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

Disruptive editing by User:Neuromancer

User:Neuromancer has a consistent pattern of disruptive editing and talk page-inappropriate discussion, most problematically at HIV and Talk:HIV, and as another editor has stated, has "violated nearly every behavioral policy this site has". This user has repeatedly demonstrated an agenda of disrupting HIV-related articles with fringe viewpoints with no substantiation in RS. Despite extensive policy explanations and warnings from other editors, Neuromancer continues to pursue this course, including creating POV forks (HIV dissent, later re-directed, and Alternative HIV viewpoints, currently at AfD) containing synthesis, BLP violations and other problems. The user has been blocked previously for WP:3RR and given multiple warnings at the user talk page and on article talk pages by a large number of editors.

Neuromancer has also contributed several copyright violations, cutting and pasting from copyrighted sources without quoting or citing. This edit contains nine paragraphs copied verbatim from avert.org and a sentence and references copied from another website without citation. Warnings and explanations (Talk:HIV#Copyright_violations_by_Neuromancer, [1]) were ignored, with the user later performing another unreferenced copy and paste from a copyrighted website.

Neuromancer, after threatening to wikistalk ("However, I will be sure to peruse EVERY edit to EVERY article you have contributed to, just on the off chance you have somehow detracted from those articles as well"), has begun to make good on this threat by becoming engaged at Magnetic water treatment (an article on my watchlist), Cancell (an article contributed to by User:MastCell, [[2]) and Medical uses of silver, following talk page interactions, including an accusation of censorship, with a regular silver editor, User:Hipocrite. Each of these editors has warned Neuromancer about a variety of behaviours in the past, with invariably hostile response. The diversity and scope of Neuromancer's disruptions suggests that intervention could be appropriate. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 19:49, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I'll add my voice, as an involved editor/admin, to the request for some outside eyes here. Neuromancer (talk · contribs) has been active in pressing an AIDS-denialist agenda across numerous articles (representative edit). Issues include:

• Persistent edit-warring (block log)
• Canvassing potentially sympathetic editors ([3]), [4], [5], [6]).
• Most of his non-HIV-related edits seem to be based on Wikihounding; as Keepcalm points out, they're drawn from the contrib histories of editors with whom Neuromancer has been in conflict (followed Hipocrite (talk · contribs) to Dennis Ketcham ([7]), etc).
• Creation of numerous POV forks, including Alternative HIV viewpoints and HIV dissent.
• This sort of thing - not that I'm fussed about having my IQ questioned - it's probably barely above room temperature anyway - but it's a bit grating coming from someone who's constantly accusing others of personal attacks and failure to assume good faith.
• Constant references to a "WP:HIV cabal", by which Neuromancer presumably means editors who hold the "POV" that HIV causes AIDS.
• Very basic WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT - despite extensive forum-shopping, and hearing a universal rejection of his proposed edits, Neuromancer keeps repeating the same arguments (see the last 5 or 6 threads at Talk:HIV for examples). He's indicated that he's "not going to stop" just because a "cabal" opposes his edits.
• He's cut-and-pasted a long section from an AIDS-denialist website, and then complained of having "hours of research" erased when this was reverted (will find diffs).

I would like some outside eyes on the situation, if anyone's willing. I don't want to be melodramatic, but these are the sorts of challenges that Wikipedia needs to handle effectively if it ever hopes to achieve its goal of becoming a serious, respectable reference work. MastCell ^Talk 21:01, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Having looked at the diffs, talk pages, and assorted miscellany included here, this looks like a case of POV-pushing, with some intransigent statements by Neuromancer. I fear that this is just a continuation of a problem we've seen several times here over the last few weeks (and probably longer) where people with a strong, but minority or fringe POV feel like they are backed into a corner by consensus against them. While I'm not sure that their behaviour is indicative of a block, is there someone who would be willing (and more knowledgeable than I in these particular subjects) to work with Neuromancer to help them understand why their view is fringe and that this isn't personal, its just community consensus that happens to disagree with what they believe? I would also appreciate hearing from both Neuromancer, MastCell, and Hipocrite about their opinions.

On a semi-related note, how do we allow users such as Neuromancer to feel like they have been given an adequate opportunity to have their point of view heard and discussed and not simply swatted out of the air (not that this has happened here...but can happen very easily). While their points of view may be fringe, and not follow community consensus, how do we continue to honour their contributions while maintaining the integrity of WP, and without driving them away?

I'll return to this conversation a little later...its supper time! Frmatt (talk) 21:07, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I would agree that Neuromancer has been resistant to guidance, and has been very confrontational at times. The exchanges on Talk:HIV have been lengthy, but I do think some have been constructive - they've dealt with substantive issues, and resulted in edits that improved the article (only incrementally, though). I have not followed the activity outside Talk:HIV, but those diffs are disheartening. The WP culture takes some getting used to, and plunging into HIV was probably a mistake for a new editor. I'd like to see Neuromancer get some guidance, to understand the difference between disagreement and conspiracy. It's tiring and disruptive when an editor insists that others formally prove numerous well-established concepts that are already supported by reliable sources. -- Scray (talk) 22:18, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

• As someone who's interacted extensively with Neuromancer on Talk:HIV, I agree most with Scray's characterization. Emw (talk) 00:07, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

• As someone who has interacted, discussed, argued, and usually reached something of a consensus with both Scray and Emw (both of whom I have come to admire for their ability to semi effectively deal with me), and whom I have had much more interaction than anyone else involved in this discussion, I would like to to put out there than I am more than open to discourse of policy, disagreement and conspiracy.
• Additionally, I would like to point out that I do not believe there is a conspiracy to get rid of me, or I would already be gone. My references to the HIV cabal are due to this post on my talk page, and is mostly an attempt at humor, not an impassioned belief that "you are all after me..." Thank you for your patience, and I agree, perhaps HIV was not the place to jump into the Wikipedia as I have. But I am here, and trying to make the best of it. Neuromancer (talk) 00:29, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

As the guy who posted that, it was really in response to Mister Hospodar who happened to post some paranoid kind of stuff on Neuro's user talk. It is supposed to be a smidge humorous; it's actually a rather long-standing joke turned wisdom on wiki. However, I chose that link of all the essays on non-existent cabals to highlight that there is no cabal conspiring against you unless you created it. I guess it didn't take the desired effect as Neuro began referring to cabals afterward, rats.

I full well admit that I took and ran, more as humorous jab back at you, and a few others, than anything serious. I don't think there is a cabal, HOWEVER, there are a group of you who very adamantly defend and revert edits on a number of similar pages. After reading your posted words of wisdom, I thought it humorously appropriate to throw it back at you in kind. My references to a cabal have never been more than half-hearted humor in an attempt to lighten the situation. Seeing as how you are the only one who got the joke... Well, crap! Neuromancer (talk) 02:42, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Heh, well, good to know now then! Thanks for clarifying. JoeSmack ^Talk 02:59, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Anyways, here are my words on the subject. Neuro isn't the only fellow who's made himself heard towards AIDS denialism on talk pages over the years. In particular though, there has been a lot of passion from him that is very accusatory, and this more than anything began sparking contention.

I really tried to steer the conversation as much as possible to specific constructive discourse about articles in question [8], but largely this opportunity was not taken advantage of. Instead, in response to his broad debates, there have been several clear, spelled out arguments highlighting the faults in the particular angle he takes on AIDS denialism ([9], [10] to name a couple i did). The AfD for the content fork of AIDS denialism alone should be a pretty clear wake up call.

I think he hears and sees them but is still trying to game policy/guidelines in his favor, such as omitting "although content may be shortened or moved if it gives undue weight to a minor point of view, as explained below." to the WP:YESPOV quote in his response below, etc. There has probably been a bit a wikistalking, and cries of censorship/this must be heard/you can't erase history kind of brew-ha-ha, but I like keeping editors more than loosing them so I would love to see mentoring or fostering of better habits than blocks. JoeSmack ^Talk 02:03, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

It appears in regards to his below YESPOV quote with relevant (e.g. oppositional to his motives) info omitted, his response is this: [11]. A fairly by-the-book WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. It could be that mentoring/fostering isn't an option after all. JoeSmack ^Talk 09:19, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Also, Special:Contributions/24.251.114.169 and probably Special:Contributions/174.17.102.170 are Neuro, but he denies the latter here. Sockpuppety. JoeSmack ^Talk 20:14, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Loudly claims the 24; the 174 geolocates to Phoenix, AZ, where the Fatcat Ballroom & Dance Company is located. - 2/0 (cont.) 00:03, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Is an WP:SPI warranted, perchance? Crafty (talk) 01:50, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Neuro emailed me a protest. If it puts one of these many issues to rest (either way), I think it would be worth it. However, this is right on the line of CheckUser criteria. Up to you. JoeSmack ^Talk 02:43, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I doubt CU would be informative. Neuromancer just posted on their talk page pointing out another IP in another region. CheckUser uses the wrong sort of magic pixie dust to determine whether this is IP spoofing, gaming by ideological opponents, off-wiki canvassing, or just one of those things. RBI any account unwilling to discuss and let the AfD run its course would be my advice. - 2/0 (cont.) 18:15, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Offtopic part, my bad. - JoeSmack

Oh, and I'd like to respond to Frmatt above because I think it is a step we need to discuss too. For one, I would say that there has been so much effort by AIDS denialists over the years to bend NPOV of HIV/AIDS articles that it has left a somewhat bitter taste in the mouth. I've been patrolling for about four years now, and the last conflict that was this big was Special:Contributions/Sci_guy. Every effort since has felt like a rehash that gets a little tired, thus this tends to be my first kind of question towards the reprise - [12]. So, somewhat WP:BITEY, I would say so, at least for me. Can someone not previously involved in this incident maybe provide how they'd deal with it better? JoeSmack ^Talk 03:20, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

(undent) Oooh..."Specious" and "Spurious"...I'm impressed by your vocabulary! lol

In all seriousness, though, I will admit that after four years of that type of thing, my response would probably be very similar. In response to your question, I think that you were surprisingly civil, not overly bitey and all in all gave an appropriate response. I wonder if there might be a solution in creating a subpage that is permanently linked to the talk page...something like Talk:HIV/Other Claims with the notation that this page would contain discussion of other claims about HIV that have previously been discussed, and been excluded as a result of consensus...including the appropriate sources that were considered. This would allow users to see the arguments that have already been made, what the consensus was, and how the consensus was achieved. This would also allow users the option of adding new information and sources that may have come to light recently and provide a talking area that wouldn't necessarily clog up the main talk page. I know that as a (relatively) new user, I would appreciate that, especially in some of the articles that I edit which contain some controversial topics. It may also give new users (at least to that page) the knowledge that there is a place for them to express their points of view and to see what the consensus about them is. Frmatt (talk) 03:30, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm no expert on AN/I, but my sense is that we should be focused on the concerns raised here about Neuromancer's editing, rather than a side discussion of how to make it easier for new editors of HIV (even though this is very constructive and well-intentioned). -- Scray (talk) 04:21, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Very true, and I've added it elsewhere.

Brought this offtopic, my bad. Frmatt, that is one idea but i'm wary of having subpages as they tend to get abandoned, and subtalk pages do even more so. I'll look at the username project link you provided, thanks for the feedback. Ok, i'm gonna whisk this into a collapsebox. JoeSmack ^Talk 17:35, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Knowing that ANI is not necessarily the place to propose any type of restrictions, I would like to ask Neuromancer if they would be amenable to having an uninvolved editor work with them to help them understand the policies? Specifically, that when Neuromancer finds themselves in an edit/content conflict, that they would invite their mentor/coach into the conversation as someone who is relatively impartial and working to ensure that they understand the policies about WP:FRINGE, WP:RS, WP:POV, especially when they find themselves in conflict. Frmatt (talk) 04:27, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Email response by Neuromancer posted by 2over0:

I would be most amenable to having an uninvolved editor work with me. I am certainly not trying to cause a disruption to WP. Perhaps an experienced editor/admin, who has not previously been involved in the topics of this debate, would be willing to work with me to fix what appears to be flawed logic. Or at the very least be able to show me a more constructive manner in which to present information that won't be as disruptive as it has been. Who knows... Maybe I'll bring em around to my side? Haha, joking.

end of response by Neuromancer. - 2/0 (cont.) 20:06, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

If an appropriate mentor steps forward, this would be possibly the best solution, and could be implemented in tandem with or in lieu of the sanctions I propose below. Neuromancer is a bit forceful and currently frustrated, but I think could be an asset to the project if given a little time and help to come to grips with the peculiar sourcing and neutrality requirements here. Any takers? - 2/0 (cont.) 20:06, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Response by Neuromancer

I assume that I can weigh in on this conversation?

• First and foremost, I have edited in good faith, with the intent to better the Wikipedia in general.
• Secondly, I am not trying to push a fringe POV. This is my understanding, please correct me if I am mistaken...

• Wikipolicy requires at WP:NPOV that “All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources.” It further requires at WP:YESPOV that “Article content should not be deleted solely on the grounds that it is "POV"" and that "The neutral point of view neither sympathizes with nor disparages its subject, nor does it endorse or oppose specific viewpoints.”

That being said, I have also reviewed WP Fringe Theories Noticeboard, which states:

• Alternative theoretical formulations: Alternative theoretical formulations which have a following within the scientific community are not pseudoscience, but part of the scientific process.

I fully understand that there are those who think that questioning the science behind HIV is ridiculous and worthy of censoring, however, there are those in the scientific community, who have published peer reviewed papers, questioned many aspects of HIV, AIDS, and the connection between the two. While the cabal[13] currently editing the HIV and AIDS denialism articles claims a NPOV, and that they do not have to give equal eight to fringe POV, a simple review of their resistance to the inclusion of balanced information, whether it be in those articles, or in separate articles, seems very clear that they are not willing to be neutral on the subject.

As far as "Wikistalking" as Hipocrite has accused me of, I cannot even begin to express how petulant that statement is. While I will admit that I have reviewed other editors contributions, and even weighed in on a couple of the articles that they have been involved in, I am not now, nor have I ever, edited an article simply to "frustrate" another editor. This accusation was posted to my talk page by Hipocrite just this morning. While I do tend to have an interest in alternative health treatments, such as HIV, cancer, etc, I have also edited such articles as the Fort hood shooting. I think it is an unfair characterization to say that I am stalking anyone.

When it comes to canvassing... I fail to see how mentioning to another editor that a discussion is taking place that they may be interested in, is somehow a bad thing. I in fact copied this practice from such editors as Verbal and Hipocrite, who routinely post messages on one another's talk pages requesting input regarding a particular topic of debate throughout the Wiki. I have not requested that they take a particular viewpoint, merely that they have expressed interest in the topic in the past, and may be interested in the current conversation. Here is the most recent example I can readily find [14], or Nunh-huh, JoeSmack, TechBear.

I have not cut and pasted long sections from denialist web sites. I did take a list of factors known to cause false positive HIV antibody tests, which had 64 references, and use it in the site, and the original compiler was given credit. The references did not have any DOI or PMID information, let alone being suitable for Wiki formatting. Each and every one of those references was researched, updated, verified to be on point, and formated by me. I would call that hours of research.

As far as the "creation of numerous POV forks... I cannot agree with that. I have created 3 articles here. 2 on the topic of HIV. Initially, I un-forwarded HIV dissent and created article content there. That was nominated for deletion, and reverted back to a forward, the next day, prior to a discussion or consensus being reached. So I then created a new namespace, Alternative HIV viewpoints, where I published relatively the same article, which has also been nominated for deletion. Again, prior to the AfD discussion closing, the article was wiped and forwarded, and for trying to prevent this, I received a 24 hour ban. How is consensus and discussion supposed to take place when there is no article to discuss?

So, salient points:

• Always in good faith...
• Been Bold
• Ignored all rules, except for personal attacks. (Never have I personally attacked an editor)
• Modified behavior as users have brought potential violations to my attention.

Neuromancer (talk) 22:18, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I hope someone realizes that it is highly coincidental that a user who has edited what - 5 mainspace articles has somehow overlapped and edit-warred against people he has disagreements with on 4 of them - and those 4 are in totally disparate subjects, with the note that he has expressed an interest in a 5th, totally disparate subject here. How far does AGF go? Hipocrite (talk) 23:29, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

• Incidentally, I became involved with Dennis the Menace because I was following AfD, not you. When you nominate an article for delete or merge, it is common courtesy to allow the discussion to take place for the requisite 7 days. Blanking and forwarding is just rude, and makes any discussion difficult. Neuromancer (talk) 00:34, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually, Colloidal Silver has been used in Alternative HIV and Cancer treatments. It is not, as you say, "disparate." I have not intentionally edit warred with anyone. After it was brought to my attention, I changed my behavior. I have been involved in edit controversy in HIV and Alternative HIV Viewpoints. If there is another article you think is relevant, please list it. Neuromancer (talk) 23:43, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Analysis of Neuromancer's edits: article coincidences

Neuromancer has to date edited 59 unique articles. Comparing edits with the people notified of this discussion by Keepcalmandcarryon indicates that 54 of those have also been edited by at least one person on the list (I am making comparison using different tools and a little inclusion/exclusion counting, so bear with me as they may measure unique article in different ways; also note that I am involved in several places). Subtracting the AIDS-related articles, usertalk, and a few obviously benign cases gives: Aspartame was edited by Keepcalmandcarryon two days before Neuromancer's first edit; Cancell was not edited by anyone on the list in the days preceding Neuromancer's first edit; Fatcat Ballroom & Dance Company was created by Neuromancer; Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Denialism (2nd nomination) is clear, though Denialism itself was edited by Verbal the day before; Kristian Ayre and AfD are clear - Nm probably got there from ARS; Talk:Dennis Ketcham was edited by Hipocrite earlier that day; Talk:Medical uses of silver was recently edited by Hipocrite and MastCell; Talk:Magnetic water treatment was recently edited by Keepcalmandcarryon, Someguy1221, and me; Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Catbus had been recently edited by me, but had also been tagged for ARS; Fort Hood shooting and talk had been recently edited by JoeSmack, though that article is highly active right now.

Assuming good faith with respect to the AfDs tagged by the Article Rescue Squadron (none of the contributions were particularly combative except at Denialism which is a mess all around), this leaves: Aspartame, Medical uses of silver, Magnetic water treatment, Dennis Ketcham, and Fort Hood shooting. The last I think can be ignored, as everyone else is editing that article too at the moment, and Nm's edits were not obviously antagonistic; although I do think that there is some confusion regarding wikt:duplicitous and wikt:duplicative. The Ketcham very much looks like an attempt to engage with Hipocrite. For the other three, I do not find the assertion that they were selected without reference to editor to be credible, though I am willing to believe that they find such things interesting. This is again based on X!'s namespace counter, which shows an edit to Talk:Fascism as the clear outlier. - 2/0 (cont.) 23:56, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Sanctions

Based on the behaviors outlined by Keepcalmandcarryon, MastCell, and myself, I propose that Neuromancer be indefinitely topic banned from all HIV and AIDS related articles, broadly construed, and their talkpages; I further propose that they be admonished to avoid extending conflict to unrelated articles and to not seek out or harass any of the above mentioned editors. These remedies to be subject to review at AN/I or ArbCom, preferably less frequently than every three months. I would explicitly leave my talkpage open for any discussion, as we have open threads there and I am still willing to discuss with Neuromancer.

Alternatively, given the failure to follow obvious community norms such as engaging productively with other editors and not seeking out confrontation, multiple attempts to add content in an end-run around consensus, and multiple instances of copying without attribution, including from patently unreliable sources including virusmyth.com and IMDB, a full community ban may be in order. Please discuss these proposals below. - 2/0 (cont.) 23:56, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

As Neuromancer has been blocked 48 hours for edit warring, I have volunteered to relay their concerns here if necessary. As always, please refrain from piling on while Nm cannot edit here. - 2/0 (cont.) 00:19, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Email response by Neuromancer posted by 2over0:

I am repeatedly requested to find consensus before edits, which I have done on HIV, AIDS denialism, Fort Hood shooting, etc, etc.

The only real issue regarding disruptive editing has been in regard to Alternative HIV viewpoints. I understand that I do not own the article. I understand that it may very well be deleted in the near future. However, here are the salient issues that I have:

• [15], [16], [17], [18] In these edits, the exact same information has been removed each time. Please review the diffs. The entire chapter is properly referenced to scientific publication such as "Applied Environmental Microbiology," "Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences," US patent #4520113, etc. In this edit, there was no regard for the information. There was no consensus reached, or even discussed on the talk page. There is no synthesis. This is not an article that falls within the purview of Medicine. This is an article entitled "Alternative HIV Viewpoints." As it was created, it is not a POV Fork. The idea was to present the claims of scientists who disagree with the current HIV community. There are films being made about these topics. There are papers being published in peer reviewed journals, such as this one in 2008, which dissent on the currently accepted HIV hypothesis.

• • No consensus was reached before wholesale deleting MASSIVE amounts of information. No attempt was made to clean up language accused of being POV. Rather, it was just deleted. Not one person who has attempted to keep this information off of WP has been able to provide a SINGLE citation discrediting the information in this article. Yes, there is a reference to virusmyth.com. It is to source the quote of what certain dissenters believe was wrong with the current information. It's not synth. It's not there to support a medical claim. The reference is there to show where the idea came from. It is one of MANY ideas.

• Rather than editing the article, it is deleted, forwarded, called synth and POV fork, and unsourced. This is not the case. I have spent hours reading medical journals verifying each of the actual medical claims on this article. Granted, I did start with Christine Johnson's list, which she was credited for. But that is a list. Journal references that were no longer valid, or since debunked, were removed. Each citation was verified and wikified so that others could simply click on the ref and be taken to the article.

