.

As I said - being a critic, and being concerned about admin actions, are fine. But they're not a license to go abusing admins. Usually you don't behave in an abusive way towards admins. But the last couple of days you're doing so. It's not ok. You have to stop that aspect of it.

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:34, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Further this - you just described my comments here as "Disruptive drama mongering" on my talk page - accused me of bullying, harrassment, and intimidation, and claimed I was pursuing a vendetta against you - [82]

This is exactly the behavior that you're doing right now which is not OK, and is going to get you into trouble. You can express concern and pursue discussions on issues which concern you about admins (and editors) without using such personal attacks. If you keep doing it, it's not ok. Please stop now. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:37, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Your notion of what is civil seems very distorted to me. When I have a question or a problem with an editor or an admin I try to discuss it with them on their talk page. I do not immediately run to ANI or issue antagonistic and uncivil warnings the way you do. That you object so strenuously to having your incivilities pointed out to you on your own talk page is beyond ironic. Do unto others GWH, did no one ever teach you that? Please try to practice what you preach in the future. That it required such a long explanation to justify why you acted the way you did indicates there was a lot that needed justification. Here again you've taken my comments out of context in order to attack me. That's very uncivil and you should be warned for it by your own standards. Here's my comment in full "Could you please explain why you're reopening a closed ANI thread to pursue some grudge you have against me because I object to your bullying, harassment and intimidation of good faith editors? If you'd like to discuss why your behavior was inappropriate in going after an editor whose comments were being refactored inappropriately by one of our admins I am happy to do so. But your pursuing of vendettas against me is very problematic GWH. Your recent behavior is very concerning." ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:51, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

You still have not explained how I did anything uncivil with the warning I left initially. You're repeating the charge without explaining or linking to any evidence, and I am frankly mystified. What, specifically, did I say, in what edit, that you believe was uncivil?

Your last on my talk page, which you quoted above, exceeds reasonable commentary and at least approaches blockable personal attacks. Again - you are welcome to criticize me. You've done so before, as have a lot of people. But what you've started saying in the last 2 days to myself and to FPaS is of a different character and tone, violates WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL, and is not helping the situation. That - specifically - is not OK. Again - please stop that. Continue the conversation in a friendly (or at least, normal ANI standards) manner if you want, and we'll have no problem. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:00, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

If you want to discuss your civility issues I am happy to do so on your talk page or mine. This thread, which you pointily and disruptively reopened after it was closed by an admin who doesn't even agree with me on the underlying block made by FuturePerfect, has absolutely nothing to do with that issue. So it's acts like that that are abusive and disruptive in prolonging the drama. Other examples of your problematic behavior include your one-sided interventions you tried to explain in the lengthy section above and your use of antagonistic warnings rather than engagement and mediation to deal with frustrated editors in content disputes. These behaviors uncivil and do not promote collegial and collaborative editing. If you'd like to discuss it respectfully I am happy to do so at the appropriate venue and do not require any continuation of the drama mongering and hounding that you've engaged in here. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:29, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Can anyone explain to me why here on Wikipedia CoM is treated with so much respect given his editing history, while Prof. R. Brews was more or less booted out? Was RickK right after all? Count Iblis (talk) 23:22, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Who are those people and what do they have to do with this discussion? I would hope that I'm treated with respect by many editors and admins because I am here to collegially and collaboratively improve the encyclopedia. How is your comment helping in that effort? ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:24, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

There appears to be a certain class of people (CoM, Maleus, and Giano) who are allowed to run rough-shod over Wikipedia for some unknown reason, and whom admins are afraid to touch. Is there some policy that says that these abusive drama-mongers get a pass with every thing they do? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 00:33, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't say that they are untouchable, as CoM has been blocked in the past. As far as this incident goes, CoM did not put it right at times, for sure, and may have not responded/commented in the best tone. However, I see no attacks; if his honest opinion is that an admin is abusing his power, then there is no other way to state this than "you are abusing your power". There is nothing block-worthy here, but I would stress that CoM stop commenting on this admin's page, since he seems clearly bothered. If this happens, then there should be no more problems for anyone. Just back off each other. Cheers! Scapler (talk) 00:51, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

So I'm an "abusive drama-monger" eh? I honestly don't know what you people use for brains. Can you not see any discrepancy in your abuse of another editor on the grounds that you believe them to be abusive? If they're wrong, then equally so are you. You can't pick and choose who you allow to be abusive. Presumably you will be receiving a civility warning in the very near future. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:55, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Please do not engage in personal attaks like "I honestly don't know what you people use for brains", it is unacceptable and certainly does not help your case. Cheers! Scapler (talk) 00:59, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

