Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive749

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Noticeboard archives


Odd/problematic behavior from User:Luke 19 Verse 27[edit]

I recently came across said user and find his edits to be odd enough to request some outside input. Among other things, he:

All this gives me the picture of a user who is here to intentionally disrupt, and I'd like some input from the community about what to do here. --Conti|

They remind me of University of Hawaii/United States Army Information Systems Command (USAISC), Fort Shafter, Honolulu, based Lutrinae/Modinyr
Sean.hoyland - talk 11:10, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
  • "But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me" (KJ, Cambridge ed) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:17, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
I agree, many of his edits are disruptive and could be considered vandalism. I'd give him a warning and consider blocking him if he carries on this way. Deb (talk) 11:21, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
  • I've raised the username (with no response) and so has User:In ictu oculi, though no username change has happened. I understand what he's getting at with it, but it's still provocative. I expect he's only here to disrupt, but I haven't seen anything which I'd block for yet, he's walking the line. WormTT · (talk) 11:33, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Was I reading that right in that he wants more shit dumped onto that article? --MuZemike 11:26, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
  • The edits to the Rex Harrison & Ron Hubbard articles, and the edit notes accompanying them, do not suggest someone who is here for anything other than irritating people.TheLongTone (talk) 12:28, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
    • Those edits would, in isolation, be perfectly normal copyediting. In particular, the lead should serve as a full summary of the article's key points, and the current lead fails to do that. Tag-team edit warring over such with summaries like this certainly hasn't helped matters, though I would agree that at the very least this editor should be strongly advised to take editing more seriously. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:10, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
      • Yea, if one mixes serious editing with "trollz and lulz", it will only be the latter that gets noticed. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:53, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
  • I can't say I'm comfortable speculating on whether this user is here to "intentionally disrupt" as Conti suggests above, but I have found them to be amiable and perfectly willing to engage in discussion about their edits. They might stand to stick more to WP:BRD, but as you can see from their edit history, they have been editing pages where there are normally more than a handful of editors willing to tango. --Laser brain (talk) 15:06, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
I'd noticed this editor on Furry fandom due to the, shall we say, "unique" way of expressing themselves. For instance, their need repeatedly state that furries suffer from "gender confusion." [1][2]. The latter link also includes the gems, "Don't flash your claws at me, girlfrien" and "Tits on a costumed figure, in a social group known for its gender confusion and sexual adventurers, doesn't let you label said tittied figure and use a tit-wearing-weirdo in the woods as proof that "our stupid little club is gaining more female members.""
Then there's "Not everything with tits is a lady."[3]
And "Look at the boobs, they look like socks in a bra to me. I'm kind of an expert on this."[4] (Really? An expert on socks in bras?)
And: "Regardless, that ain't no lady."[5]
I really can't make up my mind if this editor is pulling our legs, or just has some weird ideas about gender. And an obsession with breasts. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 21:32, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
  • The editor just removed my ANI notice on his talk page with the edit summary of "removing dumbness", just for the record. --Conti| 22:02, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
Because when an editor starts arbitration over a few talkpage comments, it is dumbness. All my article edits were constructive. I wrote half of Sir Harrison's lede! Luke 19 Verse 27 (talk) 22:24, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
  • I've had a few minor brushes, mostly over inserting unsourced salacious material. I do not share his interest in fatworm penises. He has a tonne of ability, but Wikipedia is not helped by his contributions. Hollywood maybe. --Pete (talk) 23:52, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
Um, apologies to the good faith editors above, but this seems like blatantly obvious WP:NOTHERE. Look at this example of Luke's "colorful" talk page commentary: [6]. Look at his claim that a famous 1940s-60s actor is now only famous for inspiring the voice/style of a cartoon character: [7] (which, as was pointed out,he edit warred to try and keep in the article). But more obviously, look at his comments on Talk:Nishidani: blatant vandalism and a personal attack. The only reason I didn't block him immediately after seeing these is that there seems to be some concern from others above that this is fixable, and I don't want to take a first-mover advantage. But really, does anyone really see anything worth keeping? My opinion is the person is either just here for the lulz, or is too immature to understand how Wikipedia works (or both). Qwyrxian (talk) 03:21, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, upon further review, I can no longer AGF on this one. I'd Support a block for disruption on Luke. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 12:19, 24 April 2012 (UTC)


Someone has just created the above as their username. I find that slightly concerning - thought I'd mention it here. Calabe1992 18:33, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

WP:UAA? --Tomtomn00 (talkcontributions) 18:54, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
Well, that would work, but... not exactly a typical violation. Likely better for someone to investigate rather than just block. Calabe1992 21:06, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
(Minor Investigation) - User has no edits on any wiki, and was created on the Spanish Wikipedia. --Tomtomn00 (talkcontributions) 21:09, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
A block? Hmmm, that might really cheer them up... how about WP:ROPE while you're at it? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:19, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
Unless they do anything else that is concerning, there's nothing needing to be done here in my opinion. Rjd0060 (talk) 21:34, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
I'm inclined not to block for now and allow the user to carry on as that will help any report that goes to authorities, and per some of the guidance in WP:SUICIDE. I am actively watching it and the WMF does know about it. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 21:37, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
Um, citing WP:ROPE is a bit...callous when discussing a potentially suicidal user, don't you think? Nikkimaria (talk) 21:57, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
Not even borderline. Both commenters invoking this above should probably reconsider their black humour thresholds at ANI. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 23:59, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
Awfully callous not to a) welcome the user, or b) advise them of this filing. I've done both, plus advised them that their name is a little ... concerning. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 22:54, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
Personally, I've never dealt with a potentially suicidal user before, and didn't necessarily want to take any immediate action myself. WP:ROPE probably wasn't the greatest page to cite here, but thanks to DQ for handling this. Calabe1992 00:08, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
@Nikkimaria, ya...wasn't thinking that mind frame when I did it, wasn't my intention. Modified. @Bwilkins, sometimes IAR applies to the latter, personally that's why I didn't do it. For the welcoming...ya would have been an idea to do it. @All With still no edits at this ungodly hour, I'm heading to bed thinking we aren't going to have an emergency. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 07:28, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
@Nikkimaria, ... alas, was thinking that mind frame. Sincere apologies if an intended criticism of a "block first, think later" wiki policy was read as a joke at the expense of an anonymous suicide bid. Maybe one of the situations where one hopes an editor really is just a mindless vandal. In which case, of course, a block is fully justified. So a conundrum. I think DQ has acted very responsibly. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:46, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Threat of legal action by Chrisjs60[edit]

Arrived with a legal threat, departed with a block. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:42, 24 April 2012 (UTC) Necessary block per WP:NLT and no misuse of the tools. Indefinite is not infinite, all the user has to do is retract their threat. Move along, nothing to see here SÆdontalk 09:21, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Chrisjs60 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) - Threat of legal action in this edit by user working for Knights of Equity. Total-MAdMaN (talk) 22:36, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Does it bother anyone that the editor was trying to remove a negative, unsourced comment? Sometimes, legal threats are issued in response to valid problems. Buddy431 (talk) 02:17, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
Just so everyone knows, I've prodded the article. I don't see any claim of, let alone evidence of, notability, and could not find any of my own. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:22, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
Thought about that myself... although I think it's debatable. I'm going to remove the prod and AFD it.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 03:52, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Then User:Chrisjs60 needs to be unblocked until there is a consensus to block due to violating the no legal threats policy. --MuZemike 06:26, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Inappropriate use of tools by this admin since he made ZERO effort to communicate with the user as to why he was blocking him, and didn't attempt to explain why there is a policy in place or give the user a chance to change his phrasing. This is exactly why people should have their tools use removed, because if you cannot achieve a positive outcome without the tools, you don't need to be using them at all. In addition, it appears that User:Total-MAdMaN also made ZERO effort to explain the policies on the article Talk page or the User's Talk page, or anywhere else. Please remind this admin and user that this AN/I page states in BOLD at the top: "Before posting a grievance about a user here, please discuss the issue with them on their user talk page." -- Avanu (talk) 06:33, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
Facepalm Facepalm Dude... I don't even know where to start. Is this really dry sarcasm? If it is... well done! Doc talk 06:47, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
I'm completely and utterly serious. YOU SIMPLY DON'T ACT LIKE THIS AS AN ADMIN. We have rules and before people start deploying the banhammer, you're supposed to follow them, otherwise it is simply hypocrisy. New people make mistakes in protocol because they don't know any better, and admins are supposed to know better. Some attempt to communicate is the very first and most basic thing we ought to know here. I really wish I was just masterfully using dry wit, but it is strongarm tactics and lack of BASIC non-admin tools, aka communication, that really bother me. -- Avanu (talk) 06:52, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
That diff (and edit summary) is about as unambiguous a legal threat as I've seen. They have a chance to retract it on their talk page. Doc talk 06:57, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
Yes, it is unambiguous and clear. But how does adding another wrong make this right? We have a duty to inform and discuss. No one made any attempt to do so before blocking. My concern is not about whether the user deserves a block, of course he DOES because he broke a rule. But breaking other rules in order to correct behavior isn't right. We don't edit war until someone gets tired... we stop and turn to consensus. Similarly, if a new and uninformed user breaks a rule, we don't block out of hand. We inform and we discuss and we act like professionals, we don't react with tools because we CAN, we react with tools when we MUST. Do you see the difference? -- Avanu (talk) 07:04, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
"Users who make legal threats will typically be blocked from editing while legal threats are outstanding." That's usually an indefinite block (which is not infinite) when it's as blatant a legal threat as that one. They have a choice to either retract it, or they can remain blocked. It's policy. No admin misused their tools in this case. Doc talk 07:12, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
It becomes a violation in policy because of the lack of communcation. It is a perfectly valid reason for a block, but it is a very poorly executed block. -- Avanu (talk) 07:17, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