• I am being accused of doing EXACTLY what my accusers are doing. Except that if you actually read the article, and the references, you will see that this is not synth, or a POV fork. Compare it to HIV denialism and try to find more that two duplicate references. HIV denialism focuses on a POV that HIV denialists have caused harm, have been debunked, disproved, etc. Yet there are no references to where they have been disproved. I have looked for these references, and have been unable to locate any. I have found NON scientific articles, written by journalists, and judges, but not anything from the scientific community. Yet when I present actual scientific published works, I am POV pushing. This is not the case.

• As far as the mad props I have received for being Superman, please review my talk page.

end of response by Neuromancer. - 2/0 (cont.) 14:19, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Neuromancer indicates above a willingness to work with a mentor to help them contribute within the project's policies. I think that this could be productive, but am myself both too involved and too unskilled in the area. If anyone is interested in the role, please step forward. - 2/0 (cont.) 20:06, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Neuromancer's willingness to accept mentorship is encouraging. However, Neuromancer has yet to recognise their problems with straightforward policies such as copyright violation and sockpuppetry; their insistence that the "other" Arizona IP is not a sock or meatpuppet is, quite frankly, ridiculous. These aren't subtle matters in which a mentor's guidance could help, but I would be pleased to find out otherwise. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 23:21, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

This is not terribly encouraging. I am going to ask the people who have commented on this thread to take another look. - 2/0 (cont.) 17:55, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I presented my view of what happened. I presented what felt, as that is what I was asked. I was posting that in an attempt to gain a mentors, and their view of the situation. How is that "not terribly encouraging?" Neuromancer (talk) 07:35, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

I can only speak for myself, but I found it discouraging because your portrayal of the situation continues to be dominated by a sense of persecution, rather than humility and introspection. This doesn't bode well for an effort in which the goal is to engage more constructively with others in the future. You are an incredibly intelligent and talented editor, and it's frustrating for me to see you occupied so much of the time in conflict. -- Scray (talk) 16:10, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

• This is canvassing:
  • 11:11, 2009 November 12 (hist | diff) User talk:Craftyminion ‎ (→Requesting input for proposed community sanction of User:Neuromancer: oops - redundant section, sorry)
  • 11:10, 2009 November 12 (hist | diff) User talk:MastCell ‎ (→Requesting input for proposed community sanction of User:Neuromancer: new section)
  • 11:10, 2009 November 12 (hist | diff) User talk:Scray ‎ (→Requesting input for proposed community sanction of User:Neuromancer: new section)
  • 11:10, 2009 November 12 (hist | diff) User talk:JoeSmack ‎ (→Requesting input for proposed community sanction of User:Neuromancer: new section)
  • 11:10, 2009 November 12 (hist | diff) User talk:Emw ‎ (→Requesting input for proposed community sanction of User:Neuromancer: new section)
  • 11:10, 2009 November 12 (hist | diff) User talk:Craftyminion ‎ (→Requesting input for proposed community sanction of User:Neuromancer: new section)
  • 11:10, 2009 November 12 (hist | diff) User talk:Craftyminion ‎ (→Requesting input for proposed community sanction of User:Neuromancer: new section)
  • 11:10, 2009 November 12 (hist | diff) User talk:Frmatt ‎ (→Requesting input for proposed community sanction of User:Neuromancer: new section)
  • 11:10, 2009 November 12 (hist | diff) User talk:Hipocrite ‎ (→Requesting input for proposed community sanction of User:Neuromancer: new section)
  • 11:10, 2009 November 12 (hist | diff) User talk:Neuromancer ‎ (→Requesting input for proposed community sanction of User:Neuromancer: new section)
  • 11:09, 2009 November 12 (hist | diff) User talk:Keepcalmandcarryon ‎ (→Requesting input for proposed community sanction of User:Neuromancer: new section)
• Neuromancer (talk) 07:35, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

No, it's not canvassing, as 2/0 explained to you here, with valid citations of applicable policy. -- Scray (talk) 16:04, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

• Support indefinite broad topic ban per all above, and 2/0. Support full ban as 2nd choice if problems continue on unrelated articles (non AIDS/medical/science - broad topic ban). Verbal chat 19:03, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

• For the record... I did act in good faith. I never got into an edit war on HIV or AIDS denialism. I was accused of using those articles talk pages as a forum, but that was not my intention, and I have since stopped. I attempted to share ideas that I felt were in the general best interests of WP by creating a new article, which was subsequently nominated for deletion, and in an attempt to make sure that that article remained available for potential parties to review, I was accused of edit warring. Fine... I got a ban. I have nominated myself for a mentor, and have a couple of potentials currently. If you feel the need to topic ban me, so be it. If you feel I have been that disruptive on HIV, or AIDS denialism. Ban me. But before you do, go look at my edits to those two pages. Perhaps someone who didn't engage in the same behaviors I am being accused of, such as Verbal, Hipocrite, etc, should weigh in on this before a decision is made. Neuromancer (talk) 20:54, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

• • Thank you for acknowledging I didn't engage in the behaviours you were blocked for. I've already weighed in above. Verbal chat 20:58, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

• • • I think you misunderstood. I was accusing you of the actions I am being accused of. You have followed and edited other articles I have been involved with, for no other reason than I have been involved. You have elicited the assistance of others in trying to ban me. What I meant was that people NOT involved in this topic look at the situation. IE: Scray, Hipocrite, Keepcalm, JoeSmack, 2/0, TimVickers, etc. Neuromancer (talk) 07:23, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

• Support indefinite topic ban. I agree that Neuromancer would benefit from mentoring, but I don't think the latter obviates the former. Neuromancer made some serious mistakes, and has been consistently argumentative in discussing those. Failure to demonstrate insight regarding past events, and pertinacious soapboxing in Talk space, prompt me to support the proposed ban. As I've said previously (above), I have had some constructive exchanges with Neuromancer. I hope that mentoring will help Neuromancer to recognize why this ban occurred, and to rebuild the trust of the WP community in general. --Scray (talk) 21:37, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

• Support topic ban - for reasons conveyed above by Scray. It seems like Neuro still feels like this was a personalized issue that happened because users didn't like his views. It also seems like Neuro is still itching for any way possible to get his content back in, and frankly, the reprise of discussion on why policies/guidelines don't support that is getting old. I continue to support mentorship as long as all parties are amenable to it, and additionally that we get a highly active/experienced editor to do the mentoring. JoeSmack ^Talk 21:48, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comment Itching? if by itching you mean that I feel that by learning the proper ways in which to introduce information to WP without causing a war... Well then yes. I am itching to learn these skills. I fully realize that I have made some mistakes, and I am working on correcting those so that they are not repeated. However, banning me is just a way to exert control over a situation. Neuromancer (talk) 07:23, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

• Support topic ban as per previous comments. Neuromancer's comments to a potential mentor ([linked by 2/0 above) show a continuing refusal to acknowledge basic policies like WP:NPOV, WP:RS and WP:SYN. Neuro still insists that the issue with their edits is personal (it's not) and based on likes and dislikes rather than policy (again, it's not). Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 22:12, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comment As far as my comments to a potential mentor, I told him what had happened. I was not pushing a view. I was explaining how I felt about the situation, while simultaneously acknowledging that there was an issue in my logic and requesting help to understand it. I was refusing to acknowledge anything, I was asking for assistance to better understand them. Furthermore, I do not feel that the issue is personal, nor have I ever. I feel that there is a group who does not agree with ideas that I have presented, not that they disagree with me. There is a profound difference. Neuromancer (talk) 07:23, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

• Support topic ban, widely construed. I am unaware of any successful mentorship of a disruptive editor (counterexamples welcome). I see no reason why this case would be different. I'm genuinely curious as to why the community often sees mentorship as a solution to problems like this. Skinwalker (talk) 00:57, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

• Support topic ban, as per Scray. I do feel that mentoring would be useful in this case, and in response to Skinwalker, I would say that why I support mentoring is that it gives the user who is being mentored someone who can review their edits and provide constructive criticism knowing that their mentor is on their side and trying to get the best for the person who is being mentored. This means that it is someone who is their advocate who is telling them when they violate policy instead of everyone and their brother, which can be difficult for a user who is trying to make good faith edits. I will say though that the post to the talk page linked by 2/0 above does cause me some concern, and I would strongly recommend that an experienced and senior editor/admin be the mentor in this case. Frmatt (talk) 03:53, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I see the ideal behind mentorship, but I appreciate the clarification. My question is more specific: can anyone name a disruptive editor who has been successfully mentored? Skinwalker (talk) 23:41, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

• Support indefinite topic ban. To me the need for this was clear since this editor created an article on HIV dissent and responded to the clear consensus of other editors here that this was an inappropriate POV fork by creating Alternative HIV viewpoints, which was unsurprisingly deleted as another POV fork. Neuromancer has kept a copy of the deleted content at User:Neuromancer/HIV, which indicates to me that their efforts to force this into mainspace have not yet ended. This editor is completely unwilling to abide by consensus and shows contempt for both other people's views and our policies. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:54, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Clarification

• Comment Before giving a topic ban any credence, I would ask that diffs be included for the topic in which it is being proposed that I be banned. The only article for which I have been banned thus far, have been deleted from WP, so I would ask the following:
  • What topic is being proposed that I should be banned?
  • What are the diffs to any "disruptive editing" of the articles that would be included in the ban?
• I feel that these are reasonable requests, as there has been no specific reference to the topic proposed for ban, nor have there been any references to disruptive edits within any articles that might implied in the above. Neuromancer (talk) 01:09, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

The topic would be any HIV or AIDS related article/talkpage on Wikipedia. You can find refs to your disruptive editing documented in the start of this incident report at the top of this section here: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Disruptive_editing_by_User:Neuromancer. JoeSmack ^Talk 02:29, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

As stated above and in the proposal, all HIV and AIDS related articles, broadly construed, and their talkpages. This would include, for instance, AZT, people whose notability derives primarily from AIDS activism, Mbeki, and pretty much any topic covered by AIDS denialist websites. It would not include other retroviruses in general, other STIs in general, or articles on people who are notable for reason unrelated to HIV/AIDS. This article is probably ok, but you should not add any HIV/AIDS related material. The community traditionally takes a very dim view of people who try to game the system by dabbling ever closer to the topic from which they have been banned for disruption. - 2/0 (cont.) 04:27, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I fail to see a single reference to a "disruptive edit" in any of the articles you have mentioned. The only "disturbing edits" existed in an article which have since been deleted. Can you show any allegedly disruptive edits to the articles you propose I should be banned from? Neuromancer (talk) 03:15, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Not sure what you are quoting when you say "disturbing edit" - your use of that phrase seems to be the first on this page. -- Scray (talk) 04:20, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Neuromancer probably meant disruptive; he typed it correctly in the next line it seems...I think it might have been a response to JoeSmack (and the thread he cited). Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:01, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, and now Neuromancer has gone back and edited "disturbing" to "disruptive", making my comment appear to be a non sequitur. This is inconsistent with Talk page guidance and etiquette, but I assume this is due to lack of awareness of that guidance. -- Scray (talk) 15:59, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment Not trying to disturb anyone with disruptive edits. I edited to clarify my original intended edit. Wasn't aware that this was a talk page, or that I was being inconsistent.. Neuromancer (talk) 02:26, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

You're right - language about Talk guideline stricken. -- Scray (talk) 02:45, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, horrible typos can happen too so it's not worth assuming otherwise over. When that happens, add a diff next to your comment pointing out that whomever fixed their comment or changed it since. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:42, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

• Neuromancer, whether or not you agree with it, would you be willing to abide by the topic ban proposed? If so, my advice to you would be to develop your Wikipedia skills by editing other areas. After a time, you could appeal for the topic ban to be lifted. What do you think? Jehochman ^Talk 16:22, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

• While I do not see any justification for a ban at all, as no one has cited a disruptive edit to the articles proposed in the ban, a temporary ban is obviously more appealing than a permanent one. I would still like some editors that have not been involved in the topic review the situation. Neuromancer (talk) 02:24, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

The consensus is for a permanent, not a temporary ban. Otherwise we'd be back here with exactly the same problems. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:06, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Just to be clear, the pages I listed above are merely examples that fall within the topic all HIV and AIDS related articles, broadly construed, and their talkpages. The disruptive editing by Neuromancer has been limited primarily to this topic, and indicates a pattern that would likely continue without restriction. The ban is indefinite, though like any such ban is subject to community review at a later date. - 2/0 (cont.) 06:37, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions for Troubles articles

While we have eyes on this ANI thread, I wanted to bring up something else for discussion, the subject of authorizing administrator discretionary sanctions in the Troubles topic area. These sanctions are now routinely authorized in other nationalist topic areas, such as Israel-Palestine, Armenia-Azerbaijan, Eastern Europe, Macedonia, and so forth. However, they were never specifically authorized in the Troubles topic area, possibly because the Troubles case is such an old one (from 2007, when ArbCom didn't start routinely authorizing discretionary sanctions until 2008). This means that there is very little that administrators can do to reduce disruption in this topic area, other than enforcing 1RR or entirely blocking an editor from Wikipedia. However, if discretionary sanctions were authorized, uninvolved administrators could craft much more precisely targeted solutions, such as to simply remove a disruptive editor from one or more articles where they were causing problems. This would serve the project well, as with a discretionary sanction in place, a targeted editor would still be allowed and encouraged to edit constructively in other areas of the project.

The Troubles case has been amended before via community discussion, such as in October 2008[19] and October-November 2009.[20] Now, I'd like to propose one more amendment, as follows (this is mostly copy/paste from other discretionary sanction cases):

Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, or any expected standards of behavior or decorum. The sanctions imposed may include blocks of up to one year in length; bans from editing any page or set of pages within the area of conflict; bans on any editing related to the topic or its closely related topics; restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors; or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project.

For the purpose of imposing sanctions under this provision, an administrator will be considered "uninvolved" if he or she is not engaged in a current, direct, personal conflict on the topic with the user receiving sanctions. Enforcing the provisions of this decision will not be considered to be participation in a dispute.

Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question must be given a warning with a link to the Troubles ArbCom case; and, where appropriate, should be counseled on specific steps that he or she can take to improve his or her editing in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines. This notification must be logged at the case page, as must any sanctions that are later imposed on the editor.

Thoughts? --Elonka 04:28, 12 November 2009 (UTC) Wording of proposal slightly tweaked per comments below. Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:07, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

• Support Discretionary sanctions have worked well in other contentious areas. It should work fine in this one too. NW (Talk) 05:11, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
• Could we drop the "or normal editorial process" part? It's a problematic (and cloudy) expression. The most recently closed case adopted a "or decorum" provision instead. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:28, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Sounds reasonable. I have no objection. --Elonka 06:15, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
    • Tweaked. Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:07, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
• Support formally now. Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:19, 12 November 2009 (UTC) Oppose; it is unreasonable to expect uninvolved admins to sanction misconduct in this area or uninvolved users to spend any time attempting to resolve it further. It's ArbCom they want; let them have it then. No need to continue to force the community into this impossible situation. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:33, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
• Sounds good. Rockpocket 06:42, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
• Support --John (talk) 06:51, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
• Support. A necessary tool for intractable disputes.   Will Beback  talk  08:30, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
• Conditional Support we need something without any question. However we have people gaming the 1RR system by making multiple different POV changes to different parts of an article that should be reverted, but given the 1RR restriction on an article as a whole any editor taking action risks sanction. We also have editors such as Irvine22 who are regularly banned for varying periods and then simply come back and start again, but move over many articles to do with the Troubles making POV edits, interspersed with reasonable or marginal ones. Any uninvolved admin, unaware of the total pattern of edits might interpret action against such editors on a single article as disruptive. We've also seen confusion over what is or is not a good faith edit with consequent issues over if reversion is legitimate, or if the edit should be amended for a compromise. Sorry to go on a bit, but for something to really work here the "uninvolved" admins are going to have to do some detective work rather than just react to an individual article and the need for that is not clear in the above draft. --Snowded ^TALK 09:17, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
• Totally oppose - this merely extends the arbitrary powers of Admins who overwhelmingly come from one side of this "cultural" dispute. The wording is so vague it is a charter for the multitude of editors conditioned by Anglo-pov to impose their perspective even further on Irish editors. Sarah777 (talk) 10:40, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

In the other disputes mentioned there is a much greater likelihood that Anglosphere Admins won't be conditioned to a particular perspective. That is manifestly NOT the case in Irish v. Britain issues - across a swathe of subjects, not all "troubles-related". This is proven beyond argument, over and over. Sarah777 (talk) 10:50, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Sarah-Nothing else has worked, that is why this is being proposed. If the editors involved in The Trouble would behave in an appropriate manner things like this would not get proposed. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:00, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Point of order: why has this outrageous proposal that will affect dozens of Irish editors not been notified to the people it will affect? Were it not for Vk's latest flip I'd have missed this entirely. Sarah777 (talk) 10:43, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

• Support and proposal. The method used in WP:ARBMAC2 worked really well. Macedonia is also a hotbed of ethnic warring. Ethnic wars are one of if not wiki's biggest problems. The time for stronger measures is long overdue. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:00, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Problem here is the complete absence of a neutral police force. The current situation is way more preferable from a WP:NPOV than the blanket imposition of Anglo-perspective on all Irish articles. The failure to define what a "troubles-related" article is guarantees that we will end up with all Irish-related articles classed as troubles related. You folk simply aren't thinking. This will be no Macedonia. Sarah777 (talk) 11:10, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

So - who will notify the Irish editors who will be victims of this regime? And when? After the deed is done? Sarah777 (talk) 11:08, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

And while I'm at it, given how the same group "debating" on my page ended up here so quickly (though there was no notification) can I assume that Vk wasn't the only one writing emails last night? Sarah777 (talk) 11:18, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

• Support in principle, oppose for now. Additional powers (including initial page bans rising to topic bans) are needed, but deciding them here and now is rash. Firstly, the editors involved in the problem should be given the chance to be part of the solution. As Sarah says, no one has been notified. I'm not saying there should be a vote on the content or a three month long discussion on it, as we need the situation to improve now. But at least give editors the chance to comment and make suggestions. Also, as per Snowded I see no specific solution to the slow edit warring issue. I also have issue with these sanctions being left to "uninvolved" admins. We need input from involved admins who are familiar with the editing of VK, Domer, Irvine, Mooretwin, myself or any other editor involved. Stu ^{’Bout ye!} 11:26, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

We should only support extra arbitrary powers for Admins if we are convinced the net result will be good for WP:NPOV. I'd suggest we'd get a better result in the end with yourself and Domer warring than we'd get from some of the Admins seeking god-like powers. Sarah777 (talk) 11:40, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