You seem to have some difficulty in understanding the meaning of the word "attack". I was merely making a general observation about my own ignorance of the difficulties that those with shit for brains must face on a daily basis. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:10, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Malleus -- is that necessary? Shouldn't Wikipedia have professional standards of interaction similar to those of a modern workplace, where you treat other human beings with basic respect and decency, even if you disagree with them? Wouldn't that make it easier to engage in a collaborative enterprise? I honestly don't understand your need to be casually abusive. Sorry, just shaking my head. WHY? Antandrus (talk) 01:41, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Does anyone else think it's ridiculously ironic and funny when admins attack Malleus while Who then was a gentleman's?'s comment just above it is a clear personal attack on three good faith editors (one of them not even involved in this discussion). How long before one of our illustrious admins or a badge wielding member of the civility police (perhaps Chariman Emeritus GeorgeWilliamHerbert?) reminds Gentleman that we're expected to refrain from calling each other names. I wonder what would have happened if I had called another editor an abusive drama monger instead of keeping my focus on their abusive actions. Oh the irony. I think we can reclose this discussion unless GeorgeWilliamHerbert has something more to add? (and now I see Malleus has been blocked. Ridiculous) ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:01, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

On the original topic

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/ChildOfMidnight might be a good link to turn blue if we want to make progress on this matter. I find CoM's constant frivolous cries of admin abuse annoying and disruptive, but it's hard to pinpoint a single act as particularly so. Just a thought. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 23:38, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Just a note Heimstern is FP's buddy who 100% supported FP's questionable block of Jacurek. At the end of the discussion FP told Heimstern something like "you were the voice of reason in the discussion". Seems that now CoM has to be taught a lesson for daring to question FP's bad block - simple tactic - next time nobody will dare to question any block. Loosmark (talk) 00:13, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Please assume good faith; I doubt these admins get a kick out of blocking people because they feel like it/don't like them/disagree with them. Once again, the admin feels harassed,and while I do not agree that he was, CoM should cease communication with him on the issue. Cheers! Scapler (talk) 00:54, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Scapler, the thing is that CoM did cease the communication with them however somebody had the bright idea to re-open this thread just to raise more drama with some old grugde or sth they had with CoM. And then Heimstern produced the red link above. Loosmark (talk) 01:24, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Loosmark, I challenge you to find a single diff where I've supported his block. I've supported FutPerf's behaviour in getting community review at AE and supported ending you and CoM distorting facts on his talk page. Now you're distorting the facts again here, as in fact I have no opinion whatsoever on his block of Jarucek and have expressed no such opinion. Now you're trying to tar me with a guilt by association campaign. Stop it, for the love of Pete. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 01:53, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

What we're talking about here is a pattern of disruptive behavior that so far has been left to run largely unchecked. Quite frankly, this user has been a stain on the Wikipedia ever since Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Obama articles came down against him. It is difficult to even find a starting point, as the editing is so dense (in the sense of volume, not intelligence). Example, CoM vs. SarekofVulcan: began with a block here and continues down through the next few sections...make sure to note the "Statement on censorship and abuse" part, where those two "censored!" blocks used to be Nazi imagery that this user resisted removing for a time (details of that here). What happens after this is that CoM will harass the administrator in later, unrelated issues, such as with Otterathome, [83].

I'm sure others can fill in details of CoM vs. WMC, vs. Sandstein, vs. Bigtimepeace, etc... Even Georgewilliamhebert has been on the receiving end of some of CoM's vulgarity, if I recall. There's a line between questioning admin actions and outright harassment/hounding. Tarc (talk) 01:56, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

ChildofMidnight frequently adds noise to our discussions on ANI. I think it would be help prevent a descending spiral if we asked CoM to refrain from commenting on ANI matters that did not directly involve them. Jehochman ^Talk 02:04, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

And a new Dodona sock

Resolved

 – Blocked

Oh, and another thing: can somebody please block Artemisa ne adenice (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who with this posting openly admitted he is banned user Dodona (talk · contribs) (as was indeed not difficult to guess before.) Thank you. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:22, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm just out of curiosity how come he isn't in the WP:List of banned users?--SKATER ^Speak. 21:30, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Honestly, I don't know. I've frankly never paid much attention to that page. This was a case of a blocking and sockpuppeting history escalating through multiple sanctions, "last chances", renewed socking and renewed blocks over the course of well over a year, and then after somebody had upped it to indef so much more persistent sockpuppetry that people have been assuming "no admin would ever be willing to unblock" as a matter of course. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:39, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes - I don't think Dodona's actually banned, just indefblocked. In this case, it's indistinguishable. Sock blocked, anyway. Black Kite 22:37, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Edit-warring, disruptive SPA, possibly COI

User: Xeugene has repeatedly made disruptive edits to the page Pacifica Forum, including dissing Elie Wiesel at least once (using the term "Wiesel Words") as well as repeatedly insisting that David Irving is not a Holocaust Denier contrary to consensus. In addition, Xeugene has not edited any other articles besides Pacifica Forum, which leads me to believe that there may be a possible SPA case here; the person's username seems to suggest that they may have some close connection to the Forum, possibly a COI.

