Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive231

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

Please block 204.185.91.19[edit]

Resolved: blocked by Consumed Crustacean after AIV report. Will (aka Wimt) 08:18, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

IP vandalized Kirby Puckett and intermolecular forces after being warned that blocking would follow.--P.wormer 23:25, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Reported to WP:AIV. hbdragon88 23:28, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

IP addresses User:76.164.23.154, and User:124.120.217.215[edit]

Earlier today I asked you guys to do something about User:76.164.23.154, for he left a mean message on my user page, using the account name Evan PDX. My request was dismissed, saying that he mistook my user page for my my talk page. Well, I just checked my talk page, getting this little message from his IP address: "You are an enigma, how can anyone be so enthusiastic about Ronald Reagan? Far too many objective reports on him and his presidency don't at all paint him in a good light. What I remember about his administration was my parents, both of them, working their butts off to raise my younger brother and myself. Where was the tricle-down then?" It was not signed. It appears he also left these messages on Ronald Reagan's talk page, just saying irrelevant things to what was discussed previously.

The second user, User:124.120.217.215, stated on my talk page: "You are easily the most annoying git in the galaxy of annoying gits that is wikiwanderdom. I hope you enroll at Virginia Tech," obviously saying that I should die (and talking in reference about the tragic event that happened there). After checking the IP's user talk page, I see that he was banned, but I was not the first victim of his.

It would really help if someone here could do something about User:76.164.23.154 (User:Evan PDX), because I feel that because I admire Ronald Reagan (which I've stated on my user page), and because of the fact that I have done so much good for his article (and have been awarded the Barnstar and the California Barnstar), I am under fire from those who do not agree with my stance, and my thoughts, which is not right, and not fair. Please do something to help. Much grateful, Happyme22 01:42, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, 124.120.217.215 is the Cheri DiNovo vandal, who seems to get a kick out of being incredibly verbally abusive. More information can be found at this subpage I created about them. That vandal needs to be blocked on sight without any warnings, and then the talk page sprotected. If they are warned they merely use that opportunity to verbally abuse whoever warned them, and if you leave the talk page unprotected they will use it for the same ends. Alternatively, a different IP address of the same vandal/s will show up and add a lot of nasty stuff to the blocked IPs talk page. Natalie 02:00, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
I think it's equally important to point out that 76.164.23.154 (talk · contribs) is not a vandal, and that there's a big difference between this sort of edit and this sort of edit.--VectorPotentialTalk 11:42, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Persistent vandal 207.33.103.103[edit]

User:207.33.103.103 keeps vandalizing the Brian Setencich article by removing information about Setencich's felony conviction for tax evasion. A message has been left on his talk page days ago to no avail. It seems to be stepping up its vandalism. Calwatch 02:12, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I've given them a final warning. If they remove this again, report them and they will be blocked. TimVickers 03:48, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
After repeat performance, blocked for one month. What's the smiley for happy&sad? Shenme 14:46, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Cracker989 and slander[edit]

Resolved

Cracker989 (talk · contribs) recently inserted this slanderous accusation in the Virginia Tech massacre article before being reverted. I posted a note on his talk page which, in retrospect might not have been stern enough. His response was this and a reiteration of the slander on the talk page [1]. Help... Pascal.Tesson 15:24, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I have blocked Cracker989 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) for 48 hours given previous incidents and previous block-on-sight warning. --Shirahadasha 15:31, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Wayne Crookes lawsuit, FYI[edit]

Crookes is suing Wikipedia over this article. Infodmz 15:34, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Let it be. AQu01rius (User • Talk) 18:01, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

User:81.196.150.157 uncivil and inflammatory diatribes[edit]

Recently an IP user by the designation 81.196.150.157 has been adding some strange, unsourced, and provocative statements to articles (for example this one, a big irrelevant political polemic here, another rather provocative statement here (the worst part of that one is the last line), and on Talk:Revolutions of 1848 in Hungary he's completely lost his head, he's screaming at the top of his lungs (or in all caps, which is pretty much the same thing I guess) being quite uncivil, provocative, inflammatory, etc. etc. etc. What should be done here? K. Lásztocska 16:16, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

User behaviour[edit]

Resolved

The Edits of User:Sleep On It (contribs) seems a bit peculiar to me.

  • The account have exsited for five days.
  • Its only contributions is voting.

-Angelbo Talk / Contribs 16:39, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

No issues here. A new user still acclimatizing to deletion processes, but certainly doesn't appear to be single-purpose account created for one debate or another. I've given him a welcome note. Michaelas10 17:30, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

User talk:Dasevergnini[edit]

Resolved

This user has repeatadly vandalised the Hillary Rodham Clinton page with libelious and defamatory comments, and has sent me this abusive email, after I asked him to stop.

Dear Gareth,

I d'ont think I have to listen to you, this is a public domains and everything I added to the Hillary Clinton page are pure facts. If you wish to resolve this dispute, please contact Wikipedia and tell them I'm syberbullying you. If you have any more idiotic comments in which you abuse you power, please feel free to refer...

Sincerely,

Damian.

PS : Burn in Hell. Gareth E Kegg 17:04, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

User blocked indef. Naconkantari 17:07, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Requesting WP:POINT and WP:HARASS blocks[edit]

Several editors continue to pester me about two weeklong blocks I issued over violation of WP:MEAT. Neither editor posted an unblock request, several uninvolved editors have supported my decision, and both of those blocks have long since expired. I had to block one of these people from gmail chat after he ignored my repeated explanations and referrals to WP:ADOPT. I have treated this matter quite conservatively until now, but this amounts to WP:HARASS and the "clarification" they request looks like a query into what methods two people who volunteer at the same workplace could use to manipulate WP:AFD and other voting discussions without getting blocked. I hope that decisive action will prevent a need to repeat the same remedy that the community imposed here. DurovaCharge! 18:12, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