• Support A necessary tool for an intractable dispute. Off2riorob (talk) 12:17, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Eh...which "intractable dispute" do you refer to? The proposers don't make that at all clear? Off2 - Do you regard Kilmichael as part of the troubles that occurred 50 years later? Sarah777 (talk) 12:27, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I dislike all of the nationalistic issues that attract opposing sides and constant editing disputes. Off2riorob (talk) 12:34, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose for now, this is a rush job and involved editors have not received any notification, have to strongly disagree with Stu on the issue of involved admins, some are an integral part of the problem. BigDunc 12:24, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose pending proper and timely debate Things seem to be moving here with obscene and seemingly planned haste.  Giano  12:40, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
• Question - what exactly is the problem which this remedy is supposed to be addressing? We need a clear understanding and definition of what the problem is, before we can decide what the solution is. Mooretwin (talk) 12:45, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
• No surprise to see some of the usual suspects opposed here. Will Domer48 be along in a day or two to add his disapprobation to the list? Well, turkeys are never likely to vote for Xmas. Support of course. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:53, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
• Comment I would wish to amend working in the area of conflict to working in the area of conflict or the attempted bullying of those that do I personally have been bullied by both sides at differents stages in my Wikicareer. Bullying is a catch all term and we should all know it when we see it. Maybe a Wikilawyer will show VK was not directly insulting Elonka; maybe Elonka is a strong enough Character or has amassed sufficient mates to brush off attempts at bullying such as this, but many others (including myself) are not in this position. Þjóðólfr (talk) 12:54, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
• Support, with the suggestion that any appeals of such sanctions should be handled as proposed in Wikipedia:Discretionary sanctions.  Sandstein  13:02, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose – This is an unacceptable "solution" given the events that are responsible for its proposal and continuing support vary in their placement by many in the timeline of history. Cloudy definitions and reactionary sympathetic (or is it systematic) endorsements abound here. Israel-Palestine, Armenia-Azerbaijan, Eastern Europe, Macedonia are all well outside the normal personal involvement of major chunks of the sysop corps. The Troubles are much "closer to home" and can't be handled in the same way. I endorse Sarah777's view in her "Totally oppose" statement. Statements from sysops such as "Well, turkeys are never likely to vote for Xmas" are inappropriate, inflammatory and unhelpful to say the very least. Sswonk (talk) 13:36, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose per previous rationale. This is not a matter to be decided on a discretionary basis; the facts must be teased out from the rhetoric, prejudices and bias' disregarded, and only decisions made as dispassionately as is possible - with the widest consenus available - enacted. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:53, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Could you explain this rationale in a bit more depth for someone otherwise uninvolved like myself? My understanding of this is seems to be quite a bit different. The first time I commented on anything related to troubles was a few days ago at an AE request and I noticed there were some flaws not just in some established users own understanding of the sanction scheme, but in the very nature of the sanction (which only specified blocks). Other than the problem of editors repeatedly engaging in problematic conduct in that area, what was also clear was that there was a woeful amount of input from the community (which negates the possibility of having a widest possible consensus). On that basis, I supported giving admins the discretion to let editors be subject to page or topic bans rather than outright blocks for the conduct issues in this area. Why should editors from either non-English or English speaking backgrounds be considered differently on this basic conduct issue? Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:54, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
    • My rationale is that this is not a matter where the discretion of an individual admin is going to be accepted by all or even a large majority of the English speaking editing community. Ever. The issues relating to anything relating to Ireland and its culture for the last 400 years is steeped in cultural, religious and political perceptions of the rights and wrongs of events within that history. Any discretionary (for which, read "unilateral") action by any admin is going to be lauded by certain interests and decried by others, depending on what "faction" is being sanctioned. The few truly independent admins will soon be reluctant to act, when their efforts will be viewed and commented upon within the microcosm of (anti)Irish nationalist sentiment. It is, regrettably, an area of such potential disharmony that only truly consensual decision making is going to provide the basis by which resolution will be of any effect. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:28, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
      • I agree that the issue here is not comparable to Armenia/Azerbaijan or other ethno-religious conflicts. First, the Troubles are thankfully over and receding into history. Second, as Less Heard van U points out, this is a controversy between Anglophone editors for whom Freud might have coined the phrase "the narcisscissm of minor difference". I think the first thing that needs to de done here is to clearly define what is meant on Wikipedia by the Troubles and articles related to the Troubles. I would suggest that the Wikipedia article on the Troubles, which dates them from (if memory serves) 1969 to 1997 would be a good place to start. I would also suggest that every article that is determined as being related to the Troubles be tagged with the handy template Rd232 came out with a wee while ago. He's full of helpful ideas that fella. So he is.Irvine22 (talk) 21:57, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
        • • The problem is that both sides of The Troubles have proven themselves incapable of solving the problem themselves, which is why we're here again. Any admin trying to help in The Troubles is viciously attacked by the "wronged" side, so most avoid The Troubles like the plaque. So it continually descends deeper into the abyss. Since they won't solve it themselves, and this applies to both sides, those few hardy enough to venture into The Troubles are about the only hope we have. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:36, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
• Support per Rlevse; utterly fed up with the endless conflict in this area (generally from a very predictable set of editors). That they have taken this long to finally exhaust everyone else's patience is a credit to the tolerance of their peers, but it's long overdue that we do something to salvage this area and open it up to editors who can contribute without bringing along their baggage. To quote Antandrus's perceptive essay, "Every place on earth has nationalists; they are the dupes of demagogues, the tools of conquerors, and a great pestilence upon Wikipedia. Write a thousand good words on an important but neglected figure, and a nationalist will show up to argue over the spelling of his name; his birthplace, ancestry, ethnicity, or category; all in a tone of moral outrage. Look at the "bright" side: they keep our friends in the war industry employed. When some day earth is hidden in its final radioactive dust-shroud, their ghosts will declare: it's not so bad, they got what they deserved. Let the sane among you ignore them, and be good citizens of all of mankind, rather than just an angry splinter of it." EyeSerene^talk 14:29, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
• Comment The ethnic/culture (pick your term of choice) wars are wiki's biggest long term problem. The Troubles is a prime example of that. Editors on both sides push their POV convinced that they are right due to centuries of ethnic/cultural conflict. Massive time and effort by many editors has not helped much in The Troubles. Business as usual will not help. Editors continuing the old conflict in the same old way will not help. Until editors on both sides of any of these disputes finally decide to change, nothing good will be accomplished. Until that time, stronger measures are needed to maintain an atmosphere on en wiki where editors can collaborate productively to improve the encyclopedia instead of constantly bickering at the other side and wasting other users' time and and effort in trying to solve intractable disputes because the editors on both sides of these disputes can't learn to get along and produce quality articles because they're more worried about their view not being "twisted". — Rlevse • Talk • 14:52, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
• Strong oppose due to involved admins wording. We've already seen a grudge bearing admin issue a ban he had not authority to issue then abusively block the editor based on this non-existent ban, then he has the audacity to troll this noticeboard during this discussion. The idea that admins like that can issue draconian sanctions in future disputes on their own initiative is ridiculous. There's other involved admins who claim to be all neutral and above board and pretend to be guardians of neutrality and BLP, a laughable suggestion if ever I heard one. Would a guardian of neutrality and BLP claim someone who was in custody awaiting extradition is unemployed? Using that edit as a measuring stick, I presume Nelson Mandela was also "unemployed" for 27 years? There's too many admins who are way too involved with various editors in the underlying disputes, the idea that they have free rein to start using the knives they've been sharpening for a long time is a no-go. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 14:59, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Ever heard of reliable sources, and mud slinging? Rockpocket 18:31, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, have you? Like the reliable source already cited in the article saying he was in custody awaiting extradition when you edited it to "sling mud" at a living person? Your edit speaks for itself, as do the actions of others mentioned. I note that you haven't attempted to do the impossible and defend your edit, and neither have you made any comment about "mud slinging" in reply to the comment made by Angus, which I posted a diff to so it's unlikely you can have missed it. Funny that isn't it? While the overwhelming majority of admins are trustworthy and neutral, there are select admins involved in the dispute who have significant history with certain editors, and the idea that those admins have access to such draconian and far reaching powers that can be employed against editors they clearly don't like isn't right. It's easy to see even right now that certain editors are being singled out while others get away with blue murder, or the admins singling out certain editors are not the ones taking actions against the others when needed. Take the editor you offered to advise (an offer which was accepted) for example. After that offer, he needlessly violated WP:BLP here (for those unfamiliar with the term see ambulance chaser, and it is in fact the third time BLP was violated) on an article you have been dealing with, and what was said? And amongst Irvine22's many POV edits, there's this one yet again on an article you've been dealing with, strange how you've said so little about it isn't it?

Just in case anyone thinks that is an Irish editor moaning about admins being biased against Irish editors, think again. I'm English and play it straight down the middle, and in fact was just responsible for the sockpuppet of an Irish editor being blocked and the currently outstanding request for Arbitration Enforcement against Irish editor Lapsed Pacifist (talk · contribs). Certain admins, by their actions of lack of them, are unfit to be issuing these draconian sanctions against certain editors on nothing more than their own initiative, it's that simple. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 15:05, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm English and play it straight down the middle. That is funny. Take the advice of your comrades and "cop on to yourself." If you have a problem with my editing, you know where to go, if you have a problem with my administrative work, then moaning about it here is pointless because its an utter straw man. You know how to sleuth for diffs (when they suit your agenda, of course), so why don't you check when the last time I did any admin work in this area? Address the issue at hand, instead of slinging mud in any and every other direction. Rockpocket 18:29, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose Please use dispute resolution like the rest of us and stop calling for martial law. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:51, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
• Support - provided enforcement will be enacted in the same way as other cases, specifically, at WP:AE. Dispute resolution has been tried for years, with little really effective results. Having said that, I would like this thread to remain open for at least some days, to allow the greatest range of opinions. John Carter (talk) 18:07, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
• Strong oppose Such "discretionary" decisions can have a great impact on the direction of content. An editor comes in, doesn't like the content, an edit war ensues, the editor get "removed" and the content stays the same. The "discretionary" action resulted in the appearance of consensus and everyone editing the article is happy but the underlying content issue is not resolved. The problem is people's approach to editing (entrenched positions, suspicion, etc.) but we are here to write and encyclopedia that is balanced and informative. -rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 19:56, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
• Support - Too many Irish-related articles have become POV battlefields and thier quality has suffered greviously as a result. It's simply not possible to develop an article when any changes contrary to a POV are immediately deleted by ideologically motivated users. The only way to deal with this is to let Admin's have some discretion as to what is good faith editing (attempting at least to be NPOV) and what is genuibne POV pushing. Let me further add, as an Irish editor that I have nver experienced anti-Irish bias from an Admin. In fact, one of the problems in this whole area is a lack nowadays of Irish Admins on WP. Jdorney (talk) 20:33, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I think a few good Irish admins from a range of backgrounds and perspectives would be a good idea. Also, some British specialists in the area would be most welcome - the Brits have been refereeing this thing in R/T for years after all. They'd probably have to be public school/Oxbridge types, who may be available these days with all the problems in the City. But seriously: the problem with Irish/Troubles issues is that they are simply beyond the ken of most normal, good-faith editors, including admins. You need to be steeped in it. There's a "dog whistle" aspect to this, in that there is a range of seemingly simple words - and it may often be just a single word - that a knowledgable editor may drop into an article or discussion and cause a disproportionate eruption of outrage by other editors who can pick up the dog whistle. For those without dog ears, the resulting hubbub seems utterly disproportionate and inexplicable. I think if you made, say, myself and BigDunc admins for Troubles-area articles, and nether of us could edit in the area, and neither of us could use tools without the other's agreement, you might have something workable., A bit like the d'hondt structures at Stormont really. And they work just so well, don't they? Irvine22 (talk) 15:28, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

And I wonder why JD?! If they like what you say why would they be biased against you! Sarah777 (talk) 20:48, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

My reading of it is that the Admns have supported NPOV over partisanship. Users may check this if they want verification. Jdorney (talk) 21:09, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

• Support, per current standard practice in other similar cases. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:49, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose: Good rationale by LHvU. This dispute is in too many people's DNA - unless we can get some admins from Mars, it's never going to have the appearance of unbiased. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elen of the Roads (talk • contribs) 23:25, November 12, 2009 (UTC)
• Support The alternative is relying on an outdated reference to WP:Probation. If WP:AE is going to be forced to do his, we need as many tools as possible. You don't like it? Give us some community support.--Tznkai (talk) 01:56, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
  • I think that's probably the bottom line; if we as admins are expected to deal with this crap (and I accept that it is part of the job description), we want to know that we have the support and means to do so. I further think that some commenters are perhaps worrying far too much about the bias issue; more admin eyes on the situation will act to counter rather than reinforce bias, and we all know that no matter what happens and how much process we follow for the sake of propriety, we're still going to hear accusations of bias. It's just par for the course, but saying so doesn't make it so. Don't let's miss this opportunity because of analysis paralysis. EyeSerene^talk 14:06, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose: I'll be posting a report later. --Domer48_'fenian' 14:34, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
• Support - I think there have been enough problems in this area to justify the extra oversight. Gatoclass (talk) 12:12, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
• Support I think, though we need to think seriously about safeguards for bullying. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 20:17, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose Discretionary sanctions can lead to selective enforcement. I'd rather see a sequence of RfC/U's on the most egregious edit warriors on both sides of the conflict. We remove troublesome editors one by one until proper editing conditions are established. If there has been an RfC/U to document problematic editing, the closing administrator should be able to place an appropriate community sanction. Consensus for a community sanction can be established at RfC/U the same as at ANI. The difference is that RfC/U is more thorough and allows more time for thoughtful consideration. ANI regrettably turns into ochlocracy. A rushed, emotional judgment of a complex matter is not good. Jehochman ^Talk 06:04, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

  Your ideas about how RFCs work in this topic area are utterly naive. Nobody would even file an RFC against VK because he was beyond redemption, nobody could be bothered to take the time to document a detailed case just to be told to fuck off, especially as ANI never gave a crap either. Past RFC's against Domer and Sarah et al have achieved sod all in terms of change, through a combination of wikilawyering and willfull silence. These are editors who do not give a toss about what the community outside their small gang of meatppuppets thinks (this ANI thread should be evidence of that). As such, third party non-admin uninvolved editors will not touch RFCs on the matter with a barge pole. RFCs don't work here. If we can't have admins empowered to deploy discretionary sanctions from a neutral perspective, then by all means, let's have a full arbitration case covering all of them, because it is nonsense to suggest normal editors have not already attempted to deal with these intransegent and willfully ignorant people, who see cabals and conspiracies at every turn. They are here to do their thing inspite of the community, unless or until they are forcibly removed, like VK. MickMacNee (talk) 18:09, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose The potential for 'mission creep', to expand many Ireland-related articles (where there may be 'normal' disruptive editing) by classifying them as 'Troubles -related', is unacceptably high. Such special restrictions discourage bona fide editors from participating. RashersTierney (talk) 13:58, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
• Support. As proposer. --Elonka 23:08, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

No consensus

I'm rather surprised this hasn't been closed as "no consensus". Is that related to the fact that most of the Admins here are one one side of the argument? Surely not? Sarah777 (talk) 10:43, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Your first sentence was sufficient and constructive, and I happen to agree. But the remainder, much like some of your other comments in these discussions, has been unhelpfully inflammatory - it needs to stop, and I'm quite surprised at the community's reluctance to deal with it on the spot. Ncmvocalist (talk) 12:04, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Um, because it would be an example of the use of discretionary sanctions - for which there is no consensus, as indicated above?

It is also a good example of why sanctioning less than optimal conduct during procedure discussions makes for bad decisions; the people sent to the "naughty corner" have their input removed (and why there have been cases of attempted baiting of opposing view holders or allegations of improper language to have them so removed), and are not then - and certainly don't feel themselves - part of the consensus. Thus the cycle restarts, with the added problem of "extensive block logs" being of themselves used as grounds to reduce the arguments being used - which in turn leads to expressions of frustration, resulting in calls for sanctions. It is a tough job to manage these kinds of discussions, and I have been reasonably relieved that calls for warnings and blocks of certain respondents by certain parties have been absent in the Vk discussions. If we are able to discern the premise of the rationales being presented and ignore the noise of the manner in which they are presented then there remains a chance that there can be agreement reached.

Thus endeth the lesson. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:30, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate (and have appreciated) that these sorts of disputes can lead to users making a lot of noise in frustration. That said, community patience is not infinite; if my comment is not an indication of that, consider the outcome of the above topic ban and mentorship proposals. Adopting the position you've just stated for too long has effects of its own. My comment was just a hint that the level of adherance (or the lack thereof) to expected standards of behavior and decorum by some users is declining or staying at the same unfortunate level. In other words, for that to gradually improve, my comment invites admins to do their jobs (or other users to help out), with or without tools, on or off wiki, before it's too late (or beyond the point of return). Anyway, it makes me even more glad that I'm away from this topic area normally. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:16, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm rather surprised this hasn't been closed as "no consensus". Is that related to the fact that most of the Admins here are on one side of the argument? Surely not? vs. Well, turkeys are never likely to vote for Xmas. (referring to several Irish editors, by Angus above): which is more inflammatory, and whose "level of adherence (or lack thereof)" to decorum and is a more likely candidate to be "dealt with on the spot", that's subject to prejudices and interpretations. I'll repeat Sarah's sentiment, this discussion was closed[21] before a plea to keep it open was made; it should have stayed closed as "no consensus". Now instead it is resurrected and masquerading as a new thread. If not for the edit summaries, this would have the appearance of being a normal state of affairs to the uninvolved observer. Admins did this manipulation of the topics and archiving, and I echo a call to question such actions. Something inflammatory about that? Sswonk (talk) 15:59, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

IMHO, self-proclaimed Irish & British editors should be 'restricted' from those Trouble-related articles. Let the outsiders handle editing those articles. GoodDay (talk) 16:42, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

It is not the nationalities of the ediotrs that is the problem, it is the utterly unchecked behavioural issues of a tiny meat puppetting minority that screw everything up on these articles. There are plenty of British and Irish editors who are able to edit civilly and within policy, yet I think most of the time, when they see the regulars appearing and getting up to the same old same old, they simply say, forget it. MickMacNee (talk) 18:29, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Just an idea, it's open to modifications. GoodDay (talk) 18:34, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Requesting closure – I am requesting closure of this discussion. This topic, "Discretionary sanctions for Troubles articles", was previously closed[22] as a subtopic of "Request for more eyes on a volatile situation regarding The Troubles". The subtopic was taken out of the archive and reopened separately at the request of user Elonka here. Other than this request for closure, there has been no activity in this discussion in the past 26+ hours. Sswonk (talk) 01:30, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Support closure. I opened this thread, but it's clear that consensus has not been reached here. --Elonka 01:41, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

(followup) I have filed a formal Request for Amendment with ArbCom: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment#Request to amend prior case: The Troubles. --Elonka 04:24, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

User:Hippo43 stalking my talk page and wikihounding me

Resolved

 – Issue needs to be brought to RFC, not ANI — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 14:03, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I brought Hippo43 here before for his constant watching over me and interfering and disruption to places I contribute. Now I caught him basically admitting that he watches my talk page and that he came to a place I contribute to because of he found it on my talk page. For quite awhile Wikipedia talk:Talk page guidelines I have been working on changing the guideline to reflect that bold and italics are not shouting and do have good purpose if used correctly; I felt the original wording to be overkill (and regardless of everyone making it about capitals I never had an opinion on that, I cared about bold and italics). From day one I was clear the reason I wanted the change was that I had recently been told that using bold and italics was "shouting", something I do feel is tweenish and teenagerish (as do alot of internet users my age). During a discussion at Wikipedia talk:What "Ignore all rules" means I had the caps lock on during typing for work, came back to the internet and wrote my edit summary, accidently having my edit summary in caps; not intentionally to make a point. A non-involved person "warned" me about it on my talk page. Less than five minutes later Hippo43 showed up at that policy talk page for the first time at the guideline talk page and started supporting the "status quo" side, then showed up at the "talk page guidelines" guideline and stated that I wanted to change it only because I was just warned about using caps as yelling; which he probably didnt notice that I'd started that discussion long before, when I was accused elsewhere of "yelling" when using an occasional word in bold, which is my style. This shows that he's been watching my talk page and goes around to different locations that I'm involved with for the express purpose of frustrating me; this is the very definition of hounding and is unacceptable; he had never been active in either discussion and then suddenly shows up only after noticing something on my talk page!

Now to make it clear to everone I am not talking about just this one incident! There was confusion last time I brought Hippo here. Last time I took Hippo here my case was thrown out as most of you looked only at that one case, and declared in his favor due to the circumstances and threw in as support for his side the fact that Albany, New York had a "may be too long" template. I did some editing to that article, and looked into the policy/guidelines about that issue, removed the template per Village Pump discussion in which the only two who responded agreed that the template wasnt required for Albany. Hippo of course reverted my removal. Luckily an admin and at least two or three other editors on the talk page were able to revert Hippo and give me a consensus on keeping it off.

This all started with Siena College and a dispute over whether it is in Loudonville or Newtonville (consensus of editors has always been that it is not clear and both may be mentioned. Hippo dissented saying "only consensus of sources matter, not editors") from there because many editors pointed out Loudonville is a hamlet not a town as he tried to write into the Siena College artricle he attempted at the Loudonville, New York page to say "it is a town unless you can show a source that specifically states it is not a town. Again consensus of editors told him NO. Then he moved on to Administrative divisions of New York, where he has continued to harrass my contributions. Anything that puts his "viewpoints" in past arguments in jeopardy and make me look right automatically brings him. Now any discussion I am in that in "his opinion" Im doing something wrong he shows up. I will not be wikistalked, and dont need to be "watched" by anyone, especially not him.