It's a good example of WP:DOLT. Still, I don't think screaming at Salvio is necessary. Someguy1221 (talk) 06:54, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm not seeing anyone screaming at anyone else, but it is a very serious punishment to be indefinitely blocked, and if there were ever an appropriate time to critique an editor/admin for an action it is this. The user is still blocked, the editors/admins involved still haven't demonstrated the proper protocol in response. What would you suggest that a reasonable editor say or do in response? -- Avanu (talk) 07:00, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
He's referring to your use of ALLCAPS, which is very "shouty". As far as your question: a) Don't issue legal threats in the first place, and b) If you do, and you find yourself rightfully blocked for them until your legal issue is resolved , see WP:GAB. Doc talk 07:03, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
Per WP:LEGAL - "Rather than blocking immediately, administrators should seek to clarify the user's meaning and make sure that a mere misunderstanding is not involved." I see no attempt made by either the notifying editor or the administrator to 'clarify the user's meaning'. Per WP:BLOCK - "Administrators should take special care when dealing with new users. Beginning editors are often unfamiliar with Wikipedia policy and convention, and so their behavior may initially appear to be disruptive. Responding to these new users with excessive force can discourage them from editing in the future." Again, not in line with policy. I realize that often there are many sympathies with the admin in these cases, after all, they didn't *start* the problem, they just 'solved' it. But this is why WP:ADMIN says "They are never required to use their tools". Kneejerk blocks don't solve problems. Discussion with poorly informed users often can solve a problem. -- Avanu (talk) 07:11, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
Avanu, would you like to be blocked? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 07:27, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
Would you? -- Avanu (talk) 08:09, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
Your first quote from WP:LEGAL is under the section Perceived legal threats. That isn't a perceived legal threat, it IS a legal threat and so has been dealt with appropriately. I would suggest though that maybe the template {{uw-lblock}} could expand slightly on what is required for an unblock in these cases. - Happysailor (Talk) 07:39, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
That's a reasonable suggestion. -- Avanu (talk) 08:09, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Good block. It was a clear legal threat. --Saddhiyama (talk) 08:26, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

And as for the various policy requirements that weren't followed? Is that good as well? -- Avanu (talk) 08:34, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
As has been pointed out, there is no requirement for a prior warning or other conciliatory action prior to blocking for a legal threat if it is unambiguous. Along with copyright violations, legal threats have a bleed-through effect where they can cause off-wiki problems for us, and are thus special-cased. The additional problem (that the article contained unsourced damaging claims about the subject) has been resolved by deleting the material in question. All of this was concluded within two hours of this thread being started. This is a textbook example of how ANI should work. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:15, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

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

User: making personal attacks[edit]

IP has been blocked for 24 hours by Edgar181.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I met this user a while ago and he's very abusive, and makes personal attacks. He calls everyone trolls and makes joking and vandalism edits to Wikipedia. See 1st diff against Mtking; second upon me, as I gave the warning. Please put a block on this user. Dipankan (Have a chat?) 13:06, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

And more. Dipankan (Have a chat?) 13:09, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

User:Dipankan stalking users, making threats. Could a real mod come and please take away this trolling mod's access. He's really only mad because of a discussion we had on a completely different website on their forums. He wants to pretend that he's known me for a long time and that I call "everybody" a troll, but "everybody" just happens to be him and 2 of his friends who are trolls. His behind is hurting and this is all he can do. Plus nobody can block me anyway lol. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:14, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Wow, calling Dipankan a "trolling mod" and then claiming that "no one can block you"? Knock it off. You're only supposed to comment here if you are trying to address the issues that Dipankan raised. Bmusician 13:23, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
Maybe they're looking for someone to disabuse them of the notion that they can't be blocked Blackmane (talk) 13:32, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

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

Tag-teaming and edit-warring at Shen Yun Performing Arts[edit]

Some attention may be required at some stage in the near future, as there seems to be a massive content dispute, replete with the walls of wikilawyering about the inadmissibility of certain sources very similar to what has been historically taking place at Falun Gong and other related articles. There have also been a number of reverts of well-justified and sourced material that look to me very much like WP:IDONTLIKEIT. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 08:24, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Don't worry about reporting this Ohconfucius, you did the right thing. Now, can you give us a detailed description of the perpetrators? Desk Ref (talk) 11:20, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Ignoring the unconstructive reply above, it does help to give a few more details about what action you are seeking. There has been no (or very mild) edit warring, and people appear to be discussing on the talk page. Most admins don't have the to wade through the edit history to learn the whole story for what doesn't appear to be a major issue; the onus is on you to show there is a problem. -RunningOnBrains(talk) 18:22, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Request for support - racism, improper admin conduct?[edit]

No admin action requested/required, this is a simple editing dispute. Already being discussed elsewhere, so let's close this discussion to minimize the dramah which seems to be quickly increasing. ‑Scottywong| confabulate _ 22:27, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

On the African American article, absolutely no mention is given to the multi-racial ancestry of African Americans.

e.g. see here specifically the 2nd paragraph and the next section on Admixture

"A 2003 study found an average of 18.6% (±1.5%) European admixture in a population sample of 416 African Americans from Washington, DC.[43]

Based on Mark Shriver's research, historian Henry Louis Gates, Jr. put African American ancestry in these terms: 58 percent of African Americans have at least 12.5 percent European ancestry (equivalent of one great-grandparent); 19.6 percent of African Americans have at least 25 percent European ancestry (equivalent of one grandparent); 1 percent of African Americans have at least 50 percent European ancestry (equivalent of one parent); and 5 percent of African Americans have at least 12.5 percent Native American ancestry (equivalent to one great-grandparent).[64]"

I find this highly racist - the complete neglection of other race's contributions to the African American population is simply sickening, as if they are somehow worse less than the African contributions. For comparison, other groups - for example, Mexicans, Brazilians, etc - have widely reported and celebrated mixed-race history. I get the feeling like certain users are trying to suppress the mixed race history of African Americans and try to keep them "pure" (which is, obviously, racist).

I feel like this is mainly perpetuated by an administrator editor, "Malik Shabazz". In reply to me, he posted this comment:

"When Italians mentions the genetic contributions of Africans to the Italian genome, we can argue about how racist it is that African Americans are defined by their sub-Saharan ancestry."

So clearly, by the above message, this user harbours an agenda and somehow resents the fact that African Americans have such a diverse racial admixture.

Please help. I abhor racism of all forms, yet this is allowed to happen, clear as day? Leaf Green Warrior (talk) 21:56, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Maybe it's just me, but I honestly don't see that study is racist. Especially in the light of "suppress(ing) the mixed race history of African Americans," when the study is clearly about ... the mixed race history of African Americans. Given the sample size and location, it's not surprising that European ancestry dominated the findings. This wasn't a broad study of the whole country, after all.
Now, if you're saying Henry Louis Gates Jr was applying this to the whole country, that would be a problem. Context is the key, though. I'm not getting that impression from what's posted above. I'd have to find the source to double check but, off the cuff, it sounds like he was only applying this to the individuals covered by the survey. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 22:09, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
No offense, but you completely misunderstood what I am complaining about. I apologise if I was not clear. I am saying that the omission of the mixed-race history of African Americans, in the African American article, is racist. Leaf Green Warrior (talk) 22:11, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
You're not making a coherent argument. The text cited about does cover the mixed-race history of African Americans. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 22:18, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
Where, in the African American article, is an in-depth mention of the mixed-race history of African Americans? Leaf Green Warrior (talk) 22:24, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
  • You seem to be edit-warring to reinsert this material, which cites (among other sources) Steve Sailer (whose views on race could charitably be called extreme) and a YouTube video of a George Lopez comedy bit. Before you come to WP:AN/I and accuse other editors of racism and suppressing history, you might want to consider that you're being reverted because you're edit-warring poor-quality sources into the lead of a high-profile article. MastCell Talk 22:12, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
No it isn't and this is not the forum to discuss content.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 22:13, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
It is, however, the place to discuss behavior issues. If the insertion of poorly sourced material and its reversion prompted the claims of racism, that's valid to bring up here. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 22:18, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Leaf Green Warrior needs to take a deep breath and back off. With this edit [8] he labelled the two of us that disagree with him as "ignorant". He was given sound advise by other editors to cool it -- apparently he/she has decided to double down and add "racism" to his charges. The problem is not Malik -- the problem is Leaf. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 22:15, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

@Leaf It may seem obvious, and logical that conduct by an admin is admin conduct, but it isn't. This forum is to discuss admin actions such as blocks. Not ordinary edits.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 22:17, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
Perhaps leaf should read racism, and truly understand the definition of the word. Not every subject relating to race has roots in racism. This situation, as far as I can tell, has nothing to do with racism. ‑Scottywong| speak _ 22:21, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

@Sphilbrick, I appreciate that, but I don't believe this is a normal edit concern. I believe that an admin is using his powers and weight to ensure that an article stays racist and neglecting of other races. Now, if anyone would actually - God forbid - like to discuss the actual ANI I posted, as opposed to irrelevant trivialities.. Leaf Green Warrior (talk) 22:22, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Allow me to clarify, as there seems to be some confusion. I will attempt to be very clear here. African Americans are not purely of "black sub-Saharan African" descent. African Americans have, for example, very high levels of admixture with Native Americans, East Asians, and Europeans (I think the statistic is that African Americans are, on average, only 69% "black sub-Saharan African".) Given this hugely significant admixture, on the Wikipedia page, not a single mention is given to any of these other races. A purely neutral person reading the article would be wrongly led to believe that African Americans are 100% purely "black sub-Saharan African". There is a complete neglection of any mention of other races, which is racist.Leaf Green Warrior (talk) 22:31, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

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

Request for support - racism, improper admin conduct?[edit]

Per ‑Scottywong, this is not the correct venue. It is not okay to re-open the discussion. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 22:44, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I hope it's okay if I try this again - my other request got spammed to high hell. I will attempt to be very clear and concise.

African Americans are not purely of "black sub-Saharan African" descent. African Americans have, for example, very high levels of admixture with Native Americans, East Asians, and Europeans (I think the statistic is that African Americans are, on average, only 69% "black sub-Saharan African".)