DurovaCharge! 18:12, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

It's probably also worth noting that one of the editors in question, User:Mnyakko has a link to an off-wiki attack page on his user page, and now states on his user talk page that he fears real-world stalking by his on-wiki opponents. --Akhilleus (talk) 18:23, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Said attack page being here: http://wiki..com/GW. Reading the edit summaries (and, of course, the context) here also is enlightening. --Stephan Schulz 18:54, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Well, that link just went login-only. --Akhilleus (talk) 19:02, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps one reason they keep inquiring is because Durova never answered them. Just my thoughts. ~ UBeR 19:04, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Durova did, however, suggest that they get an outside opinion at AN which, IMO, would be a lot more satisfying. I wonder why they never did? --Iamunknown 19:09, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
It can still be examined via the Google cache [2] links. --Kim D. Petersen 02:33, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Kim, thanks for the link. I was able to look over the "attack page" and I certainly did not see anything wrong with it. They are simply tracking and categorizing actions they felt were inappropriate based on Wikipedia policy. I am still learning about this stuff but it seems to me this is exactly the kinds of "diffs" administrators look for when they want to evaluate a claim that people are not complying with policy. I am not certain that ALL of the entries will be found to be inappropriate but I am certain some of them are. So, how is this a problem? RonCram 14:01, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
User:uBeR was doing a similar thing in his userspace. The pages were deleted, you can see the discussion at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:UBeR/WMC. The consensus there was that it's fine to collect diffs in preparation for an RfC or arbitration (or other attempt at dispute resolution), but a page collecting a user's "misdeeds" with no specific end in mind is an attack page. That's what Race to the Right is doing, with pages on 8 separate users. If this stuff were on wikipedia, it would be speedy deleted just like uBeR's pages were. --Akhilleus (talk) 15:07, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Akhilleus, what makes you think they had no specific end in mind? It looked to me like they had several possible ends in mind. Was it just the fact it was extensive that it was a problem? If so, what does that mean? Is it okay to build a case but not okay to build a good case? If this is spelled out somewhere, please let me know. I don't understand the thinking here. RonCram 01:24, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
I also am unclear on why they were blocked. In the quote below, the reason given was WP:POINT. I had never seen WP:POINT applied to a discussion board like COIN before. I thought that was reserved for articles. Above, Durova says she blocked them for WP:MEAT. I am very unclear on the concept of Meat Puppets. It appears to apply only if one of the people is not a real person, which is certainly not the case here. Tony and Zeeboid found key evidence that Durova cited when she ruled that Connelly should not ignore COI. I truly believe Durova is doing her best to remain fair, but I also think Durova is under a tremendous amount of pressure from the AGW crowd to punish those who oppose William Connelly's edits. Since I posted the complaint about Connelly on COIN, it makes it difficult for me to speak out in behalf of Tony and Zeeboid. But I do not wish to look like a coward. Isn't there some way we can bring this to a resolution without further blocks that will only open Wikipedia up to additional criticism about suppressing valid viewpoints? RonCram 00:55, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
RonCram, you should probably take a closer look at WP:SOCK#Meatpuppets, which begins "A related issue occurs when multiple individuals create brand new accounts specifically to participate in, or influence, a particular vote or area of discussion." --Akhilleus (talk) 01:23, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Ahh, so Could someone please (like the person who blocked us) point out how they believe how multiple individuals (we) created brand new accounts specifically to particibate in, or influence, the particular vote that Durova banned us for violating WP:SOCK for? Also, I can provide the gmail chat if you want to see it.--Zeeboid 01:37, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Well, let's see. You both work on the radio show Race to the Right, and both voted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Race to the Right. In fact, Zeeboid, your first edits were to a related discussion, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ThePete (a page about you, apparently), and on the same day you edited Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Race to the Right--a pretty good indication that you began editing "to influence a particular vote or area of discussion," to wit, to promote (or document, if you prefer) your radio show. After that time, you and Mnyakko supported each other in controversial discussions, namely on Talk:Global warming controversy and related discussions.
Furthermore, you and Mnyakko are maintaining an attack page together on Race to the Right's wiki--the link is above. Obviously, that site didn't play a role in your previous block, but in my view it ought to play one in any future block you may receive. --Akhilleus (talk) 01:50, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Akhileus, I was looking at this. [3] But the citation you provide, while different, still does not apply. They did not create brand new accounts to vote on the issue of Connelly's COI AfD. I do not know anything about the attack page you mention, so I cannot comment on that. I am only saying that I did not understand exactly why they were blocked and I still don't. RonCram 01:59, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Define (a) what specifically qualifies a site as an "attack site" so we all can work from the same definition instead of demogoguery, and (b) what policy gives jurisdiction over Gmail chats, private websites, etc? I noticed she did not provide these "harassing" chats. Zeeboid, you should post them. I also noticed that the questions I asked to better understand the foundation of this retalitory request are still unanswered. Frankly, considering how vague everything is in Durova's complaint the questions will not be directly answered for the very reason that this whole process was started: because someone (durova) really did not like being asked to clarify her blocks. Arbitrary decisions are indefensible, thus questioning them results in retaliation. Truth is, she was begging for 'someone' to take action against me as more solid proof came into the COI discussion against the subject...knowing that there was more to come it was becoming too difficult to achieve the protection of fellow admin, so specious blocks were performed. Of course, the protected admin and clique applaud, but ask an objective editor to explain precisely what was infraction was made and I doubt one could. As a result, the questions build up and all the while she knows there were no solid answers to give. So, how do you stop the questions? First by inviting Zeeboid to open a request in AN...no doubt in my mind his doing so would be the justification she would use for claiming POINT violation ('using AN to prove a point, yadda, yadda). He didn't take her bait so she did it instead and for what reason? "open a thread at WP:AN where you can see whether administrative consensus agrees that I did a reasonable thing and I can see whether administrative consensus agrees that you deserve a new block for WP:POINT. That would satisfy both of our concerns in an impartial forum." First, this is not an impartial forum. Second, since we have not been given any clear and specific indication from Durova how she concluded a violation of POINT, her comment AND her actually opening a request in AN was clearly an action specifically purposed to "prove a point" rather than "stating" it. I'm not sure, but I think that might be important when considering a block for a guideline where a section is titled, "State your point; don't prove it experimentally", but, I'm not an admin so I'm obviously missing some nuance to explain why Durova is not close to violating POINT while providing the proof she claimed to require in a COIN is a violation of POINT. In fact, I would almost bet my mortgage that some juicy rationalization will fabricate some reason that hypocritical double-standard is a justifiable 'exception'. Makes objective wonder if other's assertions have more merit than initially thought. And, of course, when one side is making a valid point, a valid case, a valid justification...they are accused of 'wikilawyering'...which means, "You're right, I cannot refute what you have said, but I still have to find some way to denigrate you so people will not pay attention to you." -- Tony G 03:55, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
The "Harassing" conversation. Everything is included here except the origional e-mail I sent Durova asking for her help in clairifying what she had done. Durova, could you please provide this to make this conversation complete? Also, I too would like to know what you are defining "Attack Page."
Durova to me - April 12

There's no need to discuss an infraction of WP:MEAT as obvious as that one, yet I did discuss it at the COIN thread. And yes, if you showed me evidence of other users who voted within 5 minutes of each other and who also both admitted to doing volunteer work together and who also both actively pursued the same side in edit disputes I would also block them. Durova

ThePete to Durova - April 12

So as this informaiotn is well known of tony and I, would a 6mn gap between votes be enough to keep us from being banned in the future?