I know this is long, but this has been going on for over a year, I'm fed up with it; he's won arguments simply based on people not wanting to "fight" him again. I hate to bring them into this and hope they arent upset by it, but asking the following users about the issue at Siena College/Loudonville/Newtonville might be helpful in this- User:UpstateNYer, User:Juliancolton, User:Doncram, and User:Daniel Case; for the Albany too long template case- User:ZooFari, User:AFriedman, and UpstateNYer. I request that we each be banned from contact with each other. I have worked hard on working and IMPROVING and constructive edits at Capital District related articles within Capital District Wikiproject where as Hippo's only "contributions" to those articles have been to disrupt and attack mine. I have lots of flaws, I'm agressive and abrassive; but that shouldnt allow Hippo to think he has a right to "supervise" me and frustrate anything I work on that he doesnt agree with.Camelbinky (talk) 22:44, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh, the relevant policy I bring this under is WP:HOUND which states- "Wiki-hounding is the singling out of one or more editors, and joining discussions on pages or topics they may edit or debates where they contribute, in order to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work, with an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance or distress to the other editor." I believe it is clear that this is what Hippo's intentions are.Camelbinky (talk) 22:50, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Odd that Camelbinky (talk · contribs) has only edited Hippo43 (talk · contribs)'s talk page to inform him/her of this discussion. That seems like the place to start. Toddst1 (talk) 23:02, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Correction - since Since April. Toddst1 (talk) 01:06, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I dont understand Toddst1, you want me to continue to have a dialogue with someone who has failed to listen everytime I have asked him to stop this? Have you bothered you to read his archives on his talk page or the history, or the talk page discussions at the articles I listed? I'm confused as to what you wanted me to do regarding his talk page. I've asked him not to edit the articles I work on, he accuses me then of "ownership". I've asked him to stop what he does. He wont. This isnt the first time I've asked him. This has been over a year this is going on. I've been in discussions with him. Contact some of the users I mentioned. Could you clarify what I did wrong. I want this resolved but if I'm doing something wrong please tell me. Your post was a bit cryptic for me.Camelbinky (talk) 23:07, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

There is indeed plenty of discussion in Hippo's talk page archives. I'm sure Toddst1 just overlooked that. Equazcion (talk) 23:12, 11 Nov 2009 (UTC)

I've done some cursory checking and found that stalking is a possibility here, but I'll leave it up to better and more diligent people than I to make a determination; I'd also like to hear from Hippo43 before saying anything definitive. On Camelbinky's request that the user's be "banned from contact with each other", I'm not sure how that would work, unless you were both topic-banned from the pages where these disputes have arisen, and I don't see that happening. All I can see coming of this is a stern warning and administrative scrutiny over Hippo's future contributions, if it is determined that there was a violation. That's not say we shouldn't discuss it here -- I do think we should -- but the resolution you've suggested doesn't seem feasible. Equazcion (talk) 23:40, 11 Nov 2009 (UTC)

I don't really know where to start with this garbage. Camelbinky's sense of time, in particular, is a little out. His claims of "over a year" and "less than five minutes later" are both wildly inaccurate. His talk page is on my watchlist because of previous (disagreeable) conversations, and I noticed someone claim that there had been a personal attack (User:A8UDI), so I looked into it, followed some links and made a comment on a project talk page. I'm not sure what I'm being accused of - making a legitimate comment on a page Camelbinky was involved at? I come across the same editors all the time. Was I uncivil? Did I make a personal attack? Was I disruptive? No, no and no. If I wanted to stalk him and "disrupt his enjoyment of editing", I could simply watch his contributions and criticise him for all kinds of crap he has written. I have better things to do. --hippo43 (talk) 23:39, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

To clarify, only a tiny percentage of my edits are in any way related to Camelbinky's interests. Likewise, the vast majority of his edits have not attracted any attention from me. If I had any intention to stalk or hound him (I'm not sure of the difference) I could easily take a much more active interest in topics he is active in - New York's Capital District, for example - and pick fights all the time. Again, I have better things to do. --hippo43 (talk) 23:57, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Camelbinky, could you post a list of the pages where you believe Hippo43 has "followed" you to? It's a little confusing to dig through all of those histories and contribs. Thanks. Equazcion (talk) 23:48, 11 Nov 2009 (UTC)

The "warning" posted on my talk page was at 22:38 and then at 22:46 Hippo43, which is 8 minutes and for the first time, goes to Wikipedia talk:What "Ignore all rules" means and comments in opposition to me; then the next day goes to Wikipedia talk:Talk page guidelines and posts in opposition to me again this time stating that the reason I am there is because I was just warned about capitals being shouting (which was the day before, but I started the thread on the guideline page weeks prior, so his accusation was completely unfounded). As I stated his involvement with me started at Siena College, moved to Loudonville, New York, and Newtonville, New York, which caused him to start watching my edits at Administrative divisions of New York, and then when I brought him here last time he went to Albany, New York to disrupt my attempts to improve that article and remove a template that he felt supported him in our past AN/I dispute but was wrongly stuck on there so when I removed it I'm sure he felt that I was doing it for the wrong reason, but as others pointed out the tag should never have been in there in the first place. Watching my talk page and deciding to "investigate" or go to places because I had a discussion somewhere or because I got warned is clearly a type of wikihounding, in my opinion Hippo43 pretty much admitted to doing it and as to why when he said "I could simply watch his contributions and criticise him for all kinds of crap he has written"; which I find uncivil and a personal attack and would like to have that added to the things he has said and done. At Siena College he blatantly stated he did not recognize a consensus of editors, just the consensus of the sources; this was not civil behaviour and was warned by the three admins (four as one was promoted soon after) that were on "my side". Saying that I write "all kinds of crap" is his motive for following me. I ask all who read this to look at Capital District, List of incorporated places in New York's Capital District, Tech Valley, Port of Albany-Rensselaer (GA status) all articles I created or completely rewrote; all four are 90% me (with much gratitude to those that helped, I am not denigrating them, I thank them every day for their help), check my user page for others that I have done that arent "crap". He can say what he wants about my opinions, but my editing contributions by calling them "crap" is over the line and typical of his opinion about me, his problem is that he thinks I personally need to be watched.Camelbinky (talk) 00:09, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

In response to Hippo's comment "I could watch his Capital District articles", he does! That's where Siena College, Loudonville, Newtonville, and Albany are all in! That's where it started, so his idea that he doesnt get into what I work on is ridiculous; he has never added anything meaningful to any article in that entire wikiproject (as the cofounder and one of the three most active members I should know, since almost every article with that wikiproject tag is on my watchlist). Capital District articles are the only ones I work on! So, yes if I see Hippo at an article it is going to be a CD article, which I still have no idea why he has showed up at any of them, and has only gone to any of those articles after our first dispute at Siena College, any time he has shown up at any Cap District article it has only been in opposition to me, he has never gone to one otherwise. As for Siena College, it was 8 months ago. So yes I was wrong about 5 minutes and 1 year in time spans; it was 8 minutes and 8 months. Does that make this any less legitimate that he's been hounding me for over 8 months instead of 1 year, or that it took him 8 minutes after finding something on my talk page to going to where a discussion I'm involved in is located? Camelbinky (talk) 00:17, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Saying Camelbinky has written 'crap' was not a personal attack, but justified criticism of some of his writing. If I thought Camelbinky needed to be watched, I would watch him - I don't. His sentence "I still have no idea why he has showed up at any of them" just shows his arrogance and sense of ownership of this material. --hippo43 (talk) 00:24, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Camelbinky wrote above "so his accusation was completely unfounded." There was no accusation - this is some very skewed thinking on Camelbinky's part. I made a legitimate and inoffensive comment on that page, to explain what I felt Camelbinky's view was about. --hippo43 (talk) 00:28, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

It wasnt a "legitimate" comment as you were commenting on my motives, which you couldnt have known and showed your ignorance about by claiming it was because I was just warned about using CAPITALS and that it was shouting, and therefore I wanted to change the policy. By mentioning the capitals=warning problem (which occured the day before) you showed you had not even read or looked at when the thread was begun, by referring to Rd232's proposal in a way that seemed like I was opposing it you further showed no knowledge of what was going on because Rd232's proposal was in fact a compromise effort on his part to get the policy to address my concerns but still keep the essense of it. At every instance you show your contempt for my editing, I would put my best four articles up against yours any day to a judgement on who is the better editor if your problem is that you think I write "crap"; if you have no interest in CD articles, why show up at them at all? It's not ownership I'm showing, its concern for things I care about being ruined by someone who has ulterior motives. Why get involved with the Albany, NY article's "too long" template when I removed it? I can give you the benefit of the doubt and good faith that you thought I was removing it because of our dispute, but when AFriedman, UpstateNYer, and ZooFari (people who actually work on CD articles) told you "no" you pressed it; your problem I believe is that you dont give me good faith on my editing, perhaps if you take my talk page off your watchlist and stick to articles you know about and can add constructive things to instead of worrying about "Camelbinky sticking in crap" to CD articles you wouldnt ever see me. Your job isnt to worry about if I'm putting in crap and then to stop me. All of my articles are within a very active wikiproject and all my new articles are posted clearly for them to look at, all big rewrites are undertaken with their OK, I have them helping me as I help them; no one need you "watching" me. Which is what you have done at multiple locations, if I put in "crap" someone else can take care of it. (your response now I'm sure will state "Camelbinky doesnt know what I am interested in or not or what knowledge I have", if you had knowledge about the CD area then you sure havent shown it the numerous times I've asked you to contribute any meaningful help)Camelbinky (talk) 01:41, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Hippo, do you think you could respond regarding the specific pages Camelbinky listed, and tell us how you ended up on those pages, if it wasn't due to camelbinky's involvement? PS If someone called my writing "crap" I'd take that as a rather personal attack, albeit on the lower end of the spectrum. It's uncivil at the very least. Equazcion (talk) 00:45, 12 Nov 2009 (UTC)

I guess you're right - although it wasn't a personal attack, that phrase wasn't civil, and I shouldn't have let this entirely uncivil complaint get to me like that.

I came across Siena College (about 8 months ago) because I wanted to find out some info on the college, then noticed some strange wording in the article, cleaned it up and found myself involved in an extremely lame, long-winded and unpleasant edit war/discussion. This involved me reading, and editing, the Loudonville, Newtonville and Administrative Divisions articles as they were related to that issue. It also apparently led to Camelbinky taking a dislike to me and developing a kind of paranoia that I'm out to disrupt his work. Out of my interest in these articles (I presume - I really can't remember) I made an edit to Albany, New York in July this year, adding a tag to an unreferenced section - this was two weeks and four intervening edits removed from Camelbinky's previous edit there, and attracted no comment from him, but meant the article was now on my watchlist. Then last month, Camelbinky took exception to another legitimate edit I made there, reverting his addition of trivial information about library storage. He made a complaint here - Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive569#Help_again_please- - which was unanimously dismissed as unfounded, as my edit was obviously beneficial to the article.

So none of my edits to these articles were motivated by Camelbinky's involvement. I believe he sees 'Hippo43' on an edit summary or discussion page and assumes I'm out to get him, and doesn't give the slightest thought to whether my edits are valid. His long rants directed against me suggest to me that he is not thinking about these rationally. He has failed to take into account the many times that edits of his show up on my watchlist, but that I agree with, so don't revert or get involved with. Again, if I wanted to pick fights with him, I'd watch his contributions and get involved at any of the many articles he edits. Indeed, I've often avoided taking part in discussions where he is involved, particularly at content policy noticeboards. He and I generally find ourselves on opposite sides of arguments about reliable sources, verifiability, original research etc, and I have generally chosen to avoid getting drawn into this kind of argument with him, as he has tended to take disagreements with me rather personally. I have better things to do. --hippo43 (talk) 02:12, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Wow, complete misrepresentation of events. He has a habit of doing that, as he has been repeatedly called out on doing, lately by User:ZooFari at the latest debate at Albany, New York where ZooFari pointed out Hippo was misrepresenting what the guidelines actually said and stating things that werent there. His edits at Loudonville, Newtonville, et al were all in opposition to my edits which came first, I've been at each article before him and he has never never never just gone to a CD article and contributed, only to remove or "clarify" my edits. He, very late in the discussion at Siena College brought up this "I was looking for information on the college" argument for his reason there when several of us asked why he was there, we all had good reason and actual knowledge regarding the college and its location; when pressed "what information were you looking for?" his response was "it wasnt in the article", and then when asked "why didnt you add it?" his response- "its not notable"; our response was "then why were you looking in Wikipedia in the first place?" no response. He has not contributed any new information to any of these articles despite pleas to be helpful. If he had been helpful there would be no animosity; User:Doncram and I had gotten into an argument and then became good collaborators because we added information and helped each other (and bonded in our opposition to Hippo); this idea that I'm paranoid after one argument is his excuse and only something he started bringing up after I mentioned in an argument that I have a form of autism and other issues, ever since then he has this "its in Camelbinky's head" and thinly disguised it as an attack on my psychological emotional stability. He claims that the "too long" template was perfectly fine, if it was why did several other editors all agree with me that it wasnt? Why did he go to the Albany article in the first place (one I have long worked on) to put that template in and not to add any information? He doesnt contribute, he weakens and finds faults in others. As for noticeboards, he has never contributed to them except maybe twice (again in opposition to me and only on ones that directly related to our arguments and would weaken his viewpoint if it went in my favor) so the idea that wants to comment and intentionally stays away is bogus (I generally tend to be on the majority side at RS and OR noticeboards, and I dont know of any V noticeboard; so is he admitting that his views are the minority? I even got to incorporate into WP:V a new subsection based on my views I put into the RS/N). There are lots of threads at each noticeboard and VP that I dont get involved with, why dont we see him comment at any of them? I want him to stay away from any Capital District article, that is what I want. He has nothing to contribute, he has only edited to hurt my contributions or remove them.Camelbinky (talk) 02:40, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

And I'd like to point out he pretty much admitted to "watching" me as he states he sees my edits and has seen ones he agrees with...why is watching articles he doesnt contribute to? Because he does not contribute to any of the articles I have created or contribute to... so why are they on his watchlist? Most of my edits are to articles I create from scratch, I'm a bit scared that he may be watching me through the user contributions button and looking at everything I do, that's how it sounds from what he wrote; I'm just going by what he himself said and to me it sounds creepy. I'd like a topic ban keeping him from CD articles, I see no problem with that as he hasnt added a shred of information to any of those types of articles and I am one of the heaviest contributors to them; that would keep us pretty much 100% apart. I dont think that is unreasonable, and could easily be enforced as if he shows up at one I just could let an admin know to enforce the topic ban. Perhaps Hippo43 would be kind enough to voluntarily state that he would stay off any CD article?Camelbinky (talk) 02:58, 12 November 2009 (UTC) addendum To clarify since I stuck my statements above that of Equazcion's earlier statements- Equazcion's question is directed to Hippo43, and is not in response to my question to Hippo about a voluntary ban.

What about Wikipedia talk:What "Ignore all rules" means and Wikipedia talk:Talk page guidelines? Equazcion (talk) 02:16, 12 Nov 2009 (UTC)

I explained above how I arrived there. --hippo43 (talk) 14:28, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes it looks like Hippo43 went to those discussions to comment just after Camelbinky.

I visit this ANI discussion after noticing this rather insulting edit by Hippo43 at Camelbinky's page, and figured that meant trouble. It is similar to Hippo calling Camelbinky's edits "crap", which they are not. Camelbinky above accurately notes that Camelbinky and i somewhat bonded in response to what we both found to be obstinate edit warring by Hippo on the Siena College article. I haven't studied it, but my general impression is with Camelbinky that Hippo has not contributed meaningfully in Capital District articles and any continued participation by Hippo in anything there would appear to be more to bait Camelbinky than for any other purpose. Bottomline, I don't see why Hippo should be following Camelbinky's talk page and following Camelbinky around. Hippo, why not just agree to drop Camelbinky's talk page from your watchlist and agree to stop following Camelbinky around? It is indeed an aggravation for Camelbinky and there is no useful point to your being the one to disagree in some way with Camelbinky in conversations involving other editors who will come to reasonable decisions. Hippo should just stop it, IMHO. doncram (talk) 05:04, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I'd be grateful if Camelbinky could explain in detail what I'm supposed to have done wrong. I simply don't have time to trawl through the badly-written rants above and try to make sense of, and answer, every point. If there is a case against me, it needs to be presented in a clear and orderly way - can you please provide a list of specific complaints, each with diffs and each quoting the area of policy I'm slleged to have infringed?

I certainly won't agree to "stop following Camelbinky around", as I've been doing no such thing. --hippo43 (talk) 14:28, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

From my own recent experience I think Camelbinky could do with some overseeing, and so could sympathise if someone was looking at what Camelbinky did. Camelbinky as far as I can see seems to divide the world into us and them and try and recruit people to fight against them with no holds barred. I think one warning on the user page would have been in order before bringing this charge. I don't believe that any apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance or distress to the other editor has been established. I think this whole business should just be thrown out and counted as a warning to hippo43 to try and avoid anything that might be construed as hounding and to be light on the edits. It seems a bit like restricting a person from doing what's right to me but one has to do that to a certain extent to get along with others in wikipedia. Dmcq (talk) 15:07, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Well I don't see the grounds. I guess the administrators must have some better tools for checking something like this out. Dmcq (talk) 17:11, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

← Hippo43, you said you've explained how you arrived at Wikipedia talk:What "Ignore all rules" means and Wikipedia talk:Talk page guidelines, but I don't see that explanation here. I could have overlooked it, but either way.

Those two pages are what concern me the most in relation to the stalking claim, because aside from the verifiability policy, you've never commented on or edited any other policy until you decided to dispute something Camelbinky said/did at Wikipedia talk:Talk page guidelines, nor did you participate in any essays at all, until the same occurred at Wikipedia talk:What "Ignore all rules" means.

I'm not all that concerned about the Albany articles. If Hippo followed Camelbinky to those, I think that could reasonably be explained as covering all related issues on related articles. There's nothing wrong, as far as I'm concerned, with addressing the same point on multiple articles, even if you're only doing it due to the involvement of one other person. If someone introduced information I thought to be false in Star Wars, let's say, and I got into a dispute with him there, I might then go check Empire Strikes Back to see if the same user was "stirring up trouble" there too, and the dispute would then carry over there if he was. I'd see it as my duty to make sure my opponent in the dispute wasn't laughing and editing away on other articles with the "false info" while I sat stupidly watching a single article.

There's nothing particularly wrong with that, as long as the articles are indeed related. It's the articles that are not related that are the concern. If it's likely that an unrelated page was sought out specifically for a user's involvement in them, that's a hounding concern, and I'm seeing that at Wikipedia talk:What "Ignore all rules" means and Wikipedia talk:Talk page guidelines.

Granted this doesn't constitute something long-term or worthy of a block, however I would say it is worthy of a stern warning. Since I've not been completely uninvolved with Camelbinky I don't think it would be appropriate for me to deliver the warning, nor even decide definitively if one is deserved, so I'll again defer to other uninvolveds, if any ever do actually show up in this discussion. Equazcion (talk) 19:51, 12 Nov 2009 (UTC)

Equazcion, I explained above that I saw a reference to a personal attack in an edit summary on Camelbinky's talk page. This led me to these two pages, where I made a couple of edits that were neither offensive or disruptive, as I have every right to do. (Incidentally, that is essentially the same route that led Doncram to this discussion.) Contrary to your statement above, I have contributed to policy discussions - certainly WT:V if not others - as well as policy noticeboards. In any case, this makes no difference to my freedom to edit at any particular page or topic.

According to my reading of the policy, none of the edits highlighted by Camelbinky fit the definition of wikihounding at all. If you believe that they do (or if anyone else does) can you please explain why, with reference to the policy?

I simply can't be bothered to reply in detail to all of Camelbinky's nonsense above - it is full of lies, misunderstandings and distortions. He has made numerous unpleasant allegations about me, but has not provided a shred of evidence. In particular, I have never made a "thinly disguised...attack on [his] psychological emotional stability". I have criticised the quality of his writing, his poor editorial judgment, his dishonesty (in particular his hiding behind an IP address and pretending to be another editor), his flawed understanding of issues and policies, and his irrational and uncivil rants, but none of this has ever been intended as any kind of smear on his autism. That claim is itself an example of his inability to debate with a cool head and avoid making things personal. My experience of disagreeing with him tells me that a detailed reply would be a waste of time, and would just elicit another garbled tirade. If Camelbinky can explain his complaint clearly and comprehensibly, with reference to particular points of policy and supplying diffs, I can answer it point by point. --hippo43 (talk) 16:57, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I checked your contribs, filtering by Wikipedia talk: and Wikipedia: space edits; aside from WP:V, there are no other policy or guideline edits, nor any essays at all.

"Proper use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing errors or violations of Wikipedia policy or correcting related problems on multiple articles." Granted, you say you arrived at those pages due to edit summaries rather than the contribs list; but lawyering aside, in whatever technical manner it occurred in, you arrived on those pages due to Camelbinky's involvement, and the pages were unrelated to anything else you were already involved in. And, whether or not the letter of the law was broken (which doesn't matter), it came darn close in my opinion, and I would say you're edging dangerously close to the line. Which again is worthy of at least telling you to be more careful about this in the future than you have been until now. I've felt the urge to enter disputes before merely because it would give me an opportunity to argue with someone I disliked, though at the time I would've denied any such motivation; It's an easy thing to get sucked into. Please be careful, perhaps even make a conscious effort to keep a safe distance, if only to avoid the appearance of impropriety. That's all. Equazcion (talk) 17:20, 13 Nov 2009 (UTC)

(ec) I find Hippo43's comments about Camelbinky above to be offensive and unjustified. In one comment further above he sort of apologizes for the incivility of his calling Camelbinky's edits "crap", but then further above and just now he is going on with making generalizations that I find to be incivil. Also, he called for, above and just now again, for Camelbinky to provide more detailed diffs because he doesn't want to read what Camelbinky wrote before. I expect that Hippo43 would scoff at whatever new diffs C or anyone else provided as not proving to a perfect legalistic degree that H was wrong in some legal way. Again, I have been involved in one long and frustrating discussion with Hippo43 before, where in my view Hippo was obstinate in rejecting a reasonable consensus that was otherwise established. "My experience of disagreeing with him tells me that a detailed reply would be a waste of time" is what H said about C; that is pretty much my experience with H rather than with C.

About the Albany, New York article, I reviewed all of Hippo43's edits there and find most of them to be in direct response to Camelbinky's editing there. Besides a small amount of copyediting which was okay or positive, Hippo43's contributions have been mainly to add 2 different negative tags to the article, and to revert back and forth with Camelbinky about keeping one of those in the article. At the Talk page, Camelbinky opened sensible discussions, and the consensus established was the negative tags are not needed, but Hippo43 more or less only contributes to the Talk to dispute that (rather than likewise attempting to open real discussion about anything). Also Hippo43 directly edited down Camelbinky's adding material about a library topic, with a somewhat harsh and dismissive edit summary, within minutes of Camelbinky's edit. On that library material, it was perhaps a bit long but IMHO perfectly within range of editorial discretion. Discussion about that and other editors involvement led to some but not all of the material being retained. So my view is that the article is an example of Hippo43 contributing only negatively to an article where Camelbinky has contributed positively for a longer time, both in the article and the supporting Talk page. No one, including Camelbinky, "owns" that article, but the editing pattern there is evidence in support of Camelbinky's comments about Hippo43 above.

I don't know if Hippo's behavior rises to the level of being "wikihounding", but I definitely don't understand why Hippo would not simply agree to recognize some negative impacts of his editing style upon others and to back off. In particular, it would be easy for Hippo to agree not to watchlist Camelbinky's Talk page, not to follow C's contributins, and not to directly edit Camelbinky's recent contributions (allowing other editors involved in articles like Albany to discuss and edit anything that might seem a bit long). It's a big Wikipedia. doncram (talk) 17:43, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Equazcion, I have a fair history of involvement and interest in community pages such as policies and policy noticeboards, as my contributions history shows - WT:V, WP:NORN, WP:RSN, for example. Besides editing there, I also regularly pass by without editing. It is not strange at all that I would take an interest in these two pages, and not strange at all that I would disagree with Camelbinky, because we have clearly opposite views on some of these subjects. Moreover, is anyone seriously suggesting that editors can't get involved in areas they haven't previously taken part in?

In this case, I ended up at these pages because of an accusation of a personal attack, which is explicitly "proper" according to the policy ("fixing errors or violations of Wikipedia policy"). The insinuation that I arrived there by monitoring Camelbinky's contributions list is without basis, and in any case, that would be permissible under this policy.