Given this hugely significant admixture, on the Wikipedia page, not a single mention is given to any of these other races. A purely neutral person reading the article would be wrongly led to believe that African Americans are 100% purely "black sub-Saharan African". There is a complete neglection of any mention of other races, which is racist.

This is being perpetuated by certain users (Such as Malik) who are blocking any attempts to mention other races apart from black sub-Saharan African.

This is not an edit dispute.

I am requesting non-specific help (whatever you deem as appropriate). For example, blocking of the user from editing the article, a lock of the article, or a lock on editing out mention of other race's genetic contribution to African Americans.

Thank you Leaf Green Warrior (talk) 22:36, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

See above.--ukexpat (talk) 22:38, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
Literally all of the above discussion was irrelevant to the request. Please don't spam this one, too. Leaf Green Warrior (talk) 22:40, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
This is a sensitive topic, and unlike other racial groups in the US, for two reasons: (1) the "one-drop" rule during Jim Crow, where any traceable African ancestry meant you were Negro, couldn't marry white folks, and would get lynched if you tried to vote; and (2) the fact that much of your white ancestry came from rape, both during slavery and during the Jim Crow era, so your ancestors were bastards. Thus talking about either lineage can be difficult. That said, I think (2) is more of a sore spot than (1). Black people take pride in their African ancestry; they are generally not so enthused about their European ancestry. This is a problem emotionally with those DNA ancestry tests: since only a single ancestor can be traced back, you might try tracing your roots to Africa only to find that your only known distant ancestor was white. Since US society still insists that you're black, this can really mess with your identity. — kwami (talk) 22:43, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
You're damn right it's a sensitive topic - and the page is currently a slap in the face to all those Native Americans, East Asians and Europeans that contributed to the culture and genealogy of the African American population. As I said, to not mention them is simply racist. We celebrate how Mexicans are a mixture of mostly Native American, with some African and some European. We celebrate how Argentinians are a mixture of mostly European, with some Native American and some African. And yet racists try to suppress the fact that African Americans are a mixture of mostly African, with some Native American, some European and some East Asian.Leaf Green Warrior (talk) 22:48, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
This is certainly a touchy topic with many diverse opinions.This footage is from a Theroux documentary on Black Nationalism.
Best Wishes Ankh.Morpork 22:55, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

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

Difficulties with Tenebrae?[edit]

George, be careful with asking for admin intervention. This is forum shopping: no admin intervention required. Drmies (talk) 02:26, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Is it just me, or is there something about User:Tenebrae (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)? I have made requests for closure in WP:AN/RFC#Talk:Blackmark (novel)#Move? Maybe there is no need for discussion here, is there? --George Ho (talk) 01:27, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

See the response at WP:AN/RFC#Talk:Blackmark (novel)#Move? You are correct: there is no need for discussion here.--Shirt58 (talk) 01:50, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

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

User promoting a movement[edit]

Per community consensus, 완젬스 is hereby topic banned from the subject of Occupy Wall Street, broadly construed. Note that this topic ban applies to all namespaces (including talkspaces and the Wikiproject page). Since only one participant mentioned any time frame, I am making the topic ban indefinite. By analogy to WP:STANDARDOFFER, 완젬스 may ask the community for a repeal of this ban after showing six months of productive editing outside of this topic area here or on another Wikimedia project. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:49, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This user is about 6 months old. In that time he has developed a history of pointing out his real-life ties to the Occupy Wall Street movement and furthermore prodding discussions subtly over to addressing how best to preserve its interests, which often toy with the boundaries of using Wikipedia inappropriately to promote the movement. He also addresses individuals who appear supportive of the movement on their talk pages to announce his shared allegiance, and attempted to determine my own allegiances by asking me outright.

This latest instance, linked in the diff above, made the most troubling statement yet: that he is attempting to keep content out of the Reactions to Occupy Wall Street article because it would hurt the movement, while describing his use of policy-based arguments as a cover for that vested interest. I replied noting my suspicion that he was actually here to make OWS look bad, as his behavior is so blatantly nefarious that it seems like he wants to create evidence that OWS' representation on Wikipedia is heavily COI-influenced.

Whether 완젬스 does seek to create that allusion or if he's actually attempting to use Wikipedia to promote the movement (the latter seems doubtful to me), it doesn't seem to matter much. Either way his behavior appears to be of enough concern to address here. I'm proposing a topic ban for this user, and the IP account he apparently identifies with, from editing any OWS-related articles and talk pages, and from discussing OWS-related topics on any other page. Equazcion (talk) 20:01, 20 Apr 2012 (UTC)

This quote from the diff you provided certainly indicates an agenda being pushed: " It's just this way because of an election year, and after Nov 6th 2012 I will actually be the first person to reinsert the antisemitism stuff because it's inevitably the right thing to do". If it is the right thing to do after 11/6/2012, it is the right thing to do now. JoeSperrazza (talk) 20:14, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
It's been clear to me that 완젬스 is a False flag operative for some time. Hipocrite (talk) 20:18, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
I'm going to be undoing that redirect on his talk page, in preparation for what I smell to be a block. —Jeremy v^_^v Bori! 20:32, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
I love the smell of blocks in the morning! Sorry obligatory reference. :P I am curious why user preferred a Korean username. User seems to be entirely contributing to very high profile current events (Occupy Wall Street (and related articles), Occupy Oakland, Shooting of Trayvon Martin, Madigan Army Medical Center (correlates with Panjwai shooting spree)). -- A Certain White Cat chi? 20:48, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
I'm unsure, but the actual reason for the removal is to move that talkpage onto his. He just copy-and-paste moved it there, but I intend to legitimately move it once the speedy tag is serviced. —Jeremy v^_^v Bori! 20:53, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
I have been having many headbutts with Equazcion for quite some time. I'm feeling very frustrated and extremely agitated today. It's definitely been a blowup & I feel like Equazcion has pushed my buttons and made me react in such a way that is detrimental to myself. I kindly ask if we can let this de-escalate first? This stuff happened within an hour ago, and I'm already stressing out and feeling like Equazcion is stressing my nerves. I never felt this way due to Wikipedia before--it's like hearing bad news over the phone, like you're fired or a family member has been seriously injured. I'm really agitated and I hope we can try WP:Mediation or WP:RFC where I don't feel this much urgency or sense of crisis. The administrator's noticeboard is a very traumatic turn of events, and I am not able to respond well or type well. This really feels hurtful & tortuous. 완젬스 (talk) 20:45, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
Please do not remove other peoples comments. -- A Certain White Cat chi? 20:48, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
Note that the comment I pointed out and the discussion he started today came before my addressing him -- my statements only came after them in reply. I'm not sure how they could've resulted from me "pushing his buttons". Equazcion (talk) 20:51, 20 Apr 2012 (UTC)

I have escalated the issue to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/완젬스. I think this is a more organized campaign that needs a much closer look. -- A Certain White Cat chi? 21:05, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Good idea -- though a topic ban for this user seems appropriate either way, IMO. Equazcion (talk) 21:08, 20 Apr 2012 (UTC)

Guys, please remember that a block is to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, not to punish users. I am very, very sorry for being tilted today. I clearly behaved in a way that was reflective of a poor emotional state. I got infuriated by an off-wiki argument with another facebook user about George Zimmerman crowding out the media coverage. He unfriended me, blocked me, and logged off. I felt so conceited because of the seriousness of how hard it hit me. I smoked a couple cigarettes and I'm feeling better now. I wish to apologize to equazcion and request for this ANI to be transferred to Mediation, dispute resolution, rfc, or a less intensive process. I have full respect for the admins here at Wikipedia, and I want those of you to know I don't intend to cause trouble. If I could curl up into my hole and disappear, I would gladly do so. I want to reply but I don't know what to address? Yes, April 20th was a shameful day for me. I got careless, reckless, and cynical. I've come to realize while smoking the cigarettes that what happened to me on facebook wasn't that bad after all, and I should not jeopardize my standing as a welcomed editor (see my talk page & edit history before Apr 20th) nor should I ever take my status here for granted. Editing is a privilege, not a right, and I hope you guys sincerely believe me that I share the same sense of community here. I've been relatively inactive since March (and looking at my own edit history--my edits dropped off right when I participated constructively in the Trayvon Martin article). I'm a very passionate editor and George Zimmerman becoming a free man again today lead to a furious uproar within me about him being free again, and the peaceful solitude I had from April 13th (when he got arrested) until today (when he was bailed out) took a toll on me greater than I could deal with. It's so hard for me to be powerless and watch the news cycle as it happens. For that, I owe Equaczion an apology, and I humbly request from the admins if I can be allowed another venue to deal with this matter. I wish to proceed but it might be seen as a bad faith apology or be seen as preemptive if I do not first share with all of you how I feel about this, and how I beg of it to be resolved. There's no need to block me unless you think I'll re-engage on the occupy article or its talk page. I just want to apologize, log out of Wikipedia for the weekend, have another cigarette, take my dog on a walk, and crawl up into a ball and go to sleep, so that when I wake up, I can have closure on this process and await a more subdued process such as WP:DR or WP:M or WP:RFC or any other recommendation you have for me. Everybody has that one day in their Wikipedia career that they wish they could take back, and now all I can do is refrain myself from the article voluntarily, give my apologies to equaczion, and deal with the decision that is handed down to me here. I beg for any mercy or compassion because I'm just so distraught, agitated, and powerless. 완젬스 (talk) 21:20, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