ThePete to Durova - April 12

Also, COuld you please forward me where this was discussed in the MEAT thread? Thanks for your help.

Durova to me - April 12

I don't advise you to try that.

ThePete to Durova - April 12

Its not about trying, or your advisement. its about knowing the rules. If two people who know eachother get banned for voting within 5 mn of each other, then what to the rules state is the acceptable amount of time two users who know eachother can vote? Clairify for me please. Also, Could you please direct me to where this bann was discussed in the MEAT thread? Thanks for your help. Pete

Durova to me - April 13

The amount of follow-up that you have requested regarding this block is unreasonable. Direct your questions about rules to the WP:ADOPT mentorship program.

April 13th
9:49 AM me: Hey, Could we talk here to clear up the questions I had?
10:01 AM Durova: I doubt there's anything left to be said that a mentor from WP:ADOPT couldn't do equally well.
10:01 AM me: I am looking to find out form you what the accaptable amout of time for two people who know eachother is to vote on the same topic
10:02 AM Because I can not find a polocy that voting within 5mn of each other violates
10:03 AM Durova: You can find that out from any mentor.
10:04 AM me: I am looking to find out from you, the person who banned us, as such, you should have that info available. I just want to understand it better
10:04 AMDurova: And I have given you that information in sufficient detail ad nauseam.
10:04 AMme: no, you said it would "take too long to explain"
10:05 AM Durova: My responsibility as a site administrator is to apply policy, not to explain its principles in minute detail. For that we have other volunteers.
10:07 AM me: I just don't want to break policy in the future, and not to break policy in the future, I need to know spicifically what I violated. What specifically warranted the block? you listed the polocy, but didn't go into it any more then we admited to know eachother. I just want to understand better here, as from what I understand from the info listed, we were banned from voting within 5mn of eachother.
--No Reply by Durova--Zeeboid 12:09, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
  • There really is not much point addressing any of this. I have no faith in this process of being fair and objective, the aforementioned block being the latest example. Seeing that making quick and incomplete links/quotes is the preferred method of response or support, there is no legitimacy in the belief that this process seeks the facts. Providing complete context is called wikilawyering and ignored (in the case of the referenced block by Durova, that was one of the reasons listed for the block). So, this will be a partial list of relevant items...and they will be shortened as well.

For the record: the text that Durova refers to as "explanation" for the blocks:

This subthread, however, is...about the actions of two of his accusers. Zeeboid's defense is a false analogy: Connolley and Mann do not participate in the same Wikipedia WP:AFD discussions, but Tony and Zeeboid both voted within 5 minutes of each other at the same AFD and both admit to being close associates. Whether that work is volunteer or paid is irrelevant to the meatpuppetry and vote stacking clauses of WP:SOCK. Also, unlike Connolley and Mann, Zeeboid and Tony have aggressively pursued an editor with baseless claims of malfeasance and have extended this...discussion to absurd lengths through logical fallacies and wikilawyering. That's WP:POINT and you're both blocked for a week.

So, rather than give a defense that is not going to be considered anyway, I will pose these questions (and hope these are not ignored by Durova).