I realise this may all come across as lawyering, but I make no apology for fighting my case against this attack. Can you let me know if there is a policy that prevents users from simply arriving at an article as a result of another editor's involvement? I don't believe there is, and I don't believe there should be. Given that none of these edits were disruptive or offensive at all, neither the spirit or letter of the policy have been broken. You seem to disagree, so I may be missing something - if so, can you explain specifically which part of this policy you think I have broken?

I'm more than happy to count to ten and think twice before engaging in debate with Camelbinky - I appreciate the undoubtedly good advice from you and Dmcq on this. However, this is quite different from your earlier suggestion that I should receive "a stern warning" - I deserve no such warning as I have done nothing wrong. I disagree with Camelbinky on many things, and allegations like this only encourage animosity, but I have no desire to bait him for my amusement. For the avoidance of doubt, I won't give an undertaking to avoid Camelbinky altogether, or avoid subjects that might interest him. --hippo43 (talk) 18:19, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Doncram's version of his previous disagreement with me doesn't ring true to me, but there's not much point getting into that fight again. He may see some of my edits as 'negative', but so what? We could argue all day about how whether tagging articles or deleting badly-written trivia is 'constructive' or 'positive', but that isn't what this "incident" is about, and such discussion fudges the issue.

If an editor thinks I'm annoying, or doesn't like some of my edits or my style, and we don't exactly get along, that is one thing. Camelbinky, however, didn't politely raise this issue on my talk page - he came here and claimed that I am stalking him, citing a specific policy - a claim which is, frankly, horseshit, and against which I have every right to defend myself. --hippo43 (talk) 18:34, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I will respond to Hippo's comments then await for an uninvolved admin, so any more responses and insults to me and "my horseshit" and "edits that are crap" will have to wait until after that. I have indeed many times asked Hippo to stop, after 8 months of this getting worse each and every time he feels "vindicated" and then he escalates with the next wikihounding, I did not feel it was necessary to contact him again. I am sick of these insults that my editing is crap, or my edits are "badly written trivia". I would love for Hippo to find one article that he has written over 90% of the content of that can rival Capital District, List of incorporated places in New York's Capital District, or Port of Albany-Rensselaer. How many more insults do I have to listen to? He has pretty much admitted he follows me around to "fix my crappy and badly-written" edits; he states I'm a bad contributor. Doncram has shown this isnt true and that Hippo has shown no interest in my one interest other than to confront me, Equazcion has shown the same regarding noticeboards and policy. Regarding my "bad ideas", I'd like to point out that the access section at the bottom of the WP:V policy was written for me based on my (and others) ideas at the RS/N, but I am the one who asked for the original essay to be written and what to put in; with that one contribution I have been more constructive at policy-making than Hippo has EVER with all his contributions put together. Ask User:Blueboar whether or not I have been a plus or minus for RS/N and OR/N. I would put my edits against those of Hippo any day on whose more constructive at Wikipedia if this is how he wants this decided.Camelbinky (talk) 00:03, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Now, I'm a fairly inactive Wikipedia user (not by choice, but I just don't have the time), but I have contributed under IP addresses at times. As a completely objective third party, I would submit to hippo43 that referring to anyone's work as horseshit isn't going to get you very far with anyone- it only debases your arguments. I helped to reconstruct a couple of pages unrelated to those mentioned above, and it's not easy to do at all, let alone if someone is being overly negative. As a Wikipedia user with no power to do anything whatsoever, I'd suggest that simply being civil would go a long way. I did sift through the history here a little bit, and if someone said to me about the Sven Erik Kristiansen page that I resurrected what hippo43 said about some of Camelbinky's contributions, I'd probably feel the same way. If someone wants to say that I'm out of line, by all means do, because I may very well be. But maybe hearing from the perspective of someone who is just an average contributor would help some. Mønster av Arktisk Vinter Kvelden (talk) 03:15, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

I believe it was the allegation of stalking that was called horseshit Dmcq (talk) 12:21, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Okey doke, I came here on request from Camelbinky, because I don't follow AN/I (this discussion is a good reason why). I'll give my 2¢ and most likely won't offer much more here, because again, AN/I annoys me. Camelbinky has been a great editor, especially for WP:NYCD, in which he is one of our most active editors. Yes, his arguments go long, as shown here, and he has threatened to leave the project (WP) twice. I've had to coax him back here, because his retirement would be a huge loss for WP:NYCD. He adds so much good content to these articles and helps me learn so much that I can't imagine articles on our hometown area being anywhere close to the quality they are today without him. Since our arguments with doncram back in the day, the two of them have worked feverishly on CD and NRHP articles at an astonishing rate. For all of Camelbinky's faults, they are far outweighed by his content additions in our project. WP:NYCD would be much less without him and our articles would be much worse (I mean for christ sake, he created Timeline of town creation in New York's Capital District - look at it and you'll understand my astonishment).

As for hippo43, he has been the equivalent of a fly at a picnic; I'm not offering proof diffs because as a relatively uninvolved editor (I haven't gotten too into these ridiculous discussions), I'm giving you my feelings on the situation, which literally boil down to the fly at a picnic simile. The argument at Siena College was annoying and really unnecessary. I suggested replacing Loudonville and Newtonville with the town of Colonie. In his edits there and at Administrative districts of New York, he seems to have proven that he doesn't know the legal definition of city, town, village, and hamlet in New York State, which is well defined in state law. This is annoying, because Loudonville and Newtonville aren't towns and have no legal boundaries. I see I'm ranting now, and I apologize, but I found that situation extremely annoying. I don't follow hippo around, so I don't see his edits until he hits an article on my watchlist. Albany, New York is one of them, and his reverts of C's library addition was something I was a bit unsure about. I know that C added that because there was an article on the front page of the Times Union (Albany) around that day, so I wasn't surprised; the info is somewhere above trivia but less than essential. What really annoyed me was addition (and readdition) of the length tag at Albany. That was completely unnecessary and hippo blatantly ignored contributor consensus (of the people that know the most about the article).

So, do I care about this whole situation? Not really. But for any negatives that C may be responsible for, they are nothing compared to his positive contributions. That being said, C would do well to try to consciously avoid these types of arguments. As for hippo, his contributions to CD-related articles are few, and while I have no problem with wikignoming at random articles, when they begin to annoy the regulars (who know what they're doing, regardless of WP:OWN), it gets old quick. I'd like to see a topic ban on hippo just so we can be rid of this crap, but I don't think that's well founded. It would be like finally slapping the fly at the picnic. Save for that I would appreciate it if hippo would steer clear of CD articles if he only intends to start mindless quibbles about the most minor of details. His additions to CD articles are nothing compared to Camelbinky's, which is why I'd rather see hippo step away from the game in this case. upstateNYer 05:17, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Again, this is veering away from the issue at hand. The claim made by Camelbinky is that I have been hounding him. This is without basis and it was this claim, not his work, that I described above as "horseshit". This "incident" is not about whether Camelbinky's work is valuable, or whether my editing some articles is "positive" or "constructive" in the eyes of some editors. It is about whether I have been hounding Camelbinky. Again, I have not, and nobody has brought forward any evidence that fits the definition of hounding, or detailed which part of the policy I'm supposed to have infringed. --hippo43 (talk) 09:36, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps in the light of Camelbinky's unfounded statement about me a while back of "Bad faith when people take their issues to multiple locations trying to find more people who view the same as them and bring them here" Camelbinky might care to explain upstateNYer's statement 'Okey doke, I came here on request from Camelbinky'. Dmcq (talk) 13:25, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Scrap that in the interest of peace and staying on topic. I would like to say though if you really want to alert people I think it would be best to put a message on a project talk page or talk page of the main associated article rather than appealing to specific people directly which seems more like cherry picking. Dmcq (talk) 14:02, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Why is cherry picking bad when you're asking the opinion of people that are familiar with the situation and in the know on the articles affected? upstateNYer 15:03, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Canvassing under votestacking. Dmcq (talk) 11:45, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

• Equazcion has already showed that Hippo's conduct in going to the two policy/guideline pages from my talk page was in bad faith, it does in fact meet the criteria put down in policy about hounding. Hippo has lied in this thread about having contributed in policies and guidelines alot in the past, Equazcion has also proven that false. Hippo can say whatever he wants but its not the truth, he has a habit of that as User:ZooFari called him out on similar conduct at the talk page on Albany, NY and many admins called him out on that at Siena College.
• This thread is not just about ONE incident, it is the ENTIRE history of Hippo's conduct, UpstateNYer and Doncram's opinions are very relevant as to Hippo's conduct. Hippo tries to make it out to be about "one incident" as that makes it easier for him to "get away with it" as he learned the last time I brought him here. Hippo learns each time he thinks he's "vindicated" and then you see him regurgitate the things he "learned" the last time, and then the next time he "pokes" at me it is escalated and more brazen and he tries what happened last time to get away with it. Hippo, you think you have the right to go anywhere and comment on anything, you do not have that right if the only reason you are going to certain places is to comment in opposition to an individual on purpose because that individual is there, you've basically admitted to violating WP:HOUND by admitting you went to these places because you fundamentally disagree with my views and wanted to post in opposition to me.
• If no admin is willing to step in, and it really is bothering me inhibiting my work on here and my personal life that no admin has stepped up, Im quite disappointed; I dont know what the next step I can do is, because this will happen again and I'll be bringing Hippo back here each time. WP:Harrassment and WP:HOUND are quite clear, and he has violated it and will continue to follow me and "watch" me and get involved where he has no reason except to be in opposition to me (which is not his right as he thinks, it is clear violation of WP:HOUND). I emplore PLEASE for an admin to end this now. Im seriously getting physically sick over all this and I'm getting disillusioned with Wikipedia if it cant deal with something like this.Camelbinky (talk) 19:00, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) If you're unhappy with the "results", and you're trying to show a long pattern of issues, then perhaps WP:RFC/U is the right place to be. You can then canvass for others input to your hearts' content, and have the issues clearly put forward in a common/constant format. ANI is (IMHO) for immediate issues of problematic behaviour - you're trying to show a pattern. In that case, WP:RFC/U becomes the correct location. You seem to have the "support" of a couple of other editors (which is needed to file an RFC). (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 19:11, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

John Tran, wiki- hounding and edit warring

I am reporting SkagitRiverQueen (talk · contribs) for her continued harassment, edit warring and wiki-hounding. I was astonished at Skagitriverqueen's interest in my small town's politicians, two states away from her own. Why? "following another user around" from "Wiki-hounding" comes to mind. " Other than "following me around" there is no earthly reason for her to have happened upon these articles. This is a violation of wiki policy and done for the simple reason of hounding me and disrupting my enjoyment of editing for no overriding reason.. She has made 16 edits in the last 24 hours (edit warring). I am distressed that she has continued harassing me since she is prevented from doing so on Karel's article. Amicable discussion with this user is impossible and i will not attempt to do so again. Please intervene, I am as tired of this as the many users & admins who have tried to intervene.

Thank you. JoyDiamond (talk) 21:41, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Skag has also exacerbated her harassment by editing on my Mayor's article: Margaret Clark JoyDiamond (talk) 22:00, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

I have made SkagitRiverQueen aware of this discussion. GiantSnowman 11:38, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Firstly, SkagitRiverQueen has edited a total of 2 articles that you've edited, from what I can tell. That hardly constitutes hounding. Secondly, I don't see many reverts (if any) from them on John Tran, so it doesn't seem like there has been much edit-warring going on (unless you have diffs showing otherwise). There may be wikiquettte issues with that editor, maybe not, though the bad faith between you two seems to go both ways. I don't really see substance to your accusations to be honest. -- Atama頭 23:23, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Dear Atama, I have only edited three articles so far and she has edited my edits on all three. You want to see *substance* of "edit-warring," check out the "Charles Karel Bouley" article for the last year. I was not even aware of the term " hounding" until another editor pointed out to skagitriverquenn that she was hounding me. She has made further unsubstantiated edits based on assumptions in the John Tran article today. Furthermore, " following another user around" is a violation of wiki- hounding. Why else would she be editing an obscure small town article about Rosemead, in Southern California, when she lives in Washington. How could she have found said obscure article *except* by following me? *I* would have never found the Rosemead articles if I had not been requested to do so and I live here! Lastly, she has violated every rule of wikiquette in her egregious insults to my person to the extent that I requested the "Karel" article to be blocked. I attempted to make peace in "good faith" She rejected that overture. I am truly trying to edit in "Good Faith." I sincerely thank for your effort at impartiality. I wish you the best. JoyDiamond (talk) 00:40, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Just following another editor to articles isn't hounding. I've done it myself, even WP:HOUND has a disclaimer that doing so can be beneficial, and that's even recommended in certain circumstances (spam and vandalism for example). But, following someone around specifically to hinder their editing isn't allowed. That's what is considered "hounding".

On one article, Margaret Clark, which you specifically have mentioned here the only edit that SkagitRiverQueen made was this one. That was a very positive edit, it fixed a couple of minor errors, added a wikilink, and requested sources (which is very important in a biography of a living person. They even explained the references tag on the talk page. If that was done on an article I was working on, I'd thank the editor, not complain to them.

Where Charles Karel Bouley is concerned, SkagitRiverQueen's first edit to that article was in July 2006, 2 years before you even created an account. I hardly think that you could accuse them of following you to that article. The edit wars in that article are troubling, but they involve more than just the two of you.

So your only credible claim of hounding is at John Tran. The dispute there is definitely not a good one, but it seems to be mostly a content dispute. What I'm wondering is, what would you like to happen? It wouldn't seem right for SkagitRiverQueen to be asked to leave that article, there seems to be a legitimate dispute there. The two of you are both in danger of violating, if you haven't already violated the three-revert rule (clearly a full edit war has escalated since my previous comment). Both of you are risking a block, so you need to settle things by talking rather than reverting each other. My advice is to stop accusing them of having bad intentions, ask them specifically what changes they want to make to the article and you can compromise on what to do. If you've already tried that, maybe I can give it a try (one Washington resident to another). -- Atama頭 20:11, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

In my personal opinion this may be retaliation against by Joy against Skag for Skag's complaints against Joy in the past, last I had seen there was supposed to be some mediation going on between the two after, per Skag's request, I reopened a Wikiquette complaint that had been prematurely closed. If the editor who had been involved with mediating could be asked to come here and state their opinion regarding the mediation it may be helpful learning from the that third party why things have disintergrated. I believe User:Equazcion and User:Dmcq were also involved in listening and working on the complaint long after I left it, perhaps they have some input to share as well.Camelbinky (talk) 22:17, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, IMO, this is just more of the same from JoyDiamond. From her first complaint against me on the Charles Karel Bouley article talk page to now, she has complained about anything I edit in Wikipedia. She looks for things to nail me on and this is just another in her long list of unfounded allegations against me. The latest wild accusation is that I caused an edit she made to the John Tran article talk page to somehow disappear because of a conflicting edit. Problem is, I hadn't edited anything on the talk page for nearly an hour before she claims I caused her edit to disappear. Whatever.

I've decided to take the high-road with her and basically ignore her crazy behavior. I will continue to edit the Tran article, but with taking great care that I don't do anything that could take on even the slightest appearance of an edit war or bad faith. Honestly, I think she has it in for me and no matter what I edit, where I edit, she will find something wrong with all of it. IMO, she wants to see me gone from Wikipedia and is working to make that happen with her wild allegations and accusations. JoyDiamond clearly does not understand that the articles she has edited are not *hers* (just look at how many times she refers to them as "my article") and that if she doesn't want what she edits to be changed or corrected then she shouldn't write it. She has previously asked that I be blocked permanently from editing the Bouley article. She's even told at least one other editor to not edit the Bouley article at all. From her own statements and actions in Wikipedia, she is not a team player.

I'm not interested in her dramatics and just want to edit in peace. Clearly, even when I have bent over backwards to try and reach out to her on the Tran talk page, she is not interested in anything other than arguing in oppositional defiance.

--SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 22:40, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

The user SkagitRiverQueen does seem to hound people on here, per my posting on WQA. Although I have no first hand knowledge between her and JoyDiamond, she will place agitating posts if you differ from her POV, and when you then confront her on it, or defend yourself, she will immediately label your response as vandalism. Then, she goes and constantly whines to Admin. I will be the first to admit I have placed some not-so well thought thru edits, but I have never gone out of my way to harass people like she has Regisfugit (talk) 02:48, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Stalker

I've got a problem. LAz17 (talk · contribs) follows my edits and is reverting them (like Central Bosnian canton) trying to start another edit war (that is the page in which the guy did not had any previous edits) and is stalling on the discussion pages. The guy is also very rude [23]. Can somebody tell him to watch on his manners, and that this is an encylopedia, not his personal forum? Thanks in advance. --Čeha (razgovor) 02:11, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Having looked at both of your edits, I hardly believe that Laz is following you. Your edits focus mainly around Bosnia, and the only place I can see the two of you interacting outside of the page you mentioned is on a back and forth on a user page about different maps. This certainly doesn't qualify as WP:Wikistalking, and your interactions with him are not much better as evidenced here [24]. As far as I can see, this isn't a problem for ANI, take it to WP:WQA if you are concerned about their behaviour, or try to gain consensus for your changes on the article talk page. Frmatt (talk) 04:42, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

NOTE - This [25] is worth reviewing by anyone commenting on this thread. Frmatt (talk) 04:46, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Ceha is simply angry because I am pursuing the final removing of his other unsourced maps of bosnia and herzegovina. In the case of the Central Bosnian canton he changed the number of croats from about 131 thousand up to 135 thousand. It was not sourced, I reverted his problematic unsourced edit. He accused me of edit warring, argued much, and removed all data. Then he put data back to 131 thousand croats, not the 135. I think we can see who is causing the problems here. (LAz17 (talk) 06:35, 15 November 2009 (UTC)).

That discussion is clearly seen on [26], what really Laz said. And the guy admited stalking on me [27]. Frmatt thanks for the advice I' am going to try WQA. If you, or someone else can do anything about this I would be gratefull. Also I do not see how my behavior is equal to his? Here [[28]] is just a quote of what user Laz said. --Čeha (razgovor) 13:13, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I did follow him. He is talking shit behind my back, both here and on the croatian wikipedia. He is a problematic editor. I do not undo his stuff for fun. He put some fraud up, and admitted that it was wrong afterwards. He is angry that his fraud was undone, because he is a croatian nationalist, who almost always tries to increase the position of croats in bosnia and herzegovina. This is why he bumped up the number of croats from 131 thousand to 135 thousand. Instead of apologizing he is attacking me. Your behavior is like mine, as you followed me to Direktor's talk page. (LAz17 (talk) 16:16, 15 November 2009 (UTC)).

Again user Laz uses the word shit. I notifed user Laz about this discussion [29]. The guy is a comfirmed liar. Only thing I want from that guy, that he stops stalking me and stops talking about me on other people's pages (like Director's, Producer's and list goes on).

Prior to my edit that guy did not had anything to do with that page (check history, and Laz even admited that [30]).

The guy is convinced that I'm a Croatian POV warior which has some holy fraud on wikipedia here, and that is his holy duty to stop me. I would like this to stop. Permenatly.

Laz, leave me alone. I'm not interested in any of your wild theories.--Čeha (razgovor) 22:52, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

You have admitted to deliberately ommitting countless serbian and bosniak villages on your map of bosnia. This showed the croats as grossly over-represented. When you defend such an awful propaganda map, how can you or anyone else be surprised that I will be offended at such wrong unsourced bullshit? It is shit, and there is no other word that is more appropriate for it - perhaps fraud is just as good of a word. Direktor, the mediator of the discussion has told you that it is very plausible for people to have issues with your problematic map. Your actions on the central bosnia canton page only further enforce your POV. You put, in the first place, unsourced data on there. Then you changed that data by bumping up the numbers of croats significantly. When I undid that you exploded in rage and attacked me, only to later put the number back to 131 as it was before you bumped them up. You have clear POV. Sorry man, the evidence is against you. On top of that, you have a history of being a croatian nationalist. You have been banned from wikipedia in the past, if I am not mistaken, and I do suspect you to be a sockpuppet of some one of the numerous banned croatian propaganda artists - like user afrika paprika. (LAz17 (talk) 23:32, 15 November 2009 (UTC)).

As anyone can see it is like this. This are my problems with this user. Every sentance in this upper post is a blunt lie. Course of events of CB canton can be seen on talk pages [31]. As for deliberately ommitting countless villages I never said (nor done) that. No one ever said that. Except maybe you Laz. But that is your POV. Some restriction notice, please?

The guy's follows me in circles and writes that I'm a holy Crotian POV warrior. Or is accusing me of sockpupetry. Do I realy must to listen that kind of behavior? Is there some measure in wikipedia which could make this stop? Thanks in advance. --Čeha (razgovor) 01:11, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I am not a liar. It is Ceha who is a liar.

1) Fraud put in on CB Canton page... [32] Now how do we know that it was deliberate? Because he changed it on the croatian wiki too and has not put the right data in!!! He leaves it frauded on the croatian wiki, and so we can discredit the croatian wiki - especially considering that POV nationalists like user Kubura are admins there. Yes, the experience with Croatian wiki members has been pretty "bad" for me. To be precise, Ceha is a detriment to the wellbeing of this encyclopedia. For croatian interests he is probably very welcome and loved on the croatian wikipedia, but on the english wikiepdia we are more interested in non-biased material, so his pro-croat propaganda must not be accepted. We must be free of biase, be it pro-serb, pro-croat, pro-anyone. Ceha's actions have shown strong disagreement with this principle.