This issue is hardly confined to today's events, and the topic ban I'm suggesting is to prevent COI or false flag damage, not to punish. Equazcion (talk) 21:30, 20 Apr 2012 (UTC)
Having a bias or COI does not merit what you are recommending. The latter accusations (false flag) are equally baseless as the SPI accusation. Take off your hater-boots and quit kicking a guy when he's down. I've been through enough today and I just want this feeling to go away. 완젬스 (talk) 21:44, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
I've followed the Occupy articles since last fall, particularly the OWS one, and at the time I just thought User:완젬스 was overly eager to support the cause here. He's been warned for months by various editors not to let his pro-OWS views get in the way of contributing, yet he ignores them and seems to have gotten more brazen. Now that I read Equazcion's suspicion about his covert intentions, confirmed by Hipocrite, I have to say in hindsight his posts make more sense in that light. El duderino (talk) 21:59, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
Yes, which is why I said Equaczion was "pushing my buttons" to make me defend such an indefensible position. I volunteer on the main OWS facebook page, and I was having a very frustrated day (even calling people in the movement "occutards" which I have never done before today). There are two factions within OWS. I am in the pro-Obama faction, and I am very frustrated at the occupiers who throw around antisemitic wall posts (which I have to constantly monitor and police) and create antisemitic wall posts (which if I or someone doesn't take them down in 15 minutes, they spread like wildfire) (i.e. see here) because the "occutards" are not helping Obama and are only making OWS look antisemitic. (this pic specifically) Basically within OWS there are a handful of people who give everyone a bad name, and don't know the purpose of the movement is to help democratic politicians in the same way that the tea party helped republican politicians. The idiots I have to deal with day-in and day-out on facebook are antisemitic, lazy, self-entitled, sheep. They do as much damage as the Occupy Oakland black-block guys who broke into city hall and destroyed a children's art exhibit. I'm a "starbucks liberal" and want a clean, violence-free, antisemitism-free, stigma-free occupy movement. I have immense frustration due to our bad apples within OWS who moronically post antisemitic wall photos attributed to Occupy Wall Street, and for that reason, I can be both for Occupy Wall Street (such as back in 2011 during our rosy days) and be cynical/jaded in having to deal with the punks who give our movement a bad name with antisemitic artwork. Thanks for the first part of your statement because if I were false-flag, then I would only be cancelling myself out. (i.e. erasing the positive work I did last year by my frustrations today or alternatively, last year was a setup for me to be a "false flag" on a scarce handful of days in 2012). Either way, my explanation today is totally in line with all my "venting posts" earlier today. It started with an argument about OWS competing for media coverage against America's obsession with George Zimmerman, and me chastising people who don't realize when our coverage is diminished, then the media's tendency will be to over-report the negative stuff (like antisemitic artwork) and under-report our May 1st General Strike and the 99% spring. I apologize so much but back in 2011, I was "new" in the facebook leadership hierarchy, and since 2012 I have been promoted due to being Korean, since all the high-ranking online moderators were white males. If you want the simplest explanation--just look to my stress level and my facebook promotion. That is the truth of why I'm more cynical/jaded in 2012 about the occupy movement (because I have to constantly deal with the bad apples who make violent/antisemitic/anarchist comments on FB wall) compared to last year when those people who are overworked, overstressed (like I am today) saw me as a gullible fool who would happily volunteer for the extra drama, extra headaches, and extra stress.
My promotion through the OWS channels in facebook has shed light on why I'd try to recruit someone gullible, starry-eyed, and optimistic about the movement too. They'll do free work if you promote them to sysop--and 4 months later, they become tired, frustrated, and disillusioned. (I'm sure becoming an admin at wikipedia has that same "reality check" 6 months later when you wonder why you wanted to become an admin, ever...) That's the real reason why my attitude has evolved. It isn't some sort of complex, pre-engineered plan to hurt the movement. If I could, I would denigrate the saboteurs within OWS who draw negative attention to our limited prime time media coverage through actions including, but not limited to: drug use, violence, antisemitism, etc... How could these people not know better? It's like the idiots who took picture of a suicide bomber's remains and figured it wouldn't hurt the image of our military here. 완젬스 (talk) 22:22, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
We're here to discuss your behavior on the wiki. These walls of text describing internal supposed OWS issues really have no bearing on this discussion, and only serve to muddy the water. I'd invite an uninvolved party to consider collapsing them. Equazcion (talk) 22:31, 20 Apr 2012 (UTC)
Do you still believe in the assertion of false flag? (because the long argument was to show you an alternative explanation of why my attitude in 2011 is different than 2012--the "promotion" I received in the facebook group directly correlates with the stress level of an admin verses the stress level of a regular person). If you will drop your false-flag accusation (and let us civilly discuss bias/coi then I'd be happy to) but if you accuse me of bias, coi, false-flag, and spi, then you will deservedly receive a lengthy response. You're desperate to nail me with anything--just like I described multiple ways to scuttle a maneuver. You are trying to hang me by 4 different ropes. I have apologized. I have explained myself. Please let us wait for the SPI review to take its course rather than your "hater boots" trying their best to engage in unfriendly jesting. 완젬스 (talk) 22:44, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
While the user in question certainly has some doubt, Equazcion comments on the talk page of the said reaction to OWS in regards to the removal of the passage is not at all conducive to discussion or constructive either to the issue of the moreval and the comntent. The NPA there of accusing someones stance was exactly what was questioned when the original complainant asked the same question. There is then a followup by the said user which is irrelevant and yet another user who makes a statement that is irrelevant to CONTENT discussions. This is clearly distracting to get consensus on the passage brought for questioning. This would also be more appropriate to the COI boadLihaas (talk) 23:12, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
After skimming through a bunch of stuff in this users contribs, it's blatantly obvious to me that 완젬스 has a conflict of interest, in that he is not here to build an encyclopedia. 완젬스 is instead here to ensure that the OWS movement is represented in a positive light on Wikipedia, and so that the user can receive personal recognition for making that happen, as can be seen by this March 15, 2012 diff. There are other clear indications of the problem on just about all of this user's contributions to date, including some of the statements here in this AN/I thread (or, alternatively, to make OWS look bad, as Equazcion speculates in his opening statement). That being the case, I support a topic ban at the least. (I have a feeling that this person is a sock of someone else, based on some of the comments on their talk page, but this seems worth nailing down regardless... Wikipedia shouldn't be a platform for advocacy, after all).
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 03:11, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
Unfortunately, euphemisms about stress and explaining your ties to a subject do not help you in this case. We only have an interest in seeing that articles remain neutral, without an agenda threatening the integrity of the pages. Explaining your connection to the subject matter and not showing an indication for easing up on your rhetoric concerning these pages only enforces the case for a conflict of interest. I must agree that a topic ban will be prudent for now; please edit Wikipedia, but do not get involved with pages in which you have a personal connection with. DarthBotto talkcont 06:54, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

SPI for user 완젬스[edit]

I will hopefully be cleared by the SPI. Can I please ask user:A_Certain_White_Cat to assume good faith? I've acted humbly, respectfully, and deferentially since it was brought to my attention that I'm here at WP:ANI. I want to preface the investigation by saying that I hope your theory that this is an orchestrated campaign can be challenged if your prediction is incorrect. The only SPI problem individual we ever had on OWS articles was user:CentristFianco here. There has never been an allegation about SPI about me before. The only complaints I've had thrown against me were having a pro-OWS bias, which I try to mitigate by only editing sections of the article which are 100% objective (e.g. funding section). I confidently await for the SPI investigation and I have full confidence that there is no conspiracy theory going on. This is just me having a miserable day that I wish I could "undo" but in life, you make mistakes. I just hope my sincerity and honesty will clear up this regretful mishap. I am deeply sorry for my edits today, and they are completely shameful. However, I would never have multiple accounts because that thwarts the consensus process and makes Wikipedia worse off for everyone. Hopefully, this SPI issue will encourage everyone to go further back in my edits than my most recent 50 (March 28th - April 20th) and I can have learned this painful lesson and--pending the SPI investigation--I can be given back my editing privileges. I will not damage or do harm. I'm simply inexperienced and too thin-skinned to have the discipline and maturity which you admins have; but, I'm much more aware of my weaknesses after today. I stopped myself once the ANI was posted, and I've done no further self-destructive edits. I feel good about my initial reaction and taking 15 minutes outside to re-think. I hope the SPI will cast doubt to the idea that I'm a conspiring misanthrope. My personality is much too timid and anxious for that type of deliberate malice. I hope the SPI gives evidence to my side of the story. 완젬스 (talk) 21:39, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

I am not assuming anything. I am following the evidence. -- A Certain White Cat chi? 21:42, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for your patience. I really do want the SPI to show you that I've been honest here in dealing with today's ANI. I don't want this ANI to drag out or waste anyone's time. There are so many trolls, sock puppets, anon vandals, and other garbage you guys gotta deal with here. I hope to just escape unscathed and disappear from your memory banks. I'm not a bad person at all--just having a really, really bad day which I 100% regret at this point. 완젬스 (talk) 21:47, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
"This user is about 6 months old" had me thinking "Awwwww, bless! A genius!" Sorry to butt in ... Pesky (talk) 08:36, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

The SPI investigation found no evidence of sockpuppetry.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:33, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

It was actually closed as an undue request without being investigated. I don't necessarily disagree, as it was sort of a fishing request to begin with, but I just wanted to clarify. Equazcion (talk) 19:36, 22 Apr 2012 (UTC)

Efforts of Equaczion to truncate my posts[edit] Please tell Equaczion to refrain from trying to truncate my posts. Correct me if I am wrong, but that's only at WP:Mediation where the mediator has discretion to truncate/edit other users posts and/or move posts to the talk page. He is canvassing now to find a willing admin who agrees with him, but I stand by my argument that if he accuses me of 4 things (bias, coi, false flag, and spi) then he opens up 4 areas for me to defend myself. Also, he will not wait for the SPI to run its course. He has his "hater boots" and I believe he is acting punitively rather than the original issue. This noticeboard should not be a war of attrition or a battle of who can outmaneuver the other person by him having more experience than me. I consider this issue dormant until the SPI investigation is complete or the SPI accusation is withdrawn. 완젬스 (talk) 23:40, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

I asked one admin (User:The Bushranger) for advice on handling this, and he did not say he disagreed -- he just said he didn't want to read through your long posts to figure out what was going on (which, incidentally, is the issue I'm trying to address with these requests). He advised me to ask someone else, and I did. I'm not canvassing for people who agree with me. Equazcion (talk) 23:44, 20 Apr 2012 (UTC)