  1. Obviously there is not a distinction between private and public correspondence (based on Durova posting a private e-mail on a public page), in light of such strong allegations that she makes which include off-wiki chat, can you provide the full text of "harassing" chats?
  2. Where is the exact wording that you interpreted to mean that 5-minutes between votes is SOCK? Would that include reverts done by different people on a regular basis within minutes of each other?
  3. Is one week standard first block timeframe when the justification is so broad that understanding the specific violations are difficult to determine?
  4. When was the opportunity to "defend ourselves" offered? Was it after I mentioned I would be offline for about 2 days (which was posted at 18:40, 4 April 2007 (UTC))? The only one I see was posted at 04:57, 5 April 2007 (UTC) with the block occurring at 15:35, 5 April 2007 (UTC) (which, btw, would be overnight for me had I even had access to the internet at the time).
  5. The five links provided with bullet points are to demonstrate what? One is to the archive containing the COI where the blocks were announced. The other 4 are talk pages, one started by Zeeboid, one by BlueTie, one by Childhood's End and the other started by UbER. What is the harassment? Who are the harassers again? If that many different people do not understand a rationale, shouldn't that be an indication of how poorly it was explained?
  6. Does GMail chat count in a Wikipedia discussion? If the supposed harassment exists outside of Wiki then that is a police matter...or does Wikipedia policy include non-wiki e-mail? If you are not starting some off-wiki complaint for harassment then it must not be harassment to begin with.
  7. Based on what you have presented here how is my or Zeeboid asking an admin that block us to explain why "behavior that appears to a reasonable and objective observer to have the purpose of causing negative emotions in a targeted person"?
  8. If the 4 links Durova provided above are examples (and as of the writing of this the ONLY examples) of harassment, why are only Zeeboid and I the only ones with notification of this request?
  9. It seems that this is request from a defensive posture with having a number of people (not just the two who were blocked) asking for clarification on the blocks. Why we are being targeted? The reasons, patterns and connections are pretty clear...but I would not want to be accused of violating AGF without providing proof and then blocked for wikilawyering for providing proof. However, a partial summary was sent to Durova at the very outset of the COI where this all originated to help keep the page from being cluttered with background information. That message was ignored leaving no choice but to try and explain online everything that was relevant.
  10. Final item...this one is rhetorical. The COI was against an admin that was, at the very root, editing article text about a colleague and then requesting the article to be deleted outright. The result of the COI in a nutshell was (1) The initial COI was baseless as the connections were not strong enough (co-authoring a blog, presentations, research papers, etc), (2) the connections between two people providing the links to the blog, presentations, etc (and providing responses to every "evidence presented does not meet newly stated nuance" by Durova) were enough to block them simply for voting within 5 minutes of each other, and (3) the same two people, upon seeking clarification from "the horse's mouth" being targets of a selective request for action. -- Tony G 20:43, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
I think this gives some relevant perspective on Tony's contributions. --Stephan Schulz 07:51, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
How so? What relevance and how does that matter at all? Is there a policy that says what portion of a person's edits must be where? Tony G 12:57, 17 April 2007 (UTC) (Corrected signature since I did not notice that I had timed out before saving page previously...an offense I have no doubt will be somehow warped as a blockable and disruptive offense, like asking for understanding why someone blocked me. Interesting reaction, obviously designed to imply denigrating claims without being held accountable for such personal attacks). -- Tony G 18:54, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Was that Mnyakko or Zeeboid just now? --Akhilleus (talk) 14:13, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Unless they share IPs, Tony. --Stephan Schulz 14:19, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Zeeboid's behavior towards User:Durova is one instance in a larger context of his ongoing disruption, personal attacks and the like in articles related to global warming. He hae a long history of abusive or dubious comments in talk pages and edit summaries (some examples of the latter here [4] [5] [6]). He has persistently attacked User:William M. Connolley regarding Connolley's affiliation with the Green Party and environmental organizations. [7] [8] Such attacks are in blatant violation of the injunction at WP:NPA against "using someone's affiliations as a means of dismissing or discrediting their views." He also filed a clearly vexatious WP:3RR complaint against Connolley [9] This is only a small sample of an extensive history of harrassment, abuse, and attacks. The patience that Durova, Connolley, and others have shown in the face of Zeeboid's disruption is commendable in a personal sense. But allowing such behavior to go unchecked is damaging to the project. Raymond Arritt 15:03, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Quick clarification...THIS complaint is about harassment by "several editors" (still, Durova has not clarified any specifics and all of the following commentary and attacks are presuming who she specifically means by "several editors"). This has nothing to do with anything before the alleged harassment. And, as you (Raymond) and others engaged in personal attacks here have previously demonstrated, prior history is not relevant...and is in fact nothing more than Wikilawyering. Or did the standards of what is acceptable change? -- Tony G 15:11, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
I can only learn by using the examples of you, the more seasoned wiki editors. When I lay out examples of what I feel are violations of rules, and relevant history you call it "wikilawyering" and say i'm attacking people and history does not matter, we should AGF. so by using your previous examples you are attacking me personally and you should stop wikilawyering. i mean, what is good for the goose is good for the gander, no?--Zeeboid 15:26, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Uh oh...those 2 edits were within 15 minutes of each other. Does THAT violate whatever policy we were blocked for? I do not know because there was no explanation to show the timeframe was not created by Durova. I saw nothing in her text or the text she claimed her actions were based on that mentioned or implied anything about a specific timeframe. How can anyone know? Yet is it somehow "harassing" to request such clarification of the person who fabricated the vague criteria. -- Tony G 18:59, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
You're focusing too much on the timeframe, and too little on the fact that you and Zeeboid work together. Try reading WP:SOCK#Meatpuppets again. --Akhilleus (talk) 19:05, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Akhilleus, after reading the guideline it appears to me that the fact they work together and are friends is only pertinent if they are truly single-purpose accounts. Do you think I am reading it wrong? RonCram 01:13, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Well, Mnyakko and Zeeboid look a lot like single-purpose accounts to me, but that isn't the main issue here. You might want to read the CN discussion that Durova linked to in the post that started this thread. If two users are coworkers/friends/family members and vote the same way in AfDs or advocate the same position in controversial discussions (like, say, making frivolous and absurd arguments that an editor should be restricted from editing because of an alleged conflict of interest), they're going to be seen as meatpuppets. When two users jointly contribute to a website whose stated purpose is to collect "data about admins abusing their power, etc." it's clear that they're communicating off-wiki about editing Wikipedia; such users are going to be seen as meatpuppets.
In my opinion, the meatpuppetry alone merits another block for both users; add the on-wiki harassment and WP:POINTyness, plus the attack site, and I have a hard time seeing why we allow the users to stay around. To be quite frank, I'd block them myself, except that I've been in several discussions with these users, and might therefore seem too involved. So, would someone else like to step in here? --Akhilleus (talk) 05:09, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

(unindent) I agree that the coordinated wikilawyering and harrassment by User:Mnyakko (a/k/a Tony G.) and User:Zeeboid must be stopped. These individuals are engaging in a campaign to create endless debate, to wear down, frustrate, disrupt and prevent productive users from building a neutral encyclopedia, as evidenced by the length and tone of this thread, and the evidence presented by Durova. I think further blocks under WP:POINT/WP:HARASS are necessary to protect the project, and if the disruption resumes after that, this matter should be taken to WP:CN. Jehochman (talk/contrib) 09:50, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Wait a second. Are you saying that two people who know each other cannot vote the same way on the same issue? Doesn't that seem as ridiculous to you as it does to me? There are plenty of editors and admins here who email each other. Wikipedia provides them the opportunity to "Email this user" on the Talk page. This looks like you are trying to punish them for their viewpoint ("vote the same way in AfDs or advocate the same position in controversial discussions") and not because any guideline has been broken. Intolerance of minority viewpoints is not encyclopedic. This attempt to punish Tony and Zeeboid appears to me to be another example of why Larry Sanger criticized Wikipedia as a "an often dysfunctional community." [10] Admins should be more sensitive to appearances and more tolerant of other viewpoints. When you admit you are punishing someone for their viewpoint, that is really going too far. RonCram 14:07, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
RonCram, I see that you are very active in the Anti Global Warming controversy. That's fine. I have no position in that controversy whatsover. This thread isn't about WP:SOCK. This thread is about user(s) who abuse process to create endless debates and disrupt the encyclopedia (WP:POINT) through wikilawyering. It's about harassment of community member(s) (WP:HARASS). Everyone has had a chance to comment, and I think the comments fairly represent the opinions of all sides.
Can one or more sysops please make a decision on Durova's request? Jehochman (talk/contrib) 16:35, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Is all of this ink really about a block that expired a week ago? The best approach at this point is for User:Zeeboid and User:Mnyakko to move on and demonstrate, via contributions, that they have something constructive to add to the project. Wikipedia's policies, while intended to be fair, are primarily concerned with facilitating the construction of an online encyclopedia, not with creating a fully functional judicial system. Blocks are subject to review by the community, but I don't see any indication that anyone feels they were unjust, other than those directly concerned. Demanding proof "beyond a reasonable doubt" for an already-expired block which the community has endorsed is wikilawyering. Going on endlessly about an expired block and harassing the blocking admin are disruptive. MastCell Talk 18:39, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, this ink is really about two blocks that expired a week ago. And no, I was not pressured into it by advocates for William Connolley. I consider it WP:POINT that it remains an issue and request that an uninvolved administrator implement appropriate blocks because of the harassment against me. If the aggressors continue to wikilawyer the issue, any editor here may propose a community sanction modeled after the one I linked to at the opening post of this thread. That should settle the question definitively. DurovaCharge! 19:07, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I have not taken the time to read all the ink above, but let me just give some further evidence regarding Zeeboid. After the block following a discussion in which Durova was quite patient (in my opinion), Zeeboid responded by insulting Durova [11]. Soon after the block expired, Zeeboid returned to one of the global warming related articles and made a series of 3 reverts in a space of 26 minutes, carefully going as far as he could without going over the limit [12][13][14]. These reverts inserted POV material, removing material that (1) was fully supported by evidence referenced on the page, via a link to this page full of evidence and (in the 3rd revert) an explicit citation; and (2) was finally stable after a protracted debate on the talk page. He also commented on the talk page on a different topic, in what I would consider effectively a troll [15]. I say "effectively" because trolling has to do with intentions, which are impossible to know; but certainly, his suggestion is laugable to nearly any scientist and exhibits either a lack of knowledge or a lack of sincerity about the topic. Specifically, he suggested that "having at least one publication in the natural sciences" is too strong of a requirement (!) for determining who is a scientist for a GW-related article.
Thanks for your time. --Nethgirb 07:31, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Discussion of allegations[edit]