2a) He has addmitted to deliberately excluding serbian and bosniak villages. [33]

To say what the mediator has said, That sounds like heavy POV when you omit Serbian and/or Muslim villages and settlements. I hope you can see how people can perceive that simplification as "biased"? Faced with accusations of taking sides in an ethnic conflicts, your map needs to be 100% by the book - or it really is unacceptable by encyclopedia standards. (This is all primarily because you made a map of one of the most ethnically complex and belligerent areas of this planet.)

Of course everything is true that I say, and that this fraud creator is lying to "us all here" when he says that what I say is not true. What I say is sourced and confirmed. He is the liar and a threat to wikipedia. (LAz17 (talk) 01:34, 16 November 2009 (UTC)).

1)Laz if you had negative experiance on Cro wiki, do not put that on me, just because I'm a croat.

2)This is director's statment, not mine. Who confess here what. Where is the word numerous? Director told me that I must show every small village on that map, no matter how small it is, and that (because I'm a Croat) must take a special care of showing Serbian and Muslim villages. Otherways it can be seen as POV. Which I tried to do. Laz, where is my confession here? --Čeha (razgovor) 02:13, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

1) is about CB Canton, NOT about cro-wiki. Please, do not deter the argument from the fact that you reported me for undoing your fraud on the CB Canton.

2)When I made this map plan was not to include every little village in it. is what you said. Basically, most of Bosnia and Herzegovina's territory is small villages. You admitted to excluding on purpose. (LAz17 (talk) 03:17, 16 November 2009 (UTC)).

(undent) Ummm...I'm hoping that someone else can take a look at this thread as it appears to have degenerated into a war of words between these two editors. That being said, Ceha and Laz: Cease and Desist immediately. Either find a way to work together or take it to WP:DR. This is a content dispute, nothing more. Frmatt (talk) 05:30, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Blacklist request

Is there some way to add "Putka" to the account creation blacklist or something? Putka is a slang word for female genetalia, and is currently being used by Crazyer 666 (talk · contribs) to create socks. <>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk) 05:50, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

If the user is socking, it would be best to file a request at WP:SPI for a checkuser to investigate the case. Keeping all sockpuppet information in one place is mucho bueno since it makes it easier to track behaviors and a checkuser responding to an SPI request can also block underlying IP addresses and IP address ranges to prevent future socking. --Jayron32 06:06, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Could you please address the question?— Dædαlus ^Contribs 07:58, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

You can also put in a request at WT:UAA to have the string added to the bot watchlist. It will report any username creations that contain the phrase. TNXMan 14:16, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I just went ahead and did it. Any new accounts created with the name will be reported at UAA. TNXMan 14:21, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

It would be a better idea to just have that reported to WP:SPI/BOT as with all other accounts that utilize similar patterns. MuZemike 20:01, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually, never mind. I now understand why that would go to UAA. Carry on, I suppose ;) MuZemike 20:10, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Carry on, carry on because nothing really matters to me. :) TNXMan 22:52, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Would you mind modifying it (if this isn't what you already did) so the bot only reports accounts that have actually made an edit? Sometimes UAA gets backlogged with reports when one user is deliberately creating offensive usernames that they never actually use. (this happened after the whole "nipple" debacle a few weeks ago) Beeblebrox (talk) 01:51, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I feel that it's blatant enough to warrant immediate blocking, whereas the "nipple" names fell into a grey area. Of course, I'd be interested to hear what others think about the issue. TNXMan 03:55, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Hi folks, sorry for being gone all day. I actually did file SPI on Crazyer 666 with his first round of socks, but the request was declined as the accounts were all blocked already. Thanks for adding to the blacklist, hope it helps out. 07:00, 16 November 2009 (UTC)<>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk)

ItsLassieTime banned or not?

Per this discussion, ItsLassieTime (talk · contribs) was banned for 18 months for socking, edit warring and general disruption and personal attacks - or so I thought. The latest few socks include Kathyrncelestewright (talk · contribs) who was defying the ban by creating numerous articles, nominating them for GA, and approving other people's GAs, etc. Per WP:BAN, I deleted several of the articles before someone pointed me to a discussion that I wasn't aware of. In that discussion from a few days ago, people said they were going to check the articles, but I'm not aware of any checking actually happening until this review of a single article. After starting another discussion with more mixed opinions, a DRV has now been started and this is getting silly.

So, once and for all, is ItsLassieTime banned or not? If s/he is allowed to edit any articles, that's fine, but then we need to officially unban. These banned-except-if-the-user-wants-to-write-articles situations come up far too often and it needs to stop. Do we need an RFC for the WP:BAN policy in general? Wknight94 ^talk 18:35, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

The policy does not mandate the deletion of articles created by banned socks. Contested speedy deletion proposals belong at AfD, not at ANI. ^Bongo_matic 18:47, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

In this case, unfortunately, the currently correct venue is DRV: Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 November 15#The Storks. ^Bongo_matic 18:59, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

That doesn't answer my original question - is ItsLassieTime really banned? If not from creating new articles, then from what? Wknight94 ^talk 19:09, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

If this ANI discussion isn't about the manner / venue for determination of deletion of the articles, then please comment on that topic at the DRV rather than referring the DRV discussion here. ^Bongo_matic 19:47, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Easy one first: any article created by a banned user while banned can be deleted as long as it has no significant contributions by others. We don't retrospectively delete articles written before a ban but anything created by a banned user while banned using socks is subject to summary deletion, for reasons which are quite obvious.

If a blocked editor sockpuppets while banned then the articles created by the socks might reasonably treated the same way (I certainly would). Anything else makes no sense, because it would be an open invitation to socking. Large scale block evasion commonly leads to a ban anyway, so the margin between blocked and banned is not a bright line. WP:RBI articulates the general principles.

We do not distinguish on the basis of quality. We don't let blocked or banned editors contribute using socks, we don't let people proxy for them. There are excellent reasons for this. Those are general points, I've not looked to see the histories of the articles and individuals in this specific case, because you asked a general question. Guy (Help!) 20:03, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Okay, well there are several people disagreeing with you and now a DRV devoted to restoring a banned user's edits. If those are indeed restored, then the user should be considered unbanned IMHO. Someone should not be simultaneously banned and allowed to create new articles. Among other things, it's not fair to that not-so-banned user. All we're doing is forcing them to change account names from time to time. Wknight94 ^talk 20:16, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Were they creatd by the user while banned? That's the test. Guy (Help!) 20:33, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

In this case, the ban was in April, the articles at question were from November (I think - definitely long after April). But more generally, this is the 3rd or 4th time I've been embroiled in disputes like this. Banned users who can assemble decent articles always gather backers. If such people can't actually be banned, then we shouldn't bother. Wknight94 ^talk 20:38, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I see that now. For what it's worth, I think you are right. This is block evasion and subject to WP:RBI, and speedy deletion is just a special case of that. However, if the articles have significant contributions form others, or if others want to take them and make significant contributions while not actually proxying for the banned user, that should be fine. If the user wants to appeal the block (and a ban is onyl a block nobody wants to undo, timed or not), they can appeal to ArbCom. We absolutely do not make an exception to the rule to allow blocked or banned editors to contribute just because we like them or what they write. If people think blocked users should be allowed to contribute then they need to challenge the block, not facilitate block evasion. I do not deny their good faith, but I think they are mistaken and have perhaps not thought throught he implications of turning a blind eye to blocking and sockpuppetry. Guy (Help!) 20:40, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

As the one who tagged the articles, I should state that I checked the history of all of them, and tagged only those that did not have significant contributions from others. A few that did, I tagged as disputed instead. They were also all created specifically by a single sock that was created after ItsLassieTime was banned. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 20:44, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I'll have to disagree a bit with Guy here. I guess we all agree that the goal here is to create a quality encyclopedia. Actions which promote this are 'good', actions which take us further from the goal are 'bad'. The social aspects of Wikipedia, including banning, are meant to help the encyclopedia. In the cases of abusive editors who create quality content, I don't think deleting it is self-evidently helping the encyclopedia and merits some judgment. There are some people whose edits clearly are absolutely never welcome (such as those who have harassed other editors in real life), but in most run of the mill cases I'd lean towards blocking the account while not deleting the content would be a better course of action. henrik•talk 20:42, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

But what is the point of blocking but not deleting? That doesn't help anyone. I'd prefer someone be unbanned than forced to change account names from time to time. Wknight94 ^talk 20:48, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, Henrik, I don't often disagree with you but here I think I must, as you will gather. Blocked is blocked, banned is banned, and having us fight over the content contributed while evading sanctions is often precisely what people want - there is a long history of people gaming the system i exactly this way. But you can take ownership of the articles, make a significant contribution and then they can stay and the encyclopaedia wins without the problems. Guy (Help!) 20:50, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I accept that there are cases where we should make it absolutely clear to someone that they're not welcome and that their contributions should be removed or deleted on sight, despite this might mean removing good content. I just think that this should be a course of action generally reserved for the most serious cases. (I haven't managed to look into the particulars of this case enough yet to have a judgment on if that is the case here).henrik•talk 21:23, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Guy just articulated the response I was looking for; really good contributions by a blocked/banned account can be taken over by a legit account - WP gets the content but the sock is not credited, thus providing a reason for the individual to use the proper processes to be allowed to be contribute. I realise that there is the rationale that the use of an alternate account to evidence an account blocked for specific reasons can contribute appropriately, but these socks are generally not recognised because of the dissimilarity between them. An editor whose socks closely approximate that of the blocked account are obviously continuing the behaviour that got them sanctioned, even if the content is otherwise viable. So, yeah - blocked is blocked. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:34, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I also like Guy's idea of adopting the content (though there is a nagging question in the back of my head about how to swing copyright attribution). henrik•talk 22:12, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

It would be fine if the adopter were trustworthy, and not just claiming to adopt the content simply to arbitrarily avoid deletion. I've been burned a bit by that before - someone claiming to double-check the content, only to have someone else triple-check the content and discover the double-checking was crap. Wknight94 ^talk 02:23, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Reviewing this discussion, it is clear that this is an inappropriate forum. This discussion belongs at WT:Banning policy and/or WT:Deletion policy and/or Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). This is not a forum for making policy, nor is it the forum for discussion these specific deletions. ^Bongo_matic 23:28, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

We don't delete something just because a banned user creates it. Banned user:Peter Damian tried to play that game with us a while back and nobody took the bait and deleted the good contributions his socks made. Has anyone gone and seen if Law made any new articles before The undertow's original one-year ban expired? No, because that would be immensely stupid. Things get deleted because of what they are, not because of what person or unperson created them. Now, if the banned user was banned for questionable contributions, as opposed to "backstage" antics, we have every reason to be suspicious of the socks' contributions and delete if anything seems sketchy. So I ask: is there any reason to believe that ItsLassieTime contributes bad content? If not, these should be undeleted. --NE2 23:47, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Editors with views on the manner of deletion of these specific articles are encouraged to opine at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 November 15#The Storks. I would hope that even those who support deletion would have the honesty to opine that the articles should be listed and then opine delete at the subsequent AfD. ^Bongo_matic 00:03, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I plan to once I get a reply to my question (or am ignored). --NE2 00:09, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Here's an answer for you:Template:Bannedmeansbanned

I think that's pretty clear, and supported by current policy, albeit a policy that is often ignored. Beeblebrox (talk)

First, template≠policy, which can be found at Wikipedia:Banning policy#Enforcement by reverting edits. It may be "pretty clear", but your interpretation of it is one-sided. "May" does not mean "must"—an observation made on the policy page itself— and the policy is not written in a way that makes it obviously independent of other policies, such as the speedy deletion policy that prohibits renomination in favor of AfD listing. In my opinion, creation of these pages were "obviously helpful edits" which means that per the balance of policy, an AfD discussion, rather than a speedy deletion, is warranted. ^Bongo_matic 01:35, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @NE2: Then what is the point of a ban? To answer your question, I've heard there were sourcing questions. The account and its socks used nothing but offline sources, and verification was difficult at best. The first link above gives the entire ban discussion. Wknight94 ^talk 01:19, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

It is repellent to the notion of this encyclopedia to see FUTON bias being brought into a content discussion in this manner. ^Bongo_matic 01:35, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

The point of the ban was, as far as I can tell, to keep the user from abusively socking. I don't see any abuse by the user here, unless there's reasonable doubt as to the truthfulness of the articles. --NE2 03:52, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

• Also from the banning policy: "It is customary for the "ban timer" to be reset or extended if a banned user attempts to edit in spite of the ban. No formal consideration is typically necessary. For example, if someone is banned for ten days, but on the sixth day attempts to evade the ban, then the ban timer may be reset from "four days remaining" to "ten days remaining". So if the user doesn't subsequently evade the ban again, his or her eventual total duration would be 16 days." So that 18 months should be reset to the day the last article was created. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:24, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

The timer was reset, but the person doesn't care anyway. From the ban discussion and SPIs, people weren't real sure which was even the original account. Wknight94 ^talk 01:34, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

• cmt i remember this user. They were abusive, they lied, the created hoaxes, they socked, they whined to get unblocked, they socked some more, they seemed schizophrenic (making up stories about neighbors and daughters and god know's what else) and the articles they wrote were fiction-filled pieces of garbage. They are banned. RBI and move on.Bali ultimate (talk) 01:42, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Do you believe that these articles were hoaxes? --NE2 03:56, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Per the [[original ban, it does not appear that there was any accusation of hoaxing or introducing incorrect information into articles. ^Bongo_matic 04:04, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

@NE2, I'm not going to check each and every one of these articles, and frankly, I shouldn't have to. None of us should. It is not fair to expect the community in general to babysit a user who has shown a proclivity towards bad content or bad behavior. Or are you volunteering to be a permanent mentor for this person? If so, that would be news to him/her since I don't think s/he has engaged a single person in a real conversation, and certainly would not be interested in mentorship. The first time you caught him/her using one sock to approve another sock's GA, or sourcing an article with a book that may or may not exist, s/he would simply vanish into another sock and we start over again. Wknight94 ^talk 04:27, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

"Its Lassie Time" was a thoroughly bad-faith user who created a large number of socks in order to boost his own articles to GA status, until one slipup this past summer exposed his shenanigans. He's banned and should stay banned until or if he decides to abide by the rules. And, yes, anything determined to have been written by his socks since then "may" be deleted, for sure, regardless of any alleged "merit". Banned editors are not allowed to edit. No compromise. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:38, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Have there been cases of this user misusing sources? If so, can you link to the relevant discussion? --NE2 04:48, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Agree with many of the comments made above. Think about it this way. The user was banned because the community reached a consensus that it could no longer deal with the user's edits and behaviour on Wikipedia. It was too disruptive to have to keep following them up and double-checking their work, and so on. If that was the point of the ban, then it makes absolutely no sense to put the onus back on the community to look at the work the user created while banned to determine if the content has merit or not. There should be a prima facie case that an article created by a banned user with no significant contributions by any other editor does not belong on Wikipedia. It is an exception to the normal deletion policy. The community should not be required to look up the sources, make sure everything is correct, etc., when the article is created by a banned user. Singularity42 (talk) 04:48, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

It's actually not an exception to deletion policy at all. See WP:CSD#G5 and WP:BAN. It's just a policy that is frustrating to those who value having any kind of content regardless of its reliability or the luggage that accompanies it. Wknight94 ^talk 05:10, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Banned users are not allowed to edit. That's the starting and ending point of any discussion on this matter. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:06, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Your argument makes sense if said editor was banned for bad articles. But if said editor was banned for, say, adding unconstructive posts to every AN/I thread, there's no prima facie reason to doubt content they add. --NE2 05:11, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Said editor was banned, however, for horrible socking and building an almost pathological set of lies around each sock and using those socks to support themselves in discussions over content. The editor lost the communities trust, and reflected an appallng lack of honesty that has only continued since the ban, as evidenced by the appearance of more socks since then. Why presume to trust their content is okay when all else were lies? We don't even know for sure if ILT was male or female as they claimed to be both. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 05:19, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Singularity and Wknight94, you both have implied or stated that the banned editor's content is somehow more suspect than the rest of the content that is added to the encyclopedia without stewardship or review. What is the basis for this? I was not a participant in the original banning discussion, or subsequent sockpuppet investigations, and such a claim, if demonstrated to be valid, would (of course, at AfD, not at Speedy) be a consideration favoring deletion. Why do you suggest this? Collectonian, if that logic is sound, then why don't we delete all content from banned users (not just that created after the ban)? ^Bongo_matic 05:28, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware, much of ILT's contributions have either been removed or reviewed by others and worked on to ensure they are valid. That said, the simple answer is they weren't banned then. They are banned now. They continue to lie to the community and engage in their attention seeking behavior to gain DYKs and GAs. The serious focus on this both in the previous ANI and now would seem to indicate an editor willing to go to great lengths to get these "awards", making it clear that any contributions they have made should be suspect and reviewed for validity. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 05:33, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Bongomatic, why "of course, at AfD, not at Speedy"? Is this simply a case of you being philosophically opposed to WP:CSD#G5? Wknight94 ^talk 05:39, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

"Of course" because I obviously believe (hence filing a DRV) that the speedy deletion of these articles is out of policy regardless of whether there should be a G5 in the first place. ^Bongo_matic 05:42, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

By the way, how would the sex of the banned editor be relevant to anything? ^Bongo_matic 05:43, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Then when would you consider a G5 deletion to be valid and within policy? The user was definitely banned and G5 is very clear. As to the user's gender, it was brought up as a pattern of obvious deception, that's all. Wknight94 ^talk 06:03, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

If no other editor removed the {{db-banned}} template from the article—per convention and normal operation of the speedy deletion process. ^Bongo_matic 07:51, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Those who are calling for deletion: what's your view on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of libertarian organizations? --NE2 13:54, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I had already deleted that one in fact - back when that sock was first uncovered. But Skomorokh (talk · contribs) agreed to take full responsibility for the content, and has done so. I have heard no such agreement here, except for the one yet-to-be-deleted article approved at WT:GA. Instead, what I see here is people blindly opposing WP:CSD#G5 itself and removing db-g5 tags with no explanation or agreement to check references. If that were to happen in this case, I might change my tune a bit, but I firmly believe that the default action in such cases is delete. Wknight94 ^talk 14:30, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

This is sounding more and more like some editors are opposed to WP:CSD#G5. If that's the case, the discussion belongs at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion‎ and not here. Until there is a consensus to alter or remove G5, it is policy. Singularity42 (talk) 15:16, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, the answer to the rhetorical question in the title is yes. At the very least, ItsLassieTime's (sock's) contributions are under greater scrutiny once the sock is exposed. It is how one interpets G5 that is the question. The real question is how much respect we should show Bongomatic, the editor in good standing who removed the G5's. As the banned editor was not an (article) hoaxster, there is not much doubt that the individual articles are not complete hoaxes. I think that the act of removing the G5s should be taken as sufficient vouching for the content, as taking enough responsibility for the articles that they should not be speedy deleted. That is the norm of how we understand reverting reversions of content additions by banned editors. Asking that someone immediately and completely verify everything in a large collection of articles is asking too much. Implicitly saying that the articles are as good as the average new non-speediable content is enough. This could be made more explicit in policy. People who are still suspicious could prod them, and if necessary afd them, which would lead to less drama.John Z (talk) 18:38, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I totally disagree that simply removing csd tags is sufficient vouching for the content. It could just as easily mean that someone is philosophically opposed to G5. In the other case that NE2 brought up, Skomorokh (not an admin at the time) asked me if s/he could take a look at that article and a few others so that s/he could take a closer look. I agreed and restored. S/he said articles A and B could be re-deleted and that C and D were okay and s/he wanted to take responsibility for them. So that is what happened. In the current case, other than the single article in this case, I haven't heard anyone vouch for any of this sock's contributions - and it's been four days or so. And I stopped deleting them when someone notified me that there had been discussion, so several are still in main space for viewing. The short version of my rambling here is that someone needs to really make a case for keeping such articles, and really agree to watch and maintain them since the banned user is (theoretically) unable to. Just removing a csd tag and forgetting about them is not enough. Wknight94 ^talk 18:58, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, if someone is philosophically opposed to G5 and goes around removing all speedy tags of a certain type, without regard to content, his actions will surely be seen and stopped. I don't think it is reasonable or fair to Bongomatic to assume he is such a person. There has been consensus for a very long time that reverting a banned editor's contributions is something that may be done, but is not something that must be done, and making G5 into a must-do is clearly beyond policy and consensus. Once an article is created, we do not insist that anyone watch and maintain it. I think that if we agree that removing correct speedy tags should not be done lightly - and I don't think anyone goes around reverting G5's on sight - what is the real problem? Would something in the G5 criterion warning removers and saying that removers vouch to some degree for the articles satisfy your concerns?