(ec)It is cruel and unusual punishment to be sitting for 4 hours hitting refresh on my own WP:ANI. I am held hostage by him because he is dragging this thing out so unfairly. Can someone correct me if I am wrong, but I find it unfair that he is so adamant about getting me topic banned based on bias/coi rather than the coi noticeboard or rfc. It's very unnerving and affecting my real life. I'm afraid to take a break because I don't know what he'll do next. This is simmilar in intent to [[SLAPP] lawsuit meant to discourage the other party. He is a veteran editor and I'm barely defending myself from these indefensible accusations. Can somebody tell us whether we should wait until SPI is completed or we should take this to a more appropriate noticeboard such as WP:coi as has been suggested already by an admin? 완젬스 (talk) 23:45, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

What's "cruel and unusual" here is trying to slog though your walls of text... I'm half tempted to propose you be blocked just so that the rest of us could discuss this without it being disrupted by dissertations posted by you! Can one of you please restate what the hell the problem here is, succinctly? Sheesh! (And, by the way, the fact that you feel you have to "sit here and hit refresh" tells me that there probably is a real problem here. Just sayin')
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 00:08, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
I'd suggest waiting for the result of the SPI case before investing any further time here. If he's a sock, then that's the end of it. If not, then we can delve into the actual issue. ‑Scottywong| confabulate _ 00:16, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
Since 완젬스 seems confident the SPI will come back negative, and SPIs usually take a while, I think it's prudent to try to nip this now rather than attempt to start it up again in the future (whenever the SPI closes, and who ever knows when that will be). Ohms, if you read my initial post, it states the issue and pertinent evidence. 완젬스's defense is rather unclear to me, and I wouldn't try to sum it up anyway since I'm involved. If you take a skim through his large walls of text it should give you an idea. Equazcion (talk) 00:24, 21 Apr 2012 (UTC)

(ec)Thanks to both of you admins. I've been defending myself for 5 hours and have gone through 10 cigarettes, some red bulls, and plenty of tylenol. If equaczion continues posting in my absence, please let me reserve the chance tomorrow afternoon to defend myself. WP:ANI is a very serious threat to my editing privileges, which mean a lot to me--enough to endure all the consequences to my shameful mistakes and to hopefully grow from this prolonged, embarrassing shakedown. Cordially, 완젬스 (talk) 00:28, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

And so these men at ANI,
dispute it loud and long,
and seven weeks have gone by
since I saw this was going wrong

there will be no satisfaction
if you take a drastic action
a little patience and a gentle tone
will show they're learning on their own

the little club I have reviewed,
and can I see the situation,
that the project would be improved
if you gave out invitation

peace and harmony will elude
if we focus on right and wrong
instead of working to include
and we all learn to get along
Penyulap 18:07, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
Dude. If you're really that stressed out about this, you might want to take a break and do something else for a few days. Or, do some things on this list. ‑Scottywong| gab _ 02:03, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
Yea, no kidding. The one thing that's really clear to me here is that this guy needs to relax. Geez. That, and a general cluelessness (which can't be helped by anything but time and experience, but it does provide some insight into possible behavior issues).
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 02:50, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
I'm not entirely dissuaded by this victim act, but I'll let everyone judge for themselves. Equazcion (talk) 02:52, 21 Apr 2012 (UTC)
I believe you mean "persuaded" not "dissuaded". Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:29, 21 April 2012 (UTC) in dissuaded from my assertions/recommendation :) Equazcion (talk) 03:38, 21 Apr 2012 (UTC)