This appears to be a long-running violation of multiple Wikipedia policies including 3RR, edit warring, repeated insertion of unsourced material and/or links to inappropriate sources, removal of properly sourced material, insertion of irrelevant material, and removing categorizations. This has gone on for several months and I really don't know what to do; since there are so many issues at play I'm not sure which noticeboard is best. Stonemason89 (talk) 22:56, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

User Softvision on talk pages

User Softvision (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is abusing talk pages with unsourced original research of the the-article-and-relativity-is-wrong type. He has been warned about this repeatedly by myself and by others ( [84], [85], [86] ). He then goes away, and after a while, returns. Today, after someone else removed his talk page sections, I left some 3rd and 4th level warnings on his talk page, which he promptly removed, toghether with similar warnings by others. A bit later I got this 10-edits string on my talk page. Assuming good faith, I have no other option than to assume wp:NOCLUE. Can someone effectively take some kind of administrative action? DVdm (talk) 22:59, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

abusefilter-view-private

What is the user rights group abusefilter-view-private and what are the requirements to be assigned to it?  Btilm  23:21, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

What are you talking about? The only AF-related userright is edit filter manager, which includes the ability to see private abuse filters (due to the userright also conferring the ability to edit filters). -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Stop... at a WHAMMY!!)} 23:26, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

And see the top of the page: "This page is for reporting and discussing incidents on the English Wikipedia that require the intervention of administrators." I'm not entirely sure that your question fits that instruction... Bencherlite^Talk 23:29, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh. Where would I post it then? Take a look at Wikipedia_talk:Edit_filter#An_alternative, please.  Btilm  23:36, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Unless the rules have changed recently, abuse filters can only be seen by admins that have the authority to edit abuse filters. If you have a question about a specific abuse filter, I expect a friendly admin would be willing to discuss it with you (though he might not give you the specifics). ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:40, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

No, read the link provided. Such a userright is mentioned there, but if it exists it's only on the test wiki, since it isn't in the user rights lists on the management page. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Stop... at a WHAMMY!!)} 23:47, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

It exists as a permission, but isn't assigned to any user group (see bugzilla:19362, apparently resolved, for its creation, and bugzilla:20721, currently marked as a "new" bug, for the request to enable it on en.wikipedia). snigbrook (talk) 23:52, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

(although that request is only for it to be made available to administrators, not as a separate group). snigbrook (talk) 23:54, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

attacked by webhamster

Today I was verbally attacked by User:WebHamster via two of his socks one of which is still active. I have tried to open an enquiry at (IPsock|WebHamster) in respect of his sock known asUser:Fred_the_Oyster but I am not sure of the correct procedure. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jackieupstairs (talk • contribs) 23:30, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

The way this is generally done is to open up a sockpuppet case at WP:SPI. However, when you do so, be sure to have evidence ready that shows why this editor should be considered the same person as WebHamster. Reviewing their behavior, I see nothing to indicate that except for an edit war at Affinity (band) between yourself (as an IP) and him which ended with a semiprotection of the article. I also can't find any "verbal harrassment" of you from this editor or any other editor. -- Atama頭 00:08, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Jackieupstairs appears to be a single purpose account for attacking WebHamster, also at least one of the accounts claimed to be a sockpuppet was an impersonator, and was blocked as a sockpuppet of another user. snigbrook (talk) 00:10, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

User:Fred_the_Oyster does look suspicious, though. Started editing after an 18 months break a couple of days after WebHamster was indeffed, and shares many of his interests. Yes - WP:SPI is the way to go. Black Kite 00:16, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

WP:AIV

Resolved

There are somewhere between 15 and 20 open items at the AIV site. The admins are apparently at the World Series or something. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:37, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Go Phillies! List cleared. TNXMan 00:15, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

User:C4GSH

C4GSH (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Could someone stuff a cork in him, please? He's multi-posting articles that are both spam and copyvio, and when they get deleted he simply reposts them. I've reported him literally two hours ago and he's still spamming away. HalfShadow (talk) 00:04, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Did you post it to WP:AIV? I don't see it on the list. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:10, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

He gawn, at 00:06. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:12, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Personal attack by Who then was a gentleman?