My arguement for this change was made in the associated talk pages.[16][17].--Zeeboid 13:18, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Your argument [18] came after your last revert [19]. Given the contentious wording of that passage on which the editors finally seemed to agree, you should have discussed before making changes. (Also, your argument was wrong and ignored the relevant principles.) You effectively placed the importance of your opinion above statements of reliable sources and above the consensus of other editors, and did so in an aggressive, disruptive way. --Nethgirb 20:57, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
The community's reluctance to act in cases such as this continues to amaze me. Are we here to build an encyclopedia? Or are we a sociological experiment in trying to reform those who engage in destructive behavior, by giving them unlimited chances to prove themselves no matter how much damage they do in the interim? If the former, then people who continually abuse process, abuse respected administrators, abuse other editors, and create general havoc need to be politely but firmly directed to apply their talents elsewhere. Raymond Arritt 10:17, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Does it? What about the questions that we have asked that go unanswered? I would still like the one who banned us (Durova) to answer the simple questsions we have asked. I have included our chat history above, and it is quite obvious there was no harassment involved. the questions asked of the person who banned us are not beond the scope of acceptable, and i'm not the only one who think so[20]. this whole thing has come up because an admin is unwilling to explain her actions. What message does that send to wiki editors? It would appear more like this whole issue (the origional ban and the talk of this one) is to scielence debate when it comes to the improvement of articles.--Zeeboid 13:18, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Question: Nethgirb said, "carefully going as far as he could without going over the [3RR] limit"...is THAT a problem? If so then there are a number of people on those same pages (admins included) that do that on a near daily basis on many articles per day. Follow-up: If this is a problem, why are you not mentioning this (non-germane) WP:3RR issue when dealing with someone you obviously disagree with...IOW, why is it only an issue worth you mentioning on a selective basis?
Question: Nethgirb said, "removing material that (1) was fully supported by evidence referenced on the page"...is THAT a problem? If so then there are a number of people on those same pages (admins included) that do that on a daily basis on many articles per day. This is sounding like a textbook example of WP:OWN on behalf of those including Nethgirb. Follow-up: If this is a problem, why are you not mentioning this (non-germane) WP:AR dispute when dealing with someone you obviously disagree with...IOW, why is it only an issue worth you mentioning on a selective basis?
There are more comments from Nethgirb's last comment like this, but I know the questions posed will be ignored, and being that Durova is an admin and brought forward the complaint (without naming anyone) and Nethgirb's comments are on her side, he only needs to make claims of wrong-doing (no matter how factless they are, how misleading the statements are, or how incomplete of a picture the diffs show) and it will be taken as end-all-be-all fact. It is also clear from past history in matters like these that no matter how solid the documentation is in the other direction it is dismissed...either as not being sufficient enough, or if a lot is presented it is dismissed as wikilawyering. The process is a sham.
It is not even worth the time to actually present the documentation that the preceding blocks by Durova were beyond a normal length of time of other blocks by Durova (and other admins). Nothing will be done about THAT either. Longer than normal blocks by an admin on suspiciously underexplained grounds followed by a more vague and less legitimate allegation of harassment simply because "several" people asked for understanding (so a similar Salem-like process could not happen to them in the future). That is just the surface of inappropriate admin actions...and nothing will be done. It was clear to many how this whole thing would end at the beginning which had a very suspicious timeline (using the block rationale's logic and precedent) by the people involved here. -- Tony G 13:41, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