A list of the deleted and not-deleted articles is at User_talk:MuZemike#Check-list. I suggest people take a look at the blue links. They aren't at all the kind of crap that makes up almost all of CsD, and while checking everything could take time, checking enough to make a stub that would pass A7 with a few clicks to google books is easy for the ones I looked at. The articles make their own case. Deletion is a last resort. Stubbing and transferring the current content to the talk page is one alternative, prodding if there is genuine doubt of notability is another.John Z (talk) 01:19, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Personal attacks on article subject (living person) at AFD

I've just redacted some nasty, personally directed comments in an AFD nomination (Articles for deletion/Frederick A. Aprim) made by User:Qworty. I expect the nominator will not respond favorably. I think the comments were both gratuitous and dubious, particularly regarding the motive ascribed (derisively) to the person involved by the nominator. I'd therefore like to have outside opinions on whether it was appropriate for me to remove the comments involved under WP:BLP, and whether additional/alternative action would be (more?) apropriate. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:35, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

• A polite note on his tlak page might well have achieved the desired result. Better to have him refactor his own comments than include an aggressive statement of redaction within the text of the nomination (which is really not a lot better than the nominator's comments about the subject). Guy (Help!) 20:45, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
• Perhaps it might also be an idea if an admin were to close what should have been an obvious G11? Tevildo (talk) 21:31, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I closed this AfD as delete. I agree with Guy; I don't think this was as egregious as it's being painted to be. A polite request for redaction was the better option. No real harm done, though. Tan | 39 21:37, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I really can't fathom the responses here. Flagrant BLP violations are to be removed "without waiting for discussion." The user in question has a significant history of incivility and derisive comments violating BLP, and as recently as a few days ago did not respond to similar claims of incivility in an AFD discussion [34]. The article subject is a political activist who has self-published books relating to his political advocacy; there was no justification for the comment that his purpose in publishing the books was to "go around posing as an author." There was also no justification for the (transparently false) attempt to out the article subject as a blocked user. It's not appropriate to use AFD as a coatrack to attack the article subject, notable or net, particularly when the attacking comments are so far from accurate. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:43, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

The reason BLP doesn't give us leave to do that is demonstrated here. You have interpreted an attempt to be funny or witty as defamation (I'm referring to this revision, and have refactored another user's comments and left a somewhat hyperventilating comment here and at the AfD. AfD nominations like that are not OK and should trigger some response, but that response is best left to discussion and warning, not immediately escalated. WP:BLP is an astonishingly powerful policy and requires that we be responsible enough to invoke it only when necessary. Protonk (talk) 22:15, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't believe that "an attempt to be funny or witty" by ridiculing the subject of an article is exempt from BLP. And I don't believe, given similar edits from the nominator elsewhere, that the nominator's primary motive was to do anything but ridicule the subject. And what is funny or witty about making a transparently false allegation that the article subject had posted "racist rants" to Wikipedia, a claim added after the revision you link to? Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 00:26, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Incivility and Threats

BarryNorton (talk · contribs) made some somewhat uncivil comments in Talk:DBpedia and at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DBpedia for which he received some warnings.[35][36] He has already received multiple warnings, including a final warning, because of similar behavior at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Go! (programming language) so he is well aware that his behavior is not appropriate.[37] When I removed one comment from the AfD, he restored it and then began making threats and bad faith accusations trying to force me to withdraw an AfD I started on DBpedia[38] Some outside attention from an administrator would be useful as its clear any response from me only sends him further overboard. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 20:42, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I do not believe that pointing out that mediation is needed is a threat. I do not believe that questioning an editor's ability to educate the Semantic Web community about search tools is the kind of personal attack that Wikipedia policy is against. I do not believe that Wikipedia should be ignoring academic citation and peer review as instruments of assuring notability. If I'm wrong, and if moreover deleting my opinion is appropriate behaviour, then I have nothing to lose from the 'threats' made by Collectonian anyway as there's no point in my being here. BarryNorton (talk) 20:59, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

"Somewhat uncivil comments" in a somewhat heated deletion debate are not something I consider actionable. I also think User:Collectonian's nomination of the article for deletion is extremely misguided. So far it has been an unanimous snow-keep. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:51, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Whether you feel it was misguided is not a reason for Barry to make uncivil comments, nor were they made only within the context of the deletion debate. The AfD is a valid way to address the issue of notability when the discussion on the talk was almost entirely attended by DBpedia members and those too related to it to be considered fully neutral. AfD gives a way to have the community as a whole to determine if the topic is notable, not just those involved with it. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 21:55, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but one look at the Google Scholar results establishes notability beyond reasonable doubt. I know you disagree - but you're plain wrong about this. You, on the other hand, have mass-templated an inexperienced editor (while the account is old, he barely edited except for the last few weeks) instead of explaining the issue in more details - either its a case of WP:BITE or a case of WP:DNTTR. It's an unfortunate situation, but one that could have been diffused with more flexibility on either side. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:10, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

As noted in the AfD, Google Scholar results are not infalliable nor does it produce only reliable sources. Simple pointing to search results does not show notability. And he'd already had more than enough warnings from other before blanking his own talk page that it was neither bitey nor WP:DNTTR as, by your own argument is not a regular. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 22:25, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

More than 800 Google Scholar hits, with over 200 references to the main paper, are plenty of evidence. Add in the coverage by SciAm, the BBC, and 3SAT, and there should not even have been a discussion. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:41, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

That is your view, which is best expressed in the AfD. I've already addressed those issues there. Thank you. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 22:46, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I'd note this edit http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=DBpedia&action=historysubmit&diff=326006572&oldid=326006397 - removal of a 3rd party review request, followed by a request for deletion probably wasn't the best idea. Nloth (talk) 05:51, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

30 was clearly not valid for the discussion, which involved half a dozen editors. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 06:05, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

• I have blocked BarryNorton for 24 hours for this, which is reverting the removal of what Collectonian regarded as a personal attack. As per my rationale, even if not intended as one the revert was inflammatory and disruptive - WP:AGF would require the comment to have been either discussed or rewritten to ensure it was not percieved as negative commentary upon the individual. However, as ever, I am not wedded to my actions and if there is consensus to overturn then my input is not needed to act upon it. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:08, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but bad block. The comment is barely even incivil, much less a PA. Removing in the first place - and by an involved editor - arguably violates WP:TPG. Restoring it may not have been wise, but is hardly a blockable offense. Compare the alleged attack to what Giano wrote in his latest spree... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:13, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I entirely disagree (well, obviously). If someone takes offense at what is written, even if no offense was intended - in fact, especially if no offense was intended - then the last thing a well meaning editor would wish to do would be to compound the misunderstanding. No, the comment of itself was "barely even incivil" and deserving of little more than the warning provided, but re-introducing it without change in the knowledge that it was considered (mildly or not) offensive is disruptive and harassing. However, if other uninvolved editors or admins, practiced in the neutral application of policy, feel it excessive then I have no objection to it being varied or lifted. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:43, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

FWIW, his last remark here (as well as the others above) does not give me much confidence that this user desires to play nice with others. I can sort of see why the user was temporarily blocked. MuZemike 23:38, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Stephan Schultz's comments so I'll undo the block. This seems like a storm in a teacup, and even that only thanks to some hard work by Collectonian. It could and should have been a complete non-event I feel. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:40, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not going to throw any roadblocks up over it. I just hope we didn't make the situation worse by unblocking though. However, I will note it's about downright impossible not to bite a newbie who is so darn hypersensitive and defensive from the get-go. MuZemike 23:57, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, we'll see how it works out. Or rather, the Westpondians and Antipodeans will see; I'll be off to bed shortly. I haven't marked this resolved in case anyone would now like to kick me over this. And if it all goes Pete Tong you'll know which idiot to blame for the mess: → Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:05, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I support the unblock. All editors involved in this contentious AfD and on Talk:DBpedia should however remember to maintain civil discourse. To the DBpedia/Semantic Web folks, I am an academic and am often frustrated by AfD's, uninformed edits, or even speedy deletion requests to articles in my sphere of expertise. I have had high-schoolers argue with me about topics in gastroenterology that they have no knowledge of (or even threaten me with blocks). But understanding that well-meaning efforts (including article improvement and deletion discussions) can be made by individuals with no particular expertise in a given subject matter is part and parcel of editing material on a general encyclopedia as an expert. -- Samir 08:55, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

• I'd like to point you guys to Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Go!_(programming_language), where BarryNorton has made repeated personal attacks (like calling people "stooges"), accusing other editors of lying, hypocrisy, of organizing campaigns. There's the comment where he accuses a Wikipedia editor with 27,000 edits of purposely misusing Wikipedia's guidelines to try to get his way. Then he went on to nominate Go (programming language) for deletion to make a WP:POINT, and reverted the removal of that nomination when someone pointed it out [39]. Everyone in that discussion had a pretty thick skin, and nobody saw any need to bring it up here, but I think most people found his behavior rude and disruptive. I can see how a newer or more sensitive editor would be offended, and it would at least be nice if BarryNorton acknowledged that maybe he went a little bit too far. If you're reading this, please realize that nobody is out to get you, and there is no campaign against academia behind these two recent deletion attempts. If you avoid attacking people's motives just because they disagree with you, people will listen to you more and the whole discussion will be a lot smoother. --Jonovision (talk) 12:22, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

USer: 86.133.125.152

86.133.125.152 (talk · contribs) has been removing [[Category:Khatri clans]] from a lot of pages. I mass reverted them, and warned the user, but I have received no response and the user continues to remove the categories. I did not want to revert them all again, for fear of starting an edit war. What should I do? Tim1357 (talk) 22:55, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I have made the IP user aware of this discussion. GiantSnowman 23:02, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Might I recommend WP:AIV? I would consider their actions vandalism. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 23:07, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Earwig told me that here would be a better place because the edits were more controversial. And they are not necessarily vandalism. ( A blatant attempt to undermine to credibility of Wikipedia) Tim1357 (talk) 23:10, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I notice no attempt whatsoever to respond to the notices on the talk page, and no explanation for any edits. I say a 24 hour block may get the point across. Magog the Ogre (talk) 23:12, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I got a response. Should the block remain? (I removed the Resolved template) Tim1357 (talk) 23:50, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

What did he say? (I read his response, but don't understand what he means) Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 00:25, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I have no idea, but it is still a response. Tim1357 (talk) 01:41, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

If I'm parsing it right, s/he is saying that people with the name "Sarder" or "Singh" are part of a "Jatt" clan, rather than "Khatri" clan. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 14:24, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Personal threats from User:Lecen

I was personally attacked by User:Lecen. He wrote: "This time I will ask for you head. Hear my words: I will not give up until you are expeled from here." [40].

This user is promoting a campaign against me, leaving messages to other users, with personal attacks, to rise disruptions. [41];[42];[43].

This is all because the user is trying to get the Ownership of article Brazil. He revertes and criticizes anybody who tries to contribute for that article.[44];[45]. Since I was trying to discuss the dubious informations he added to that article [46] he decided to open a campaign against me. Opinoso (talk) 00:21, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

User:Lecen has been notified here. Singularity42 (talk) 00:29, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

• Given the hostile environment and ongoing edit warring at the Brazil article, I have fully protected it for the time being. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:44, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

In fact, the User:Lecen think the article is his own. Acting on their own political ideologies and ignoring the opportunity that we have in editing "Brazil", this user does not allow any audacious collaboration that goes against his ideals (for example, I wrote a section on the leisure in Brazil, and cited the country's dictatorship - Lecen saw this as a political act, when in fact I didnt say that the dictatorship was good or bad...) I think the best way to resolve this situation would be to construct a space for users to leave their ideas and others users to intervene with votes and comments ... Excuse my English. Auréola (talk) 02:11, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Opinoso, you write: This user is promoting a campaign against me, leaving messages to other users, with personal attacks, to rise disruptions. [three diffs]. I've read these three diffs and they do not constitute a campaign, they do not contain any personal attack, and they do not disrupt. Clearly Lecen does not like your edits, and is alerting a small number of other editors to new developments in them. Like it or not, doing this is within Lecen's right. Indeed, you have issued alerts about other editors in a rather similar (and legitimate) way. Now, you may have a genuine beef with Lecen's comments and edits, and if so you are welcome to express it, but exaggeration does not make you more persuasive. ¶ So "I will ask for [your] head" might in another context be interpretable as statement of intent to have you executed. Here it pretty obviously does not. He hopes you'll be blocked. Of course anybody is free to hope that anybody else will be blocked (on occasion I've wished that three or more energetic editors on Brazilian matters could all be blocked), but expressing such an idea is uncivil at best. That's the kind of matter that you are welcome to bring up here; please don't muddy a complaint with additional dubious allegations. -- Hoary (talk) 02:30, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I am at full disposal of any Editor or Administrator who has the desire to know anything regarding to the matter itself. All it has to be done is to warn me in my talk page. Regards, - --Lecen (talk) 02:37, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

On the contrary, the problem is Opinoso's behaviour, always insulting other editors, accusing them of racism, distorting sources, calling bona fide edits vandalism, and generally trying to avoid anyone else from editing the article he "owns". Ninguém (talk) 15:44, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

User User:Igoopy

Resolved

 – User blocked and page fully protected (which may be a wee bit overkill) NeilN (talk)

The user User:Igoopy is incesently vandalizing the Taylor Swift page by posting article updates about her supposid death. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rebkos (talk • contribs) 02:49, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

User:Justastud15 and persistant copyright violations

I'd like to raise my concerns regarding edits by User:Justastud15 and persistent copyright violations. This user has on about six occasions copy and pasted material from other websites; they were given warnings ([47], [48], [49]) and has received two blocks of their editing privileges as a result ([50] & [51]). In addition, User:Justastud15 has a history of uploading images claiming that they created the work however the images appear to be taken from other Internet sites; they have been warned about uploading images taken from other sites ([52](4 images), [53], and now [54]). In my opinion, this creates possible problems with other images the user has uploaded, though no match is immediately found for them.

Following User:Justastud15's last problem with copy/pasting text, I approached User:Moonriddengirl directly about the problem. I explained([55]) I was unsure of the appropriate place to raise this issue. She said I could take it here but would address that problem herself. Since User:Justastud15 has once again uploaded an image that's in violation of copyrights after having been warned several times in the past I figure it's time to raise the issue here. If there is a better place, first, my apologies, and second I'll take my concerns to the appropriate place (once I know what that is). --TreyGeek (talk) 03:24, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, this is the right place for a copyright block. Images like this one (see [56] to reconcile uploader) just scream copyvio. Please file a contributor copyright investigation and we'll have a look at these users' other edits. MER-C 09:01, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

No need for extensive investigation on the one you noted, it's easily found here [57] by an image search (see the second row of photos from the bottom). Will tag as a copyvio, I agree that any other image uploads need to be carefully examined as well. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 09:17, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

←I support a CCI. This contributor has been blocked twice previously for copyright violations. The last time he was blocked, I advised him to familiarize himself thoroughly with copyright policies as future blocks could be extended or indefinite. If he did as advised this note is highly implausible. WP:C says, very clearly, "All creative works are copyrighted, by international agreement...." Furthermore, with respect to the now deleted File:NOsipczak.jpg, he said, "I (Justastud15 (talk)) created this work entirely by myself." If he found it on Facebook, as he said to TreyGeek, then he knew that was untrue, and this was deliberate deception. I believe an extended or indefinite block may be warranted at this point, but since it's already at ANI figured to discuss it rather than implementing it directly. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:37, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Remind me again, what was the other username in the deleted diff I posted above? MER-C 13:38, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Hornswoggle93 (talk · contribs). --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:10, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

As requested by MER-C and supported by Moonriddengirl I've submitted a request for CCI. My next question/concern is with this type of investigation or inspection of a user's edits how important is it to raise the possibility of a person editing 'outside' of their username. Say, for instance, it is suspected that a user has, at least in the past, made edits as an IP user while not logged in; is it important to raise this suspicion and, if so, at what point would it be appropriate to do so? (BTW, I'm not accusing anyone of intentional sock puppetry.) --TreyGeek (talk) 23:07, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Generally when involved in these, I have attempted to identify all identities under which a contributor has added substantial content. Unfortunately, this isn't always possible. If a contributor is believed to have used an IP that has been widely used by others, it may be easier to list articles of additional concern for evaluation than IPs. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 23:19, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I suppose to be more specific, the person behind 68.188.29.77 (talk · contribs) is the one that I am bringing up. The connection is from a post I made to the IP's talk page([58]) thanking them for one of their edits. Minutes later User:Justastud15 responded([59]) on my talk page specifically to what I said to the IP.

The edits made by this IP, the last was at the beginning of August, number over 1000. Most of the edits are to MMA record tables, which are likely not a problem. However, I haven't had time to examine all of the edits. --TreyGeek (talk) 01:06, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

User:Melop Disruptive Editing

Melop (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been edit warring on Guangzhou resulting in an open 3RR report [60] and the page being move protected [61]. He's now creating a content fork of the article before [62] and after [63] being warned [64] and changing redirects to the fork [65], [66]. Discussion has been taking place on Talk:Guangzhou and three other editors have rejected the page move [67]. As Melop is trying to get around page move protection and has been warned, I believe the next step is a block. --NeilN ^{talk ♦ contribs} 05:28, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I suspect NeilN et al. had violated wikipedia's neutrality of view point, by actively suppressing presentation of one of the two English names of the same city. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Melop (talk • contribs) 05:44, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Rockwick spammer tries again

The Rockwick Capital spammer (see User:Rockwick for the history) is back.[68]. They got around the blocklist entry for "Rockwick" by using the name "RockwickCapital" with no space. Irunijvnfdivu (talk · contribs) is the latest single-purpose account involved. They're also now promoting "Cohen & Jewison" (it used to be "Cohen & Stein"). They seem to try this about once a month. --John Nagle (talk) 07:58, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Blocked by Redvers. TNXMan 12:29, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Disruption by User:Lambanog

User:Lambanog has, I feel, engaged in disruptive editing in the nascent Sovereignty of the Philippines article. I am a WP admin but, as I am involved in a Wikipedia:NPOV dispute with this editor, it would not be appropriate for me to institute a block. Re the signs of disruptive editing, in this edit, the user fact-bombed and tag-bombed the article, he has been tendentious in talk page discussions regarding the article, and does not engage in consensus building. This edit responded to the fact-bombing, a discussion of the tag-bombing can be seen here. The user's initial edit was about six weeks ago, and his talk page contains several warnings and notifications of problem edits. Because of his precocious edit history, including apparently clueful comments at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship, I suspect that this user is a sockpuppet, and I will probably be requesting a sockpuppet investigation. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 11:04, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I urge you Wtmitchell to withdraw your complaint. As an admin you should know other admins would rather not be wasting their time on frivolous complaints. This action of yours will either reflect badly on you or me or both of us if only because it is unnecessary. That said if this does push through I will vigorously defend my actions and have every confidence that I will be vindicated. My apologies in advance to whoever is going to handle this case if it pushes through. — Lambanog (talk) 15:02, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Bot removing valid language links

• JAn Dudík (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - On List of Wikipedias; vandalism after final warning. His bot continues to remove valid language links from this page. After getting in touch with the bot owner, he still left his bot unadjusted, and the bot now again has removed valid language links from the same page. Amsaim (talk) 11:51, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

You're going about this the wrong way. You don't warn the bot owner for vandalism. Rather, you have them shut down the bot (or block the bot) and have them fix it. Inferno, Lord of Penguins 15:19, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I removed only links to Project (Wikipedia) namespace, these pages have its own group of links. JAn Dudík (talk) 15:26, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Looks like a policy dispute to me: The Swedish version of List of Wikipedias is sw:WP:Lista över Wikipedias språkversioner. Is it OK to have cross-namespace interwiki links? I have no idea. Is the right place to discuss this on the English Wikipedia or on Meta? I have no idea. But these are questions that need to be asked and answered. Meanwhile, edit warring is not acceptable. Hans Adler 15:42, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Maintenance template removal by User:InkHeart (formerly User:Colleen16)

User:Colleen16 has repeatedly removed maintenance tags from the article Lee Jun Ki, despite revisions by me and another editor. We both also explained the need for sources in the page's discussion page and her own page, and pointed her to the policy page on the subject. After she was explained to several times and continued to remove them, I gave her warnings, and she responded by removing them and pasting them onto my page. I continued to try to talk to her about it, and she feigned understanding, later removing the tags again. I just realized that maintenance templates are not protected by 3RR as I had thought, so I have stopped my revisions. I'm not suggesting that she be blocked, but maybe an admin can talk to her about it. Ωphois 15:29, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

NOTE: User:Colleen16 User:InkHeart has been notified of this discussion here. Singularity42 (talk) 15:45, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm a little confused by the redirection of Colleen16's talk page to Inkheart's talk page here. Are they the same user?— Preceding unsigned comment added by SarekOfVulcan (talk • contribs) Sorry about that...

Yes. A rename was approved. See this edit summary. Singularity42 (talk) 16:02, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I have updated the section heading to reflect the change. Singularity42 (talk) 16:04, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, unrelated to the original complaint, but it looks like the user is now editing under both usernames. I can address it on their talk page, but perhaps it might better coming from an admin? Singularity42 (talk) 16:09, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I'd kind of like to know how a renamed user is editing under two names at once before I try giving advice.... --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:16, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, if they're using both accounts, and it's clearly the same person, that's a sock. They'd better have a good reason for using both accounts...--Unionhawk ^{Talk E-mail Review} 16:17, 16 November 2009 (UTC) Oh, they renamed and they're using both accounts?? How is that technically possible?--Unionhawk ^{Talk E-mail Review} 16:20, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Just figured it out -- Colleen16 was recreated after the rename. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:22, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

(e/c) I think they recreated the old account on the 14th, based on the history of the account. --Bfigura ^(talk) 16:22, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

The user seems to have some serious WP:OWN issues over the above article and others, and has a habit of labeling any edit that tries to fix non-free content or sourcing issues as "vandalism". The user was blocked twice over the weekend for 3RR violations, abuses Twinkle, and could use a refresher on WP:AGF, among other Wikipedia policies. Mosmof (talk) 17:04, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Suicide threat or vandalism?