The bottom line is, if he's not socking then he should relax and not worry about it. Does anyone know of a case where someone was wrongly determined to be a sock? I doubt it has ever happened. Fasttimes68 (talk) 03:45, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Just to clarify, sock or not, I think a topic ban is in order as his behavior has been problematic, and indicative of either COI or a false-flag operation. After I brought this up, another user thought this might be part of a larger socking scheme -- maybe that's true and maybe it's not, but either way, the issue that brought this here still stands. Equazcion (talk) 03:52, 21 Apr 2012 (UTC)
Just say to yourself, "it's just Wikipedia - I should really just relax". - The Bushranger One ping only 09:26, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
Relaxing is a good idea that is for certain. The other bleeding obvious idea is that if someone is willing to talk things out that we give them a chance to do so in the appropriate less stressful venue. I will tell you right now the problem is not just one editor, BULLSHIT.
The pursuit of 'someone to blame' is going to cause more problems. If you single out one editor and miss out chastising anyone who had a part, it is going encourage the editors who got away with it to do it all over again. These editors are best left with some guidance and the opportunity to learn how to deal with the problems presented. The group needs someone to keep an eye on them, and I do not mean lurkers. They respond very well to being asked what the problems are, and working through them, I did so before, and it worked well, but I have been distracted and lost interest. Anyone who wants to fix this can just goto the article talkpage and ask, but it would be a LOT BETTER if the brand new wikiproject was to INVITE people to join, where are your invites guys ? is it a private club ? Then the discussion can be held in the clubhouse. RELAX, Relax, relax. Penyulap 18:07, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
And yes I do know my poetry is crap and you're welcome to say so. Penyulap 18:10, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
What in the world does this have to do with the issue at hand? There's loads of discussion on the talk page, where it's become clear that the user here (no clue how to pronounce a bunch of Korean(?) characters) is either working for OWS and is seeking to "clean up" their articles by removing negative things, or is intentionally trying to portray the OWS movement in a negative light by misbehaving.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 18:22, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
Their username more or less translates to "Wan James" Blackmane (talk) 23:42, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
Penyulap seems to be lumping this in with general conflicts that have arisen at the OWS articles. If he takes a closer look at this user though, I think he'll realize that this is a separate and more pressing issue apart from the usual content tiffs that occur there. Equazcion (talk) 18:29, 21 Apr 2012 (UTC)
You pronounce it '완젬스', it's easy 완젬스, 완젬스, 완젬스 ! see ? :) I see pressing issues that there is an editor who is RESPONSIVE and open to learning, if he's not warring, then other editors should learn to either realize that editing is what happens on wikipedia, and if they can't discuss things amongst themselves then maybe they need a little guidance, that's all. It's kind of rare to see any editor with no particular slant on their editing, if that editor is discussing things, sweet, if editors all fail to articulate, then that's all editors, not just one. (feel free to smack me ohms law)Penyulap 18:47, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
You're completely missing the issue here. We're not discussing edit warring, but rather a conflict of interest problem. This editor seems incapable of editing in a neutral manner. The problem has been discussed extensively, and the user seems unwilling and/or unable to fit his interest in the subject into an ability to edit neutrally. That being the case, a topic ban has been proposed, which seems reasonable to me.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 18:56, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
I'm not missing the issue, I am seeing two more issues. I agree 100% there is COI. But I disagree at the moment 완젬스 is incapable of learning. I see there is an issue that other editors need guidance on how to correctly see off this kind of editing without resorting to a block and sockfight. I'm kind of medium at it and there are surely editors better at it than me. Teaching them how to sort the useful contributions and mold the bad ones is worth it in the long run, it's a lot less work, and better quality for the articles as well. He seems agreeable and apologetic when he's corrected, just a bit of guidance for all of the editors on how to cope without intervention is needed. Penyulap 19:15, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
The way I see it, they could cut their workload by 50% by leaving one side of the issue up to this editor and just filtering out what he brings them, in the comfortable knowledge he's keeping close track of everything. Going a block and sock is having a lopsided article possibly, and then you have to work out who is a sock and who is a natural newbie who addresses the same issues. Just keep him/them all in one account and filter it as it goes along, how is this not the easy path ? just add 완젬스 to their watched list and the day's work is done. Penyulap 19:24, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
... okay, you really don't understand this. Adding this user "to (my) watchlist" is pointless. We don't let one editor have "one side of the issue." And most commonly, telling someone to "keep in one account" often fails miserably. I'm also worried that you say: "I see there is an issue that other editors need guidance on how to correctly see off this kind of editing without resorting to a block and sockfight." That indicates you only see the problem coming from everyone else.The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 21:16, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
I see I failed to express myself properly. I don't mean you, I mean someone who wants to take an interest. There are 3 or 4 editors who are dealing with 완젬스, but they're not experienced enough to throw water on the fire, but are asking for the fire to be shoveled outside wikipedia's door, where it'll keep burning, and all the smocks will come back inside. It's easy to help 완젬스 to fit in better because he fully engages in conversation. But I see too many editors want to play survivor. So dump community and just vote him off the island. Penyulap 21:58, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
If I understand this suggestion properly, it's ridiculous. This is not an American court of law, where "justice" is imagined to be found by having each side present their own biased case, allowing the jury or judge to accept one or the other or, occasionally, hew a road down the middle. All Wikipedia editors are expected to contribute here in a non-biased way by providing material supported by proper reliable sources. We don't let one editor take one side of an issue and other editors take the other side and let them battle it out. If the fellow with Korean name that's unpronounceable to an English-speaking editor cannot edit within basic policy, then he shouldn't be allowed to edit. Period. We have nothting to gain by allowing him to frolic here in support of his own political beliefs. And that's the case for every editor for whom a POV is more important that building a reliable and neutral encycylopedia. Get rid of them. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:26, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
I think where the misunderstanding is, is that every person not just every editor has a different point of view, this is fundamental to the laws of the universe. What non-biased is on wiki is a question of how far from your own point of view someone else is, or how far from one group of people another is. The lines that are drawn are just as elastic as the underlying laws of the universe they are written on, the wik has no clear definition or measure for bias. That is all fine, because you have to be practical and make generalization, I'm saying that having the skill to cope with differences in a civilized manner measures the success of wikipedia. If people just say 'I do not need to work on my conversation skills, I can simply turn my back and plug my ears' then the scope of the project narrows because people don't practice the skills required to make wikipedia work. Penyulap 14:29, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
No, we understand you feel that way. What you're not getting is that, at some point, a user becomes disruptive enough it is no longer worth the time to keep arguing with them. And your childish comments about plugging our ears are really not helping you here. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 16:32, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
Please clarify who is 'we'. Penyulap 03:09, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
Little note, a community ban is not what's being proposed; just a topic ban from the stuff he has a COI/etc with. Equazcion (talk) 23:23, 21 Apr 2012 (UTC)
Yes, this user has repeatedly been asked to quit discussing his personal association to OWS and going even further than thay by suggesting that all the other "good" editors are in agreement with him. I too believe that a topic ban would be appropriate. Gandydancer (talk) 02:04, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
Penyulap, you're still not getting it. I knew you meant "anyone who takes an interest," but watchlisting someone's user page is useless. It doesn't tell you a damn thing about what they're editing. Further, you still don't understand the situation: this user "fully engages in conversation," then does whatever he wants anyway. That's not something that can be fixed with a gentle talking-to, because that's what people have been doing, to no effect. Also, you keep insulting the other people in this situation ("they're not experienced enough to throw water on the fire"). That is getting quite old, and you need to stop doing that. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 18:00, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
Beyond that, Penyulap, who are these "inexperienced" editors who've been trying to engage? Amadscientist, who's been on Wikipedia several years longer than you have? TheArtistAKA, Racingstripes or Becritical, who've been on Wikipedia two years longer than you have? Honestly, even if "I'm-more-experienced-than-thou" ever did work on Wikipedia, it's not a challenge that someone who registered a year ago can credibly pull off. Ravenswing 00:49, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
Guys, I don't quite agree with "you still don't understand the situation" or the above comment, this issue is not 'just another generic ANI issue passing by that penyulap comments on' I've been contributing to that talkpage for close to 5 months with dozens of edits, so Ravenswing, when you look past my registration time and look at the actual topic of discussion here which is the ows, you are saying therefore, that I've been part of that conversation for a third or maybe half of my time on wikipedia, and somehow don't know what I am talking about, doesn't sound the same when you look at it that way now does it. Penyulap 14:29, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
Yes, it does. You don't get it. That's obvious by your comments above. It's also starting to wear out my WP:AGF. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 16:28, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
Indeed, Penyulap, I did notice that you have fewer articlespace edits than talk page edits; for my part, I'd rather improve the encyclopedia than talk about it. But that being said, how could you possibly have construed my statement to mean that you don't know anything about that particular conversation? I was talking about *your* claims that other editors - who had been on Wikipedia far longer than you, and several of which have far more edits than you - are too "inexperienced" to handle the situation. Would you like to respond to what I actually did say, rather than what you wanted me to have said? Ravenswing 18:22, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
  • I would support a topic ban from Occupy Wall Street and related articles, broadly construed. I'm 99% positive he's a conservative (or at least anti-OWS) troll, but regardless of whether he is or isn't, his editing patterns are unacceptably disruptive. Kevin Gorman (talk) 19:16, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
This page written by him makes it obvious he's a troll. Kevin Gorman (talk) 19:30, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
If you were able to read that, you're a better man than I.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:35, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Support topic ban - Whether an anti-OWS troll or a pro-OWS editor is irrelevant, since in either case the user is not editing with a WP:NPOV. Also, I'd like to point out that several other support !votes are scattered through the previous discussion and should be taken into account. (Equazcion, who proposed it, Ohms law, DarthBotto, Gandydancer and Kevin Gorman just above this.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:52, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Do not support topic ban (YET) Just an FYI, the editor 완젬스 has stayed within Wikipedia policy in regards to stating a conflict of interest and their intention to refrain from editing the section in question. I believed it would have been best (and suggested at the time or close to it) that he not edit the article at all and this is part of the reason. Conflict of interest means not doing anything self serving. It is THE TOP Project OWS guideline and was written expressly because of the many editors who edit articles with an Occupy related title and who are closely related to the subject. I think what may be happening should not be taken for anything more than what it appears as 완젬스 has been editing at Wikipedia long enough to not be considered an operative to make OWS look bad....if this were true all COI claims go out the window. It becomes a witch hunt in my opinion for, what could well be one faction of a politcal protest, warring over how to define the national and worldwide definitions of OWS. I believe the person who made the suggestion to topic ban to be difficult to collaborate with and who seems less than willing to really discuss content disputes without making claims of behavior problems and accusations such as tag teaming.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:59, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
  • With an editor making posts like this one I have no idea how he can productively edit in this topic area. Kevin Gorman (talk) 01:54, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
There are more examples of that kind of blatant COI revelation in the article talkpage archives and various user talkpages going back to Fall 2011. I don't have time to dig through them now but if anyone else is so inclined, I suggest starting with User:완젬스's talkpage history from its beginning. I have not seen him become any more "responsive" or able to learn from others, as Penyulap claims above. (By the way, apparently the name is transliterated as Wanjemseu according to a regular editor at the OWS article). El duderino (abides) 19:23, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Haven't got a clue what that was about but have my thoughts.--Amadscientist (talk) 07:17, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Support topic ban for this user under this username. I recommended to him that he should leave for a while, get another username, and come back as an editor who is there to promote NPOV, not to promote OWS. This user has a lot to offer, if he can do it within the WP framework. He said he was going to leave, then come back with another username and do it differently. I think that he should be banned but allowed to come back with another username. If he can do that and act differently, then he will be good for the encyclopedia. Continuing to be promotional and not doing as he said, however, does merit a topic ban. So I would topic ban him but allow a return if he feels he can reform. If he is an anti-OWS troll, he is doing a mighty good job of it. He is totally convincing in his wiki-clueless oh-gosh promotionalism. BeCritical 03:11, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Support 3 month topic ban per BMK, Kevin Gorman and others above; no prejudice against a return and no prejudice against a quick reinstatement of the ban if the problems continue. SÆdontalk 07:06, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Support (short-term) topic ban: Either the editor genuinely believes in the OWS cause, in which case he's a hardcore POV warrior and doesn't need to be involved in these articles, or he's a agent provocateur trolling his merry way through the field, in which case he doesn't need to be involved in these articles. Let's let him spend a month or two convincing people that he can edit calmly, reasonably and in accordance with policies and guidelines, and revisit the issue then. Ravenswing 00:30, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Support - When the subject said "Everyone thinks Jews run wall street..." that was the give away to me. --Mollskman (talk) 03:51, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
I love ANI. Penyulap
  • Comment Does someone want to close this thing? I think we have a consensus. Equazcion (talk) 01:00, 25 Apr 2012 (UTC)

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

Planetary boundaries and Antarctica wikilink[edit]

Bare with me this is the first time I've done this. I'll have to leave within twenty minutes. ([[User talk:== Planetary boundaries and Antarctica wikilink ==

Bare with me this is the first time I've done this. I'll have to leave within twenty minutes. (talk) 23:17, 24 April 2012 (UTC) I've less than five minutes. I'll attempt to notify Special:Contributions/Arthur Rubin again. (talk) 23:36, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Is any admin action required here?--ukexpat (talk) 23:41, 24 April 2012 (UTC)|talk]]) 23:17, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

I've less than five minutes. I'll attempt to notify Special:Contributions/Arthur Rubin again. (talk) 23:36, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Is any admin action required here?--ukexpat (talk) 23:41, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
Actually, yes. A 6-month (minimum) block of (talk · contribs) for 3RR at Planetary boundaries, and authority to block, even by involved admins, the obvious clones when they reappear. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:19, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
A few of the clones can be found at User:Arthur Rubin/IP list. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:26, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
I'm a little disturbed by the edit warring to remove the link, even though it is the correct interpretation of WP:OVERLINK. Where are the attempts to start a discussion? Monty845 00:41, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
There was some discussion of the IP-hopping editor's overlinking on that talk page, dating back to last year. Antartica is just his newest selection for overlinking. And that's just this article. I suppose I'll have to bring it up on AN3, noting that this particular war is stopped by (temporary) edit protection, and he apparently hasn't edit-warred to insert the specific link he was blocked for in February since his unblock (although his clones did reinsert it during the block). As I and others have said before, the only solution is permanent semi-protection of all articles loosely connected to climate change, or immediate block on clone detection (for admins, even involved admins) and our considering him banned. He edit-warred using other IPs for at least the first two weeks of his block, and probably for the entire length of his block.
There had been attempts to discuss his overlinking as far back as 2009; recently, he's been mechanically claiming WP:AUDIENCE whenever one of his overlinks is reverted. There had been attempts to discuss his other absurd edits, including inserting global warming whenever climate change appears, his addition of links on talk pages saying something like "this looks helpful" (especially when it is totally unreliable and has nothing to do with the subject of the article, although it resembles the title of the article -- when questioned, he says it looks helpful on another article, then, when ignored, he acts on it in that article); adding REDLINKS of books to article on the author; wikilinking with quotes (and now, when he realizes that it's inappropriate, adding the link to the "See also" section, even though the link clearly has absolutely nothing to do with the concept expressed by the author); etc. I think something needs to be done here, although user bans are usually discussed at AN. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:07, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
See also Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive723#Michigan troll(s), for a recent discussion. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:10, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
Arthur...any ban evaders in Michigan you can think of? When you trace the IP's, do they all come up from Kalamazoo?--MONGO 02:31, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
The static 97. is from the Kalamazoo Library. Some of the recent 99.*s have been SBC internet connections in Wyoming and Hudsonville, in the Grand Rapids area. Still nearby, and it's possible that the home system is accessible remotely, and that, when you drop an IP, SBC assigns one "near-by". My home IP has geolocated the to California cities Brea, Fullerton, Anaheim, Costa Mesa (about 15 miles south), and Covina (about 15 miles north). I haven't moved. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:55, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Arthur, since this issue seems to come up fairly often on the noticeboards, you may want to consider dropping a link to a centralized page (either an archive or something in your userspace that explains the situation) in your edit summaries when you revert so that people unfamiliar with the situation who just see your reverts can get up to speed. 28bytes (talk) 03:04, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree...Arthur, creating a page in your userspace with links to this discussion and the one earlier and link to that upon revert...why not see if checkuser can ID the master?--MONGO 03:15, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
I have reason to believe that there is no logged in editor who is a master; if there is someone who they frequently send a WP:TEA to, that might be a candidate, as they show no signs of understanding what they are doing. As for a link, it is tempting, but sometimes I want to give a specific reason for the revert, as well. What do you suggest? An edit reason like:
If I use Twinkle/revert, it would then appear as
Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:31, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
I suppose it makes more sense than his using WP:DIVA, WP:Audience, WP:VIP, etc. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:33, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
Arthur, if you want to link to a report in your edit summaries, consider making an entry for this editor in WP:Long-term abuse. Then you could link to something like WP:Long-term abuse/Michigan IP. EdJohnston (talk) 04:55, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Dehr[edit]

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

Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found here. According to the procedures, a "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action.