Who then was a gentleman referred to three good faith editors who are major content contributors as "abusive drama-mongers". This is clearly not a comment on content, edits, or even behavior, but a clearly abusive and over-the-top personal attack. I trust he will be sorted out. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:00, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, right. But let's not descend to the level of the thin-skinned drama whores who initiate these childish civility cases here. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:06, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Intolerable. You give us some diffs, and appropriate action will follow. This may range from a *yawn* to, er, something else, but we are not psychic. Rodhullandemu 01:08, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, on Wikipedia it is possible to be both a "major content contributor" and an "abusive drama-monger". The ability to write articles and the ability to interact constructively with others appear to be nearly orthogonal skills. Unfortunately, there are those on Wikipedia who believe that the latter is excused by the former. It is unfortunate that we are not better at dealing with that. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 01:12, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

A rather ironic complaint, given that you used similar wording against myself and Future Perfect at Sunrise not 2 hours ago. Tarc (talk) 01:18, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Clearly I said "their efforts" were problematic. That's a description of actions. The diff clearly shows that I did not accuse you of being a disruptive troll who pursues me constantly while adding very little to the encyclopedia. I think you'll agree that if I had, that would be a clear personal attack. Gentleman, on the other hand, called other editors names. But if we're getting clarification that comments of that sort are acceptable then I support revising policy accordingly. After all GWH and other civility police have caused an awful lot of disruption chasing down comments they can object to. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:37, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't think swimming through "fog soup" is going to happen here. If you want some action, provide the diffs, otherwise, with the best will in the world, this thread is going to be closed without further notice. A more impolite way of putting it might be "put up or shut up", but I resile from such coarseness. Rodhullandemu 01:41, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I thought you had already indicated that Who then was a gentleman? specifically calling three of his fellow editors "abusive drama-mongers" would be met with a yawn. So what good would providing a diff do other than to rehash his vile attack that you've already indicated is acceptable? ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:49, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Concerning images uploaded by User:Robkelii today

User:Robkelii has uploaded a lot of images today (see contribs) without adding the required source and licensing information for such images; a lot of these images have since been given speedy delete tags. The user has already been given a bunch of warnings (including a final warning) to stop uploading images without specifying appropriate source and licensing data. After the final warning, the user continued to upload additional images without adding the required source and licensing information. As of right now, the user still does not appear to have made any effort to add source and licensing information to images that he/she uploaded today. The process of having to put speedy delete tags on each of these images has become very tedious and annoying due to the large number of images that need to be tagged. SoCalSuperEagle (talk) 01:10, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

A quick look tells me (from the EXIF data) that the uploader more than likely took these photographs themself, and needs education as regards Commons uploading and licensing rather than criticism; I see nobody has engaged this editor, but on the other hand, neither has he asked for advice. Let's see his response here, but I don't think it helpful to drive away a good-faith contributor without taking a little effort to discuss. Rodhullandemu 01:16, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Block of Malleus Fatuorum

Evening all,

Before this turns into a wheel war, can we please get a consensus about whether the block of Malleus Fatuorum (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was correct? He was blocked by Georgewilliamherbert (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) for this comment ("You seem to have some difficulty in understanding the meaning of the word "attack". I was merely making a general observation about my own ignorance of the difficulties that those with shit for brains must face on a daily basis. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:10, 5 November 2009 (UTC)"). I'd have warned first personally, but I can understand the logic behind the block. What does everone else think? Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 01:54, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

No Wikipedian deserves to be told they have "shit for brains", not even one who has the audacity to disagree with Malleus Fatuorum. People leave Wikipedia for websites not so abusive when they encounter such things. The block was based in existing policy which enjoys consensus and was in the best interests of producing an encyclopedia. Chillum 01:56, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Of course that's not what he said and Chillum has a long history of disruptive interactions with Malleus. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:00, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I don't think he asserted that any specific Wikipedian has "shit for brains". It was a very crude idiom, but this does not look like an NPA violation to me. — Jake Wartenberg 02:01, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

That is a lovely loophole. Chillum 02:03, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. There was no personal attack except from Who then was a gentleman? calling three good faith content contributors "abusive drama-mongers". Unblock pronto there Ryan. We can't have this sort of abusive double standard that is continuing to hurt our community. As soon as admins start treating editors with respect, they will get respect in return. This block is disgusting. And the use of it for grudges by Chillum is just another in a long line of his abusive behavior. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:05, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

• NO INDIVIDUAL was told they had "shit for brains" in the post that is linked to. The truth is that there are a lot of editors who are less than educated here ... was it an optimal post? ... no ... was it a blockable post ... NO! Unless there's something else here - this block is not justified. Period. Show me something block-worthy, and I'll support it ... but that post is NOT it. — Ched :  ?  02:03, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
• I should think the block was a bit of an overreaction, personally.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 02:04, 5 November 2009 (UTC)