The blocks in question expired a week ago. You've solicited community input here, and no one seems to feel that the blocks were particularly unjust. It's time to let it go, move on, and contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. The community tends to give people who contribute constructively a bit of leeway, whereas editors who seem more interested in arguing a case than contributing tax everyone's patience. Continuing to argue at such length about an expired block which no one else seems to feel was unjust is disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. The best advice is to let it go and get back to editing, because continuing in this vein is likely to result in another block. MastCell Talk 16:02, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I believe the behavior already deserves additional blocks and leave the accounts and the durations to the discretion of other administrators. In particular I find it troublesome that one of these parties responded to the identification of eight connected off-Wiki attack pages not by deleting them but by password protecting them. This has the very strong appearance of a POV-pushing clique intent on gaming Wikipedia's system in pursuit of their political goals who dogs any administrator diligent enough to set limits on their activity. I've bent over backwards to be scrupulous, just, and patient in this matter and have gotten nothing but grief from this group of people. DurovaCharge! 17:17, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Re: "let it go"...Obviously the words being written are a waste of time, so if you REALLY want to be objective (as so many claim to want but few actually mean it) and understand why I even am discussing the blocks then answer these questions. In this entire thread, who mentioned the blocks first? According to the the 2 admins initiating this complaint (Durova with vagueries & Akhilleus minutes later naming me) the "harassment" is regarding what? What information has been (and still is) being sought by "several editors" from the actual person who performed the antecedent action? Can you find A-N-Y-W-H-E-R-E that Durova has made an effort to help understand the reasoning used or to answer a question? (All I have seen is deflection to other people or referal to the very item that is not understood). Tony G 19:52, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Tony, the block's been explained to you, to Zeeboid, and to other editors who have asked, several times, starting in the original COI/N thread that kicked this off. The problem is that you are unwilling to accept the explanation. And as several people have noted in this very thread, your continuing requests for an explanation amount to disruption and harassment. Speaking of harassment, I notice you haven't said very much about the pages on Race to the Right's wiki where you're tracking the activities of several Wikipedia users. As I'm sure you're aware, some of the users whom you're tracking consider those pages a form of stalking and harassment. Do you think they're wrong? --Akhilleus (talk) 22:37, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Discussions about anything are not possible unless everyone understands the terms, which is why I ask again: Define "harassment". Somehow I'm listed on this retaliatory ANI by Durova for harassment of Durova...noone is capable of explaining how. Define "harassment". -- Tony G 03:34, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
I don't see this going anywhere productive. At this point, I'd encourage archiving this thread and a swift block for Tony G and/or User:Zeeboid at the next hint of disruption, wikilawyering, perseverating on these expired blocks, harassment, etc. MastCell Talk 22:59, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
And by allowing them to avoid any explantion that leaves us basically forced to agree with all actions/edits of all admins and their clique, because the mere disagreement will be (intentionally) mislabeled as 'harassment' and typing one sentence in defense will be claimed to be 'wikilawyering'. There is no standard whatsoever to know what was done wrong. Effectively one of us is forever disenfranchised because if there is any vote that we both participate in we will be "swift blocked" using Durova's 5th link on this ANI as justification. And what harassment did I participate in? MastCell, save this diff because I guarantee the "next hint" will be even more vague than Durova's input in these matters. And think about it...can you explain to a new person what specifically was violated? (If you can then you would be the first.) -- Tony G 03:34, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Akhilleus, Could you show us all where the blocks have been explained? I don't see any attempt to do so here, though I do see people keep bring up that it was explained. Make this easy for us. Can you find anywhere that Durova has made an effort to help understand the reasoning used or to answer a question? Though I do see it being asked several times with no answer, I also see the questions deflected by your claim to have found an "attack Page." Also, on that note, I ask AGAIN (I think this is the 4th or 5th time now) that you explain what your definition of "Attack Page" and HARASSING are, Because I don't see anyone explaining or answering that either. The definition of Harassment is:
Harassment is defined as a pattern of disruptive behavior that appears to a reasonable and objective observer to have the purpose of causing negative emotions in a targeted person or persons, usually (but not always) for the purpose of intimidating the primary target.
The Deffinition of Attack Page is:
A Wikipedia article, page or image created for the sole purpose of disparaging its subject is an attack page.
Could anyone explain to any of us how that chat text or our requests qualifying as "having the purpose of causing negative emotions in a targeted person or persons"? Could anyone explain how the of-site listing Non-Wiki (of which the best evidence you have is a Google cache) listing of diff's qualifies as "A Wikipedia article, page, or image created for the sole purpose of disparaging its subject"? Could anyone explain anything?
MastCell, You don't see this going anywhere productive because no one is answering any questions or explaining themselves. The best leg you have to stand on is a claim of "an attack page" which doesn't even qualify as an attack page, which it doesn't even fit into, and others don't agree with. You are all getting so upset over this Giant cheese wheel you have created, fail to back it up with anything worthwhile or substantial, choose to ignore all attempts to have us learn from supposed mistakes, and then have the gall to get angry when you go and again choose to fail to back your argument up with anything worthwhile, or substantial, or ignore all attempts to have us learn from what you claim to be huge errors and it goes round and round! Durova, Stephan Schulz, Akhilleus, MastCell, come on, and at least explain some of these points, cite lines of text in the policys you are claiming to affect us, and you might have a better shot at getting rid of your believed "opposition" that you have been trying so hard to do. Or, you could explain to us, help us, work with us, and push to make Wikipedia better, despite someone thinking differently then you. Your actions are not becoming of the spirit of Wikipedia.--Zeeboid 02:45, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
I agree with MastCell. Time to call a halt and block any of these editors who persist in disruption. JQ 05:06, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
"[Attack page] (of which the best evidence you have is a Google cache)" - I think this illustrates the point. You are wrong on multiple counts here. First, a Google cache is perfectly valid evidence. Secondly, there is testimony by me, and certainly by Raymond, William, Netgirb, and others who have seen the page. Thirdly, there are multiple references to it in e.g. the history of Tony's talk page. Fourthly, it does not matter. This is not a criminal court of law. We all know about this attack page. Even you have, so far, not denied its existence. So why this remark, except maybe as a smoke screen? --Stephan Schulz 12:49, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Schulz, your still not getting it. Read Wikipedia:Attack_page. Based on that, it is not an attack page. Also, None of you have told us what an "Attack Page" is. I have by refrencing wiki. Perhaps your arguement for it being an "Attack Page" would be better if you could tell us all how it qualifies as an "Attack page," but I don't see any attempts to do so. You are attempting to explain why it is a valid refrence, which I can concede, however how does it fit into Wikipedia:Attack_page? The closest you may bring up doesn't even fit[21] as it is also not an [Wiki Personal Attack] because an archive wiki diffs doesn't seam to count as a Personal Attack, unless you can explain to us how a collection of your own Diffs on a non-wiki page fits within the policy. There is no reason to "deny its existance" because its existance is moot, as you can not explain how it is a "Personal Attack" or how it even qualifies for a WP:POINT or WP:HARASS ban.--Zeeboid 13:12, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