To help determine any such consensus, involved editors may make brief statements in separate sections but should not edit the section for discussion among uninvolved editors. Editors are normally considered involved if they are in a current dispute with the sanctioning or sanctioned editor, or have taken part in disputes (if any) related to the contested enforcement action. Administrators having taken administrative actions are not normally considered involved for this reason alone (see WP:UNINVOLVED).

Appealing user 
Dehr (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)Dehr (talk) 02:40, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
Sanction being appealed 
indefinite block; Wikipedia:ARBAA2#Standard_discretionary_sanctions
Administrator imposing the sanction 
Timotheus_Canens (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
Notification of that administrator 

Statement by Dehr[edit]

  • The accusation of “blatant bad faith” seems to be way too emotional and indefinite block is way too harsh and suspiciously quick. I have rviewed AA2 discretionary sanctions log [10] and found that no one ever has been indefinitely banned so suddenly and hastily. T.Canens used a strange edit summary "You have been blocked from editing for violating an arbitration decision with your edits" [11]. My block is unprecedented across the AA area and WP in general.
  • There is no direct proof that I was acting in bad faith or that I was trying to game the system, as alleged by T.Canens. I never used the acquired 500+ edit count to my advantage and never implied that I was going to, i.e. I never showcased that fact, and I never used it on talk pages to influence discussion or influence conduct of other users. I regret that I mimicked User:Winterbliss (the other user blocked simultaneously). I was sure User:Winterbliss was a more knowledgeable and senior user, and I thought it was ok to acquire the 500 edit counts the way he did. I created an entirely new article called Ghaibalishen Massacre and hoped that the benefit of building a new article from scratch would offset any possible controversies arising from the method I was editing that article. Now I realize that it was a mistake but I could not know before the fact that it was. I regret that but it was an honest mistake as I naively copied the behavior of a more experienced user, Winterbliss.
  • The restriction imposed on the Nagorno-Karabakh article does not specify what method of acquiring new edits is good faith and what can be viewed as bad faith. This is bound to confuse less experienced editors like me, now and in the future. Generally, the article-wide sanctions for Nagorno-Karabakh are confusingly worded, see [12].
  • I was given NO opportunity to explain my actions in AE report hastily filed by User:Grandmaster [13]. The decision by T.Canens was too quick to be seen as balanced and reasonable. Several old users already expressed their surprise [14]. However, I want to stress, I don’t think T.Canens has a bias against me – he is, like many administrators, possibly too busy and angry because his hard work does not earn enough recognition. I am appealing to his good side and hope it will help.
  • I have a good record of editing. I was never before sanctioned for any misconduct (edit warring, sockpuppetry, or anything else). I always used talk pages to explain my position in editing, and I was always complying with WP regulations on civility, AGF, etc. The block was imposed for “Disruptive editing” but there is no evidence per WP:DISRUPT that I was disruptive. Please see WP:DISRUPT where it is also mentioned that “An editor may be accidentally disruptive because they don't understand how to correctly edit, or because they lack the social skills or competence necessary to work collaboratively.” This was sufficient in some previous cases to get users unblocked instantly but my conduct is more WP-compliant than the "accidental - (good faith) - disruptiveness" mentioned in that sentence.
  • Per reviewing Armenia-Azerbaijan “Log on Blocs and Bans” I could not but noticed that only Armenian-side users are blocked indefinitely while Azerbaijani users have never been indefinitely blocked although their they behave more poorly than their Armenian counterparts [15]. Reason?
  • I cannot access T.Canens directly. Please alert T.Canens if you see this request.

Statement by Timotheus Canens[edit]

To the extent that this appeal is directed to me, I decline it. To the extent that it is directed to the community, I recommend that the appeal be declined as well.

Previous AE cases have established that editors who had extensive participation at AE may be deemed constructively warned of the relevant discretionary sanctions. In this case, Dehr has participated extensively in the discussion that resulted in the editing restriction that he attempted to game.

Moreover, this kind of blatant disruptive gaming more than justifies an indefinite block even without the discretionary sanctions. It should have been blindingly obvious to any reasonable editor that evading the spirit of a restriction by making hundreds of edits, each adding a single word, is simply unacceptable. T. Canens (talk) 20:01, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Statement by (involved editor 1)[edit]

Statement by (involved editor 2)[edit]

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Dehr[edit]

  • Per Boing!, carrying on the fight in the unblock request isn't a very promising sign. I don't have a sysop bit to see what Blade is commenting on in the deleted page, but generally trust his judgment. Given that, plus an attempt to carry on an ethnic fight in the unblock request, I see no reason to overturn this.I also moved discussion from the 'results' section below to this section, because it seems like it's where it should be. feel free to rv if I'm wrong.Kevin Gorman (talk) 19:33, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
Would some of the above editors please explain to me in what way the content edits made by Dehr were "disruptive" to Wikipedia? A proper answer please. Are your servers so full that the extra space to record the history of Dehr's one or two word edits would break Wikipedia? Was there something wrong with actual content being added? There are no Wikipedia rules that individual edits can't be less than a couple of words, and there is no mention in the restriction that was used to block Dehl that the 500+ edit threshhold had to be reached in a specific way. So Dehl had every right to try and avoid the restriction using the course of action he chose. It seems to me that the restriction under which Dehr was blocked was created specifically to block Dehr, and this restriction was created because no existing method could be used to block Dehr. So, if there has been a "gaming of the system", it was done by administrators who have invented a one-off restriction that was created to block one particular editor. Meowy 20:08, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
The restriction has been in place since October of last year: Wikipedia:ARBAA2#Standard discretionary sanctions. So, no, it was not created "just for Dehr." — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 20:33, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
You are wrong - the restriction was only created on April 7th: "Nagorno-Karabakh is placed on 1RR per day restriction for all accounts under 500 edits". Here is the dicussion about it: [16]. That was the restriction that T. Canens, by assuming bad faith, claimed Dehl was trying to avoid. I say "by assuming bad faith" because Dehl never actually made any reverts to the Nagorno-Karabakh article after the 500+ edit restriction was introduced (even though he had reached, by making those large number of little edits to other articles, the 500+ edit requirement that would have allowed him to do so). If Dehl had made reverts, then the case for a block would have been arguable, but because he never tried to I don't see under what reason he was blocked at all (beyond the "using AA2, admins can do whatever they want" reason). An editor can't be blocked just because of a suspicion that he might do something that is a blockable offense - the blockable offense has to be actually committed! There is nothing wrong with the Ghaibalishen Massacre article that Dehl created, and no editing rules were broken during its creation. Meowy 20:48, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
Discretionary sanctions give admins broad ability to block for disruptive activity. So, yes, it's been in place since October. The additional "500 edit" restriction is just a more narrow instance of "what is disruption," and Dehl's specific actions are clearly WP:GAMEy. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 21:59, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
Yet the disruption for which he was indefed occurred outside the area covered by discretionary sanctions didn't it? Monty845 22:07, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
No, they were certainly under that. Per the ArbCom decision cited above:
"Topics related to Armenia-Azerbaijan and related ethnic conflicts, broadly interpreted, are placed under discretionary sanctions."
Unless you're arguing that Ghaibalishen Massacre had nothing to do with Armenia-Azerbaijan, it certainly falls under sanctions. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 22:13, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
No your right. I was mistaken. Monty845 22:34, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
No problem. It can be easy to miss with all the various things flying back and forth in the A-A disputes. That's why I normally don't comment. As below, it's not worth banging your head over. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 22:59, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
That sounds like the "using AA2, admins can do whatever they want" reason. Which brings me back to the question that I asked and that remains unanswered. Tell me in what way the edits made by Dehr were disruptive to Wikipedia? Meowy 22:38, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
That has been explained above. I'm sorry that's not good enough for you, but there it is. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 22:55, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
BTW, I note how comments that initially appeared under "discussion" were later moved to "result" - pretty strong evidence, I think, that there was never any intent to have a real discussion, only an intent to end at a predetermined result (the "admins are always right" result). BTW2, re Jayron32's comment in results, someone is getting ahead of themselves! When this article-specific 500+ edits edit restriction was being discussed I predicted that soon it would be 500+ of a specific length (that prediction is now true), and then more than 1000+ edits and then the edit restriction would be on more than one article, maybe 10 or 20 to start with, then 1000, then 10,000, then hundreds of thousands of articles. Jaron32 - you've gone straight to the millions of articles! Meowy 22:46, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
Aaaand, there's the "it's all a conspiracy" bullshit. ಠ_ಠ I think I'm done here. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 22:55, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
Conspiracy? You are the bullshitter. You say any old bull rather than address my points. Meowy 01:27, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Result of the appeal by Dehr[edit]