I reverted what I thought was vandalism but then thought, maybe it is not vandalism and person is serious? See this diff. What are admins thoughts? Should a check user be made?--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 16:06, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Considering the fact that it was at Talk:Suicide, I think vandalism is a safe assumption.--Unionhawk ^{Talk E-mail Review} 16:14, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

(e/c) Very borderline WP:SUICIDE. However, I generally advocate "better safe than sorry" in these situations. Singularity42 (talk) 16:16, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

They never actually said that they were going to commit suicide, but, if this is real, then they're definitely depressed and/or suicidal. However, it's certainly possible that this is just a troll. (On a different note, I was not aware of Wikipedia's policy about suicide threats. I was wondering about it just a few minutes ago. I've threatened to kill myself on other websites before, but never on Wikipedia.)--66.177.73.86 (talk) 00:34, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, technically, it's an essay (and, from what I've heard, a rejected proposal)--Unionhawk ^{Talk E-mail Review} 00:36, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

It's an essay that is generally followed, but was decided shouldn't specifically be made policy. Singularity42 (talk) 02:57, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

page: Diamond Twister

Resolved

 – User took care of it ~ Amory (u • t • c) 16:56, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

This page has been locked (or something to that effect) by admins. The game is similar to Bejeweled, but published by Gameloft. Can an admin create a redirect from Diamond Twister to Bejeweled? Thanks, --06SmithG (talk) 16:47, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Tamil religious poetry

Contributions from 213.55.76.18 et al. There's a long history of additions from related multiple sources on a few related pages, esp. Campantar and Manikkavacakar, each adding the same type of material, which is NPOV OR only tangentially related to these pages. User has been disruptive and uncivil in communication and destrucive in editing; cannot be induced to seek citations or better pages for these contributions. Redheylin (talk) 18:17, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Review requested of a block by a possibly involved adminstrator

SarekOfVulcan (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) is an involved editor at the article Tubefilter and has a long history of disagreement with Otterathome (talk · contribs). They have a disagreement about appropriate talk page material. This has now escalated to a block imposed by Sarek. This is inappropriate use of admin tools in a dispute. [69]. I previously asked Otterathome to stop edit warring on talk pages, and he DOES need to take the hint - but a 48 hour block is abusive, especially when imposed by someone involved with the discussion. Miami33139 (talk) 18:52, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

The comment that Otterathome repeatedly tried to eradicate was related to the topic at hand (the notability of the article and the attempt by you and Otter to get the article deleted). This is a clear case of an editor disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point, and a good block. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:03, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

The comment was not about the article. It was a sarcastic comment directed at users. I do not disagree that Otter should have left it there, but a (1) block by an (2) involved administrator is not appropriate. Miami33139 (talk) 19:11, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Administrators are not expected to be perfect, and if they see disruption they should do what is necessary to stop it - involved or otherwise. I cannot see how it can be "abusive" to apply a good block of an appropriate length for disruption. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:19, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

This was not a disagreement; this was a user breaking policy and an admin upholding it. That this admin has had impose sanctions on this user in the past is not what "uninvolved admin" is meant to prevent. This is wiki-lawyering at its worst. Tarc (talk) 19:26, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Sarek was involved in the conversation where the revert took place and has been itching to impose bans on Otter for a long time. Miami33139 (talk) 21:09, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Advocating for blocks of disruptive users does not disqualify one from actually carrying out those blocks. Your are purposefully and intentionally warping the "uninvolved admin" concept into directions it was never meant to be taken. Tarc (talk) 22:31, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

cf. my comment related to this issue here --Tothwolf (talk) 22:00, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Note that I have renamed the title of this thread to "Review requested of a block by a possibly involved adminstrator". Carry on. NW (Talk) 23:59, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

It was a good block, but Sarek ideally should have asked someone else to do it, just to avoid this sort of question. It saves trouble in the end. DGG ( talk ) 02:18, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Proposal for community ban of User:Eloquence

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

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents will be unable to resolve this dispute. Please consider other forms of Wikipedia:dispute resolution, for example WP:RFC/U.

Community consensus is nearly unanimous that this year's fundraising banners are atrocious. In accordance with this consensus, the messages were disabled in the site-wide Common.css file. Unfortunately, that change was rolled back by User:Eloquence, under the claim that "fundraiser sitenotices aren't subject to community consensus". Other statements by this user, who apparently was appointed to some kind of position by Jimbo, exhibit further contempt for the Wikipedia community. Examples: [70] ("community members hating a banner tells us very little about how well it works or how the general public perceives it ... removal of the site-wide fundraising messages by community members isn't OK"), [71] ("fundraising banners have always been Foundation decisions"), [72] ("the parts of a message or banner that make you hate it are also the ones that make it work"), [73] (insisting that banners need to be as obtrusive as possible).

We must emphasize that this site belongs to the Wikipedia community, not Jimbo's cronies. At this point in time, it appears that the only way to effectively communicate the depth of our feelings in this matter is to community-ban Erik Moller, aka Eloquence, from the English Wikipedia. Time to reassert ourselves and take back this site. It's a drastic step, but it is the only thing we can do, unless Wikipedia is to degenerate into just another closed, top-down website. *** Crotalus *** 18:54, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

• Erik Möller is the deputy director of the Wikimedia Foundation. –xeno^talk 18:59, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
• This is the wrong venue for these concerns. WMF has the right to execute official actions on WMF sites. This site is literally owned by WMF. Administrators here do not have the power to overrule official actions. Please take your concerns to WMF. I am closing this discussion as it is not an incident that can be handled here. Jehochman ^Talk 19:04, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

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

The Troubles - Editors and Admins appear to be expanding Arbcoms rulings to non troubles related articles

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

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents will be unable to resolve this dispute. Please consider other forms of Wikipedia:dispute resolution, for example WP:AE or Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification.

I am not sure if this is the correct place to comment on this matter but there is a problem over at British National Party that needs urgent attention.

An Admin has come along and claimed that this article is all of a sudden now "Troubles related" which means there is a 1RR imposed on it. The BNP have NOTHING to do with the troubles, and if this is not dealt with its clear admins will go around imposing their own views on any articles that could be mildly related to Ireland. That would include the United Kingdom, and all UK political parties which have a policy on Northern Ireland.

How is that reasonable? Who decided this and where was it decided that the BNP is related to the troubles? The BNP is not a loyalist group associated with nothern Ireland, it is a far right British nationalist party which is completely different. Please help thank you. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:09, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

IMHO, BNP doesn't fall under Troubles. Having said that, the edit-spatting there, needs to be discouraged. GoodDay (talk) 19:15, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree although i only made to reverts, well within the reasonable limit and that was because people changed the article with no agreement originally. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:20, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the other suggested places to post placed above this queestion however, requesting a clarification from arbcom is going to take a long time. I need admins to look at this matter and i would like to see exactly where in the past hour the BNP has become a "Troubles related article". There is no justification what so ever for this. This appears to be one admin deciding for themselves that its suddenly troubles related, and there has been a pattern. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:20, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Since one of their principles is to welcome Eire back into the United Kingdom, I'd say that falls under the "closely related" description. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:21, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

like i say if we are apply that as the required standard for "troubles related". then place the 1RR on every single article to do with the United Kingdom, Ireland and their political parties, they all have policies on northern Ireland. This is shocking. The BNP is not a loyalist paramilitary group from Northern Ireland it is a far right racist political party. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:23, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

What can I say?! I predicted exactly this problem when some Admins compared Ireland/Britain disputes to those about Macedonia! At least I guess this is at least as much a "troubles related" article as the M50 motorway. Sometimes all you can do is laugh. Sarah777 (talk) 19:24, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Atleast the Motorway fight was between Irish and British editors. I do not think Irish editors are involved with whats happening over at the BNP page although now its been labelled as troubles related it will act as a magnet. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:26, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes. That is extremely likely! As so a new front will open. This is more like the Americans stepping into Vietnam than Macedonia. Sarah777 (talk) 19:31, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I have made edits to that article going back to beginning of 08 and BW maybe it was your edits and not as you call Irish editors that brought Elonka to her decision. BigDunc 19:40, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

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

This page needs Oversighting - desperately!

Resolved

 – Revisions partially deleted by User:Alison

.

The edit summaries that the vandalism-only accounts included need to be obliterated - now! GiantSnowman 20:06, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

The edit summaries appear to have been deleted already...I don't think oversighting would add anything to the solution. MirrorLockup (talk) 20:14, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

The edits were removed after I posted this...and oversighting/deleting - whatever, it all has the same outcome in the end! GiantSnowman 20:16, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

For future reference, emailing User:Oversight is a faster way to handle this that doesn't broadcast the fact that there is oversight-worthy material sitting out there for people to read. NW (Talk) 20:23, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

It's all worked out well in the end, but I'll use that method in future! GiantSnowman 20:25, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Not to worry - it's all good :) - Allie ^❤ 23:09, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Submarine Communications Cable

At WP:Editor_assistance/Requests#Submarine_cables I have provided the details of an incident which was previously mentioned on this noticeboard. Sorry if this is not the proper way to alert you to this, but I can't find the previous discussion. NathanielDawson (talk) 20:32, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Clear evidence of sockpuppetry, editwarring, block evasion, spamming and disruption. Wikipedia is not a place to to promote terabitconsulting.com. --Hu12 (talk) 21:22, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I've notified others involved, Seems NathanielDawson (talk · contribs) is continuing his disruption pattern, Ive had to close several discusion by request. Clear evidence of sockpuppetry, editwarring, spamming, block evasion and disruption.

Accounts

• NathanielDawson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
• CasesBased (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
• 24.203.133.136 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
• 83.170.113.99 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
• 83.170.113.97 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
• 174.132.254.58 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
• American1heavy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
• 66.131.119.111 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
• Verifigator (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
• Verifigator (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
• Misinterpretation (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
• Antiquity10091 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)

User NathanielDawson (talk · contribs) contributions to wikipedia consist entirely of promoting terabitconsulting.com. It has become apparent that these accounts and IP's are only being used for self-promotion. Wikipedia is NOT "vehicle for advertising". Repeatedly NathanielDawson (talk · contribs) resist moderation and continues to edit in pursuit of a certain point and reject community input from impartial editors and/or administrators (despite clear evidence of abuse and multiple statements of policy) that his edits are disruptive and unproductive. At this stage, more apropriate measures may be warranted.--Hu12 (talk) 22:02, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Please read the posts. There is no promotion of that website taking place. There are reasoned discussions about actions that have taken place since the external links were removed. An involved admin, Hu12 continues closing these debates. NathanielDawson (talk) 22:11, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I should point out to User:Hu12 that the links themselves were never seriously considered to be spam; instead it was the manner in which I inserted them that was spam. I've long since given up trying to insert them, even though I think their removal, after more than two years, was inappropriate. My primary concern now is ensuring that the two new sections which I added to the article are correctly sourced. Note that rather than deleting the new, irrelevant sources, I have left them on the page and tried to seek consensus via the above debate. But User:Hu12 saw it more fit to close the discussion rather than allow it to play out. Perhaps he or she would prefer that I delete the references without discussion first?

Why are legitimate discussions being stifled by involved admins?

NathanielDawson (talk) 22:44, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Two-year-old spam is still spam. Sometimes it can go under the radar for awhile. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:07, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Wow, that really contributes to the discussion. By the way, Baseball Bugs, I do admire you; I actually laughed out loud when I read your posts about "legal threats" below. Thank you for lowering my blood pressure, honestly!

My point is that the references, which happened to be up there for two years, to this day were never considered to be spammy in and of themselves. They were blocked on the spam list only because of the way in which I kept on reinserting them.

Back to my original point, which is the way in which the references were replaced with completely irrelevant and illegitimate ones. A debate about this was taking place until User:Hu12 closed the discussion.

Anyway, it's clear that nobody who has commented on this issue today knows anything at all about the actual topic. Whatever, fine; let the page suck. I did my best to improve it, first with updates to the external links, then with references to peer-reviewed sources. But I was prevented from doing so. It would be nice if the page could be cleaned up now, but absolutely nobody has shown an inclination to do that. These noticeboard pages are really a whole other universe of confused logic and people looking to exert their control over this increasingly sad and agenda-driven community. NathanielDawson (talk) 23:25, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Links that are spam can get inserted and it can take awhile for them to be uncovered. Their long-term presence does not legitimize them. Anyone can raise issues about the legitimacy of links. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:31, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh boy. How old are we? I never said that the links' longevity proved that they weren't spam. Anyway my wife says that I'm nuts to be even participating in this discussion and she's absolutely right. This is a magnificent forum for ten year olds to exert power and vanquish all attempts at logic. Maybe I can spend the next two years editing pages about the X-Men and then become an administrator. NathanielDawson (talk) 23:36, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I see nothing wrong with the current article. The terabit consulting links were replaced with better links, and all of the other map links you were attempting to remove look fine to me. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 23:35, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I was talking about the references. The references have been replaced, that is the issue. I wish there was someone who could follow this debate from its beginnings, but its impossible because User:Hu12 closed the debate. NathanielDawson (talk) 23:38, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism by IP 92.252.45.229

Resolved

 – User:Martinj Hoekstra got 'im. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:50, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Anom user is continuing vandalizing user pages adding question: "I want to know, if Benedikt XVI. is gay or bisexual. Is there anyone who can answer these question ?" The example is here, but there are lot of similar acts. Beagel (talk) 20:59, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

You needWP:AIV.--SKATER ^Speak. 21:07, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I've responded to the IP's irrelevant question, at his IP page & at the Pope's article. GoodDay (talk) 21:11, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Legal threat on users talk page

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

---

Resolved

 – An actual admin came along, and said he's just taking the mick (whatever the hell that means). Let's go spend our time on some other ANI thread with more staying power. In a pinch, someone could start a kmweber thread or something... --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:04, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

the diff http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Gatemansgc&diff=326241312&oldid=326240368

User_talk:66.177.73.86

Regards - 4twenty42o (talk) 22:52, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Re-read the exchange there; this was obviously a joke. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:54, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, that's probably a joke... If it's not, then there's not much in the way of legal action that he could take...--Unionhawk ^{Talk E-mail Review} 22:57, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't matter. Legal threats are forbidden. Block it. Especially be mindful that he admits to being a sockpuppet. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:58, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Which of the 3 non-admins in this thread are you commanding to block the user? He put a tongue-sticking-out-smiley after the legal threat. That means he's just taking the mick. –xeno^talk 23:00, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

You're the only admin within 50 miles of this thread; he must be talking to YOU. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:04, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't command anyone, I merely advise. And part of that tongue-out was likely related to his boasting about sockpuppetry. Have fun! :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:04, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Okay, the fact that anyone actually thought I was being even remotely serious is downright saddening. I've just lost faith in humanity, people. The joke could not have been any more obvious. My 3-year-old brother could tell I was joking. Good LORD, people.--66.177.73.86 (talk) 00:03, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I read your whole exchange from the beginning and realised that it was nothing but friendly banter. However, I totally agree with Bugs. Rules are a lot easier to enforce if they are zero tolerance so as to remove any potential for 'grey areas' or discussion, so the moment we make an exception (even for such an obvious joke) the whole concept of WP:LEGAL is thrown into jeopardy. RaseaC (talk) 00:07, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

However, I've just seen we have an incompetent admin so, w/e. 'Sue me'. RaseaC (talk) 00:08, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

OMG IM GONNA SUE U!!1!--66.177.73.86 (talk) 00:12, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

So... if I told you "lol dats so mean i oughta kill u for saying dat XD", I would be thrown into Wikipedia court? Blocking me from accessing the English Wikipedia for such an obvious joke is beyond absurd. The more time I spend here, the dumber it gets.--66.177.73.86 (talk) 00:12, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

As noted above, I don't think a block for legal threats makes any sense. However, the insults you seem to be flinging at everyone at every opportunity are getting quite old fast. If you aren't going to improve the Encyclopedia, could you please find another website to play on? I note you said earlier today that if someone gave you a warning, we wouldn't hear from you anymore. If you aren't going to stop the nonsense, then please keep your word, and move on. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:20, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I am archiving this thread for the second time and I do not think that edit-warring with an admin on an admin noticeboard about this now-non-issue would be advisable. Please move along somewhere else, as Floquenbeam so rightly says. Bencherlite^Talk 00:24, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

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

A stitch in time save nine....

Could some admin kindly blank this discussion from the talk page, as now 4 editors find it disparages the topic of the person. Nine days ago admin James086 stated he would blank the section if no further comment is made [74], and nothing more has been added since. I asked James086 a week ago to follow through, but it seems he has intermittent bouts of activity, so I request if some other admin could nip any potential escalation in the bud and blank the section. Thanks. --Martintg (talk) 00:40, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Noting that the individual referred to has died, what is so pressing about this discussion that it requires blanking? It seems to me like a legitimate discussion on an article talkpage. Crafty (talk) 00:47, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

So... because they're dead, we're free to spread vile slander and libel about them? Interesting logic you got there...--66.177.73.86 (talk) 00:49, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

@Craftyminion, she only recently died, any living relatives, friends and associates of this person reading Wikipedia may find the discussion disturbing. Common decency and respect I guess. --Martintg (talk) 00:56, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

• Which four editors, Martintg? Aren't they the participants of the WP:EEML mailing list?--Dojarca (talk) 01:08, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Termer's already asked an administrator about this in an attempt to censor a valid, content-related question. This is the reply he got: [75]. This case strangely looks like a bloc action from EEML + Termer (often discussed as an ally of this aforementioned mailing list). For context, a petty useful diff to take a look at. So much for asking a legitimate and earnest talk page question–one that I would still like an answer to. Best regards, Anti-Nationalist (talk) 01:42, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

• Just to note that in the Australian context, due to the structure of libel law, people have a tendency to wait until a person has died to speak about them frankly. Additionally, wikipedia is not censored, and the BLP reasons for caution elapse with death. Of course, any added content should be RSed. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:55, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Many US states have libel laws against statements that “blacken the memory of one who is dead", but this is not some legalistic or abstract discussion on the appropriateness of libeling the dead and I am not requesting blanking of the section on that basis. But I am requesting that this be blanked on the following reasons:

1. The article talk page is not a forum
2. The question was asked and answered
3. No further discussion has taken place in the last 7 days
4. A number of editors finds the way the question was framed unnecessarily denigrates the subject and should be removed out of respect and common decency.
5. This part of the question "I wonder why her son had no need to hide this sort of thing" could be construed as a BLP violation.
6. Anti-Nationalist by uncivilly opposing a reasonable request demonstrates he appears not interested in building a colliegiate editing environment
7. Anti-Nationalist has a long history of inserting tendentious BLP claims of Nazi sympathies into a number of articles contrary to what sources actually state, for example, this case being the latest in a long line.
8. The fact that I made a reasonable and civil request here on ANI and Dojarca and Anti-Nationalist chime in with ad hominem arguments against myself and others indicates they have taken a bad faithed approach to this.
9. In the interests of de-escalating this from developing into yet another pointless battleground.

--Martintg (talk) 03:04, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:AzaToth

Resolved

 – Kicked into the dustbin Rodhullandemu 01:53, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Could someone run a beady eye over this?. There was also a patent nonsense CSD tag on AzaToth's page placed by the same user which I have removed as being applied in bad faith. I suspect douchebaggery is in play. Crafty (talk) 01:46, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Rodhullandemu just blocked indef. DGG ( talk ) 01:50, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Jolly good. I think I saw Triplestop close down the MfD too. Mark this one as dead? Crafty (talk) 01:53, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

IP-hopping user at article Lupe Fiasco

There's an IP-hopping user over in the article Lupe Fiasco who keeps changing the birth date from February 17 to February 16, despite the source in the article, Rolling Stone, verifying February 17, while another reputable source, Allmusic, also verifies the same. I don't want to inch closer to my third revert, so I'd appreciate another uninvolved admin to give it a look. Thanks. — ξ^xplicit 03:28, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Anti-Nationlist

Someone who has chosen a username "Anti-Nationalist" seems to think it's OK to label other editors with "nationalist" tag.[76], [77] My suggestion [78] to rephrase such insults were met with accusations of harassment, POV editing, censoring etc. [79].
I came across Anti-Nationalist first at Talk:Lia Looveer where User:Anti-Nationalist suggested the subject (who has been honored with the British Empire Medal) may have been a "Nazi collaborator" [80]. Such assumptions were made based on her publicly available resume [81]. Since there has been no sources whatsoever verifying or even suggesting any possible "nazi-collaboration" by this public figure, I have tried to remove such possibly defaming remarks from this talk page pr. WP:TALK but without much luck thus far. And since the situation it seems has not been resolved, please advice! Thanks!--Termer (talk) 03:29, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Strange vandalism

Some how someone is running something that is deleting words that come after the word accidently. I probably made 40 reverts in the last like 10 minutes to several IP's and registered names. I don't know where else to report this. - 4twenty42o (talk) 03:36, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

It sounds like a malfunctioning bot trying to correct the spelling "accidently" to "accidentally", or something like that. Could you give us a couple of diffs, or mention a page or two where this has happened? Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:55, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

So I see: Very odd: [82], [83], [84], [85], [86]. CIreland (talk) 03:59, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

That would be the edits I am referring to. There are hundreds of reverts now by myself and a few others. Kinda weird - 4twenty42o (talk) 04:01, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

More examples: Special:Contributions/Takk825 and Special:Contributions/Sxy jay. I tagged those two as socks. Enviroboy^Talk_Cs 04:04, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

This sounds like deja vu all over again. I think I can guess who the responsible party might be and he is on irc right now, so someone might want to have a word with him. Sigh. 69.228.171.150 (talk) 04:08, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

And who would that be? Wknight94 ^talk 04:09, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Starting up again now if someone has time to watch. - 4twenty42o (talk) 04:16, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I only have a guess. I have no direct knowledge so I don't want to make accusations or name names. It's just a pattern of errant bots that regulars here have seen before. Someone else who recognizes it could ask the person nicely if they know what's going on. If it's what I suspect, it's not deliberate vandalism but it's definitely misconduct. Alternatively, go on #wikipedia-en and mention that this incident is taking place. 69.228.171.150 (talk) 04:17, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Instead of being coy, why don't you let the rest of us in on the secret? It's apparent that most of us (perhaps all of us) don't recognize what's going on. The next step is to indef-block all of the accounts in question... Horologium (talk) 04:22, 17 November 2009 (UTC)