The page you're looking for is Wikipedia:Attack sites. That guideline isn't stable right now, but most editors would agree with the first sentence: "Attack sites are sites outside Wikipedia that are used to facilitate, promote, or encourage the harassment of individual Wikipedia editors." Race to the Right's GW pages appear to be designed for exactly that. Or are you going to tell me that you have individual pages for William M. Connolley, Stephan Schultz, Raymond Arritt, Kim Petersen, Nethgerb, Raul654, BozMo, and SteveWolfer so you can figure out which barnstar to give them? As I've already said, uBeR had pages like this in his userspace, and they were speedily deleted as attack pages (Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:UBeR/WMC). Since you made the pages login-only, most of the editors in this discussion can't see anything but the google cache. However, I've registered for the site, so I'll quote some of the text on the main GW page, which says:
Due some very large revelations which should not be made widely public these pages are being moved to a registration required site.
The scope of this has widened tremendously and the ends have been changed drastically.
Registration for access to the new location will be obtained only by following these steps:
1) Register on this website.
2) From Wikipedia's website select the "e-mail user" option to e-mail Mnyakko
3) The e-mail will be replied to. You will then have to reply back with the User ID that already exists on this website.
4 Once the IP addresses are logged access will be granted to the portion of data collection that exist on this website. Actual case preparation is NOT on this website and is available only to people on an as-needed basis.
These are the pages specifically for collecting data about admins abusing their power, etc. which eventually will be presented to higher authorities in Wikipedia.
To me, that looks like open-ended data collection against a group of users you don't like, for mysterious and ominous purposes. What "cases" are you talking about exactly? Anyway, I'd say that this site looks like an off-wiki coordinating point for on-wiki harassment and meets any common sense definition of "attack site". --Akhilleus (talk) 14:14, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Hm, now I can't login to the Race to the Right site anymore. Pity. --Akhilleus (talk) 16:40, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Akhilleus, I beg to differ. Based on the google cache I saw, there are no "mysterious and ominous purposes" of the site. It was not intended "to facilitate, promote, or encourage the harassment of individual Wikipedia editors." It was clearly a collection of "diffs" such as required to enforce Wikipedia policy. I did not understand the relevance of all of the diffs I read, but several of them clearly violated Wikipedia policy IMHO. The Wikipedia:Attack sites page you cited was not fully quoted. It goes on to say: "These sites' activities include the malicious posting of abusive comments, physical threats, libel, and attempts to disclose the private information of Wikipedians." The google cache I saw held none of these elements. This clearly not an attack site. RonCram 00:47, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Ron, as I have already said in this very thread several times, the Race to the Right site is doing the same thing that uBeR was doing in his user space. Apparently you think that's ok, but there was a consensus that uBeR's pages were attack pages, and they were speedily deleted. If the Race to the Right pages were in Zeeboid's or Mnyakko's user space they would be speedy deleted as attack pages.
And to be frank, I think your analysis of the quotation from Wikipedia:Attack sites is a great example of Wikilawyering. You take one sentence from the document, without regard for its context, and you read it incorrectly. The sentence begins "These sites' activities include..." The sentence doesn't list everything that attack sites do, nor does it say that a site must do those things to be considered an attack site. However, the RttR pages probably could be considered a "malicious posting of abusive comments". Nevertheless, the most important part of Wikipedia:Attack sites is its first sentence, "Attack sites are websites outside Wikipedia that are used to facilitate, promote, or encourage the harassment of individual Wikipedia editors." And some of the editors here have said quite plainly that they feel the RttR pages are harassment directed at them. --Akhilleus (talk) 05:41, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Akhilleus, I did not see UBeR's site so I do not know if it was the same or not. One difference is that UBeR's page was hosted by Wikipedia. I suppose that gives the community the right to vote to delete it. But a vote to delete it does not mean it was an attack site. I am offended but not surprised by your charge of wikilawyering. You are the one who started this line of reasoning. As wikilawyer for the prosecution you left out an important portion of the description of an attack site. I do not feel it is wikilawyering to provide the context of your quote. Now you claim the RttR pages "probably" could be considered "a malicious posting of abusive comments." I disagree. I do not see how listing the comments of other Wikipedia editors can be considered wrong. Tony and Zeeboid did not make these comments. They were only showing what others have said. If these others feel harassed by being quoted, then perhaps they should be more careful about what they write. A page listing "diffs" that show editors who have violated Wikipedia policy cannot possibly be considered an "attack site" using the Wikipedia definition. In my opinion, you also owe Tony and Zeeboid an apology for these baseless charges.RonCram 14:49, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps I could suggest that WP:MEAT should not have been construed as prohibiting two editors who we know are two different persons acting on their own behalf. The fact that they work together does not involve that they are not intellectually independent and that they should be denied the right to cast two votes and share similar opinions. WP:MEAT has been designed to enhance WP:SOCK, not to prevent editors from supporting each other. --Childhood's End 13:33, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Childhoodsend. It was nice to hear from Durova that she did not feel any conscious pressure to punish editors merely for holding a minority viewpoint, but it seems to me that the unconscious level of pressure is still quite high. A cursory reading of this section shows a number of Connelly's friends who want Tony and Zeeboid punished and the reasons keeps changing. When Durova first blocked them for a week, it seemed like a long time to me but I assumed they must have overstepped some bound. Since then I have had a chance to look into the reasons for the block and it was definitely unjustified. I am not aware of the definition of wikilawyering but it has been mentioned here. My guess is the definition is not clearcut. If wikilawyering means lengthy responses, then Tony and Zeeboid may have done that but in this instance it seems reasonable to me. What is the proper response when one has been unjustly blocked? They have asked for reasons and Durova has insisted that she doesn't have to provide them. It seems to me that the easiest and best solution here is for Durova to apologize for the lengthy and unjustified block and let's get back to writing an encyclopedia. RonCram 14:14, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Indeed, they are now certainly justified to present their case and ask for clarifications. The administrator who very swiftly issued these blocks, and should I add lenghty blocks, should at least apologize. Also, as someone who tried to participate in the original discussion, I felt there was some "power trip" going on there and these blocks did intimidate me.
On another issue, let's try to shorten edits herein... --Childhood's End 14:27, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
I agree completely with RonCram. It is absolutely unfair, inaccurate and untrue to say that Zeeboid has been inappropriate in any way in the Global warming. he has constantly particiapted in a constructive way. there is no basis for claiming he has been at all inappropriate. he was attempting to work during a time of great contention. Fortunately things have improved, but I feel his efforts and actions were entirely valid in that discussion. Very often he added very constructive ideas and points. --Sm8900 14:26, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
I have not read this full item, but I am mentioned here, so I respond. I consider Durova to be an exceptional Administrator. If up for confirmation, I would enthusiastically vote for him or her. At the same time, I did not agree with Durova's logic or decision in this case. That is probably a difference in opinion about how to look at evidence and how to treat infractions. (I believe that rules should be tough and clear, that in interpreting evidence, one should assume good faith, and that in dealing with infractions, obvious efforts to destroy the encyclopedia should be handled harshly but otherwise, we should encourage people to edit and not drive them away until all efforts at reform have failed. I believe that Durova has improperly assumed meat puppetry for Zeeboid. I do not believe the evidence is conclusive in that regard. I am not even sure it is all that strong. (But I might not have seen it all). Consequently, I thought the block was not very well justified and at least too harsh. I brought this to Durova's talk page but I have not made a big issue of it. If there is some suggestion that I have made a big issue of it, I consider that to be untrue. --Blue Tie 15:07, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