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
  • I don't find the warning required by WP:ARBAA2#Standard_discretionary_sanctions. Looks like the word-by-word edits have been deleted, so they can't be used to "game" anything now. Unless there is evidence of socking or other disruption, inclined to overturn. Awaiting response,. Gimmetoo (talk) 13:41, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
  • I have no idea how [17] could be considered anything other than blatantly disruptive gaming. No experienced editor could have done that in good faith, and I'd have indeffed even if the article wasn't under discretionary sanctions. We're allowed to block for clear disruption if it's incredibly obvious, even if we haven't gone through all the motions. I'm inclined to agree with the sanction given here, and I'd suggest Dehr wait at least few months before appealing again. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 13:50, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
    @Meowy; you're pushing your luck. I'm very close to blocking you for casting aspersions about other editors. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:33, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Blatantly disruptive gaming, accusations of bad faith in the unblock request, claims that only one side of the dispute gets blocked -- no unblock needed at this time. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:24, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Clear WP:NOTTHEM activity in the request tops off the issues raised by Blade and Sarek. No need to unblock until such a point as the editor has had sufficient time to reconsider their own behaviour in the past, and as they someday move forward (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:16, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Hmm, carrying on the "Armenians vs Azerbaijanis" fight here in the unblock request? I guess it's better than in real life with guns and sticks, but it's not the way to get unblocked. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:25, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
    @Meowy; The restriction described at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive113#Winterbliss is quoted as "Editors with less than 500 article edits, less than three months old or are anonymous editors are under a 1RR per day restriction with no exceptions". Dehr created the article Ghaibalishen Massacre and made hundreds of very small edits to it, building the article one word at a time, to get his edit count up to the 500. In my opinion that's clear bad faith and blatantly gaming the system. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:20, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
@Meowy; My view is that the one-word-at-a-time creation of Ghaibalishen Massacre on April 11 (which was after the restriction was imposed) was blatant gaming of the system to get out from under the restriction, even if Dehr did not go on to break 1RR on Nagorno-Karabakh. That alone, in my view, shows a bad faith approach to collegial editing. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:11, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Clearly a justified block per WP:GAME. It would be better if the restriction were expanded to indefinite 1RR for all editors, as all ethnic conflict areas should be. Regardless, however, this was a clear and blatant attempt to bypass the restrictions. --Jayron32 22:43, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Note: There has been some confusion about where comments should go, with comments being moved back and forth between the "Discussion among uninvolved editors" section and the "Result" section. Not only has this been seized upon by a conspiracy theorist as evidence of bad faith, but, more seriously, it has resulted in disjointing the discussion, with responses to comments being detached from those comments, and a reference to "the above editors" when the comments in question were below. I suggest that the best way to use these sections is for all discussion, whether by adminisrtaors or not, to go in the "discussion" section, and the "result" section to be used only for concluding the discussion.

To remove an arbitration enforcement block after a community discussion requires "a clear, substantial, and active consensus" to do so. We clearly do not have anything like that. In fact we have a substantial consensus against unblocking. Not only is there a substantial numerical preponderance of editors argung against unblocking, but the couple of dissenting opinions do not argue within the framework of Wikipedia polices. (Gimmetoo argues for a procedural unblock because of the lack of a warning about the sanction. However, that is missing the point. The purpose of such a warning is to make sure that nobody is blocked for breaching a restriction that they were not aware of, but Dehr was clearly fully aware of it. (Even without looking at the history of the case, that is clear from Dehr's statement above.) There are various ways of ensuring that someone has been warned of something, and while placing a message on their user page is a useful way of doing so, if the same effect has been achieved by other means then we don't need to go through a pointless formality. It is a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of Wikipedia to think that we interpret policies, guidelines, and editing restrictions as strict rules in the way a court of law does. If the person clearly knows about the restriction, then no further warning is needed. Looking at Meowy's dissenting opinion, if we ignore the irrelevancies such as the "all administrators are part of an evil conspiracy" nonsense, the essential content is that Dehr never actually used his 500 edit count to breach the sanction. However, that again is missing the point: it is perfectly clear that the purpose of the absurd way of editing was to accumulate the 500 edit total (Dehr even admits as much above), and the only conceivable purpose of that was the intention of breaching the sanction: what else is special about 500 edits? Blocks are supposed to be preventive, not punitive, and if an editor makes it so blatantly clear that he/she is making preparations for a breach of sanctions then that is abundant reason for a block. It is a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of Wikipedia's polices to think that we work by applying some sort of exact rules, such as "you can be blocked for breaching the exact letter of this sanction, but not for going against the spirit of it, or evidently making preparations to do so".) In view of the consensus against unblocking (note that the absence of a consensus for blocking would have been sufficient) I am closing this discussion, and will decline the unblock request. Thanks to all who have taken part. JamesBWatson (talk) 07:32, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

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


User:ElliotJoyce blocked for 48hrs for edit warring. Blackmane (talk) 13:59, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

ElliotJoyce (talk · contribs) is edit-warring on at least three articles that I am aware of. He was reported to WP:ANEW sixteen hours ago, but the report has not been acted upon. He has now made six reverts at African slave trade. Will somebody act on the ANEW report? Thank you. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 18:52, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

The 6 reverts do not go to the same content, and as far as reverting the edits of Ackees goes, this individual has consistently changed information on various articles in Wikipedia that either contradict the source or are POV. For example, please observe his edits on the African Slave Trade page, where he directly contradicted the sourced material several times in effort to insert his own content in the article. ElliotJoyce (talk) 18:56, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
"An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing other editors—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert." — WP:3RR -- Scjessey (talk) 19:05, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
I went ahead and blocked the user for 48 hours. The edit warring with multiple editors involved is quite clear from the edit history, and i cannot fail to notice wikihounding due to the sudden revent spree of Ackees edits on pages the user has never edited before. Also, comments such as this and this don't exactly inspire confidence either. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 19:17, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

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

Pakistan Premier League T20 and User:NHPak[edit]

User has been Indef'd and IP blocked for a week Blackmane (talk) 13:58, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

NHPak (talk · contribs), no doubt the same person as (talk · contribs), has been removing sourced information from the above article and replacing it with inadequately sourced material despite warnings. It's gone on long enough and somebody should probably block the account and IP. Nev1 (talk) 22:44, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, account blocked indefinitely and IP blocked for a week. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 23:05, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
Thank you. Nev1 (talk) 23:30, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

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

User:Hurz4711 conflict of interest[edit]

Closing this as this can all be worked out reasonably amongst editor. First time article creator needs pointers on how to proceed not being thrown in to the Coliseum. Hurz4711 is reminded to be careful about starting AFDs Blackmane (talk) 14:54, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Hurz4711 is a new user. Their first ten or so edits were to work on article for an ecommerce application called Lightning Fast Shop in their sandbox (see history). The created the article, which was then speedily deleted (Lightning Fast Shop). In response they then went on to propose deletion for seven other ecommerce applications listed at List of free and open source eCommerce software. I reverted these, citing a conflict of interest, but the user has since restored the proposals. My addition to the talk pages was incorrect in that the user has not added deletion notices to every rival application, leaving a few intact, but it does seem a clear case of a single-issue user adding a page of something they're connected with, and then attempting to interfere with rival pages as a result of their's being removed. Greenman (talk) 18:58, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree. Fasttimes68 (talk) 02:21, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
  • I forgot to mention that Greenman neglected to inform Hurz4711, but I took care of it. Then someone knocked at the door, distracting me for a while. I'm not saying their PROD list is without merit, but it is amazing how some editors can have an epiphany when it comes to deletion policy once an article they created is deleted, and suddenly tag anything similar. Since the circumstances are questionable and the content is as well, AFD might be a better option than PROD, to put more eyes on them. Dennis Brown © 20:53, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
    Thanks Dennis, although I had added a notice on his page - see this diff. The duplicate has since been removed by another editor. Greenman (talk) 23:47, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
    I do not disagree. I do disagree with stomping on a new user who has just had an epiphany, though. Regardless of their motivation, if their argument has merit, it should be considered. This is more likely to develop a productive editor for the future than closing down their early attempts without evaluation.WTucker (talk) 21:06, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
    Not completely sure anyone stomped here. I see 6 hours difference from his last sandbox entry and his article deletion, although I don't have access to know how long the article was around before being tagged. His action still appear to be very "reactionary" (if you prefer a more neutral term), even if there might be merit to some of his tagging. I was hoping Hurz4711 would speak up here, as I would like to hear their perspective. Even granting that the editor genuinely had an epiphany (a very generous assumption) his timing and potential COI issues justify bringing the issue here. We do agree on AFD as the better choice (unless there is reason to believe that the tag is clearly in error), which is good, as we don't want to throw the baby out with the bath water. I would prefer someone even less involved make that determination and send them off, assuming no one objects after a time, but I have no issue if you prefer to do that yourself. Dennis Brown © 21:31, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
    We are basically in agreement. I do think that reverting the PRODs without evaluation; bringing them to ANI; and then describing the user's actions as a "tantrum" is something akin to a stomp, though. At least I would feel it was were I the receiver. Let's let the admins at it since this is their board.WTucker (talk) 21:59, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
    It was strong, granted. And admins aren't really needed here as no special tools are required. No one is asking for sanctions, just a review. Once more time has passed to allow for dissent, and clear consensus still exists for the solution, it is better to just implement it. If an admin thinks this is a bad idea or against policy, they will speak up, otherwise, they have other things to do that do require the mop. I don't think the solution suggested is controversial, although since I suggested it, it is better to have someone else implement it. Dennis Brown © 22:29, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
    Here is the thing about WP:PROD, once an editor contests it, you have to bring it to WP:AFD. The PRODs were contested.--v/r - TP 03:38, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
    True, that is clearly established and I should have remembered it and pointed that out. Dennis Brown © 12:52, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
  • After Lightning Fast Shop has been deleted because of multiple reasons (lack of interest and advertising), I went through the other e-commerce systems (TBH, somewhat emotionally) on List of free and open source eCommerce software and found that more of the half are exactly the same (or worse) as my proposed page about Lightning Fast Shop. Even if I can't understand why this is of any harm for WP, let's take Arcavias for example. This is nothing than pointing to a commercial website. I, for instance, have just linked to the community page of LFS. So, why is LFS supposed to be deleted but Arcavias not? The others I proposed for deletion have similar issues, IMO Hurz4711 (talk) 06:40, 23 April 2012 (UTC)