It may be useful to point out that a number of the editors commenting here are involved in editing the global warming articles and are prone to conflict with each other. These include (on one or the other side): Blue Tie, Sm8900, Childhood's End, RonCram, Zeeboid, Mnyakko/Tony, myself, Stephan Schulz, Raymond Arritt. All too often, opinions seem to come down along "party lines", and this discussion is no exception. In making a decision on this case it might be useful to take opinions from these parties (myself included) with a grain of salt, and instead judge based on evidence presented by these or other editors. (Sorry if this is obvious; but I felt a full disclosure was in order.) --Nethgirb 12:33, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

That might be an important consideration for some folk, but not for me. I completely segregated my comments and am only considering and addressing Durova's block of zeeboid, and strictly on the elements I discussed above. To me, global warming has nothing to do with this. I only commented because I was mentioned and also because I discussed this with (well at least presented my thoughts to) Durova at the time. I did not believe the block was handled correctly and I still do not. This has nothing to do with Global Warming and I have no idea of what position Zeeboid takes on that matter. --Blue Tie 14:57, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
To a certain extent, I agree with Nethgirb. It is helpful to know that the involved editors are often on opposite sides of the global warming debate. The charges brought against Tony and Zeeboid come down to the fact they hold a minority viewpoint. I disagree with Nethgirb's advice that "it might be useful to take opinions from these parties (myself included) with a grain of salt, and instead judge based on evidence presented by these or other editors." The facts and logic presented by myself and others who hold to a minority viewpoint have to be considered. This effort to disenfranchise minority viewpoints is contrary to building an NPOV encyclopedia. What is clear is that none of the reasons for blocking Tony and Zeeboid have held up under scrutiny. New reasons are brought forward and they also fail. It is time for apologies to be issued to Tony and Zeeboid and for us to go back to writing an encyclopedia. RonCram 14:57, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

It is time to go back to writing an encyclopedia. You're correct about that. I don't care where you stand on global warming - arguing for weeks about a long-expired block and demanding "apologies", when the community seems to consider the blocks fair and moved on, is disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. If you feel an administrator has misued his/her power, then you can file a request for comment here - but based on the response you've gotten here, it's highly unlikely that it will lead to your desired outcome. If you move on and edit constructively, people will see the block as an aberration. Extending this thread further is a step in the wrong direction. MastCell Talk 17:34, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

As a follow up to this conversation, I have added Zeeboid's attack site to the blacklist. Raul654 18:14, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Canvassing[edit]

BrownHairedGirl (talk · contribs) disagrees with a CfD outcome and is now canvassing what she perceives as her side of the discussion in an attempt to overturn it. [22] [23] [24] [25]. I believe this to be improper per WP:CANVASS. >Radiant< 10:36, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

See my substantive reply below, but please note here that:
  • It's a pity that you didn't raise your concerns with me before coming to ANI; I don't think that we needed
  • It's also pity you did not inform me about this complaint, which is why my reply here is rather belated
  • It's a pity that you didn't mention that I promptly notified you that I had informed the other users
  • It's a pity that you didn't mention that this was not an XfD discussion or a DRV --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:15, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
As the user is not inviting people to an existing !vote, it doesn't seem to me that it technically falls foul of WP:CANVASS. However, that's mere semantics, as in the comment she's pointing to, she clearly states her intention to open such a !vote. Therefore, I think two things: 1) WP:CANVASS could do with a little tightening, to avoid such future tactics and 2) the user should be ticked off for employing such a clear breach the spirit of WP:CANVASS. If this has been done deliberately, such wikilawyering makes me grudgingly admiring of her skills, but wishing they'd be fully devoted to the undoubted positive contribution she makes to this Project. --Dweller 11:03, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
It looks to me as a simple communication to users who might be interested, nothing sinister. Zocky | picture popups 11:24, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Minus the fact, of course, that they are now accusing Radiant! of pursuing a gender-related agenda. --Iamunknown 11:26, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Zocky, that's the exact argument used by pretty much every person that breaks WP:CANVASS. If WP:CANVASS exists, we need to follow it. --Dweller 11:29, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

General comment: I haven't thought through all the details but Ikve concluded at some point WP:CANVASS needs some rethinking. The idea that an issue should be resolved by whoever happens to be watching a procedure page, and that it is illegitimate to consult with the most knowledgeable editors on a subject, is understandable but can be applied overzealously. In particular, in the case of an AfD there would have been a notice placed on the article for editors of the article to at least have an opportunity to see, but for a CfD I don't believe that happens, certainly not where anyone is likely to see it, so CfD's are decided by whoever happens to visit CfD that week (a very narrow cross-section of users) rather than by editors who are working on articles within the category, and it's illegitimate to tell such editors the category is under a deletion debate? That seems odd. Newyorkbrad 23:31, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

  • While it may need reworking, it should be obvious that if any process is decided by a very narrow group of users, then any one-sided canvassing will almost automatically sway the outcome to whatever the canvasser wants, which is obviously not the point of such a process. >Radiant< 08:05, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I think one thing that would help tremendously would be to require a notice at a closed discussion if it's been listed at WP:DRV. That would allow (without the need for canvassing) anyone who commented, who presumably has that page now on their watchlist, to now know about the DRV. There have been many times I was unaware of a DRV for an XfD discussion I commented on, and a note at the closed discussion would have allowed me to know about it. - jc37 06:46, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Not even sure that would work, jc37. Don't know about you, but whenever I am following a discussion about a deletion, I am only too happy to unwatch it as soon as it is over because of all the watchlist clutter.— scribblingwoman 08:45, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Reply from BrownHairedGirl[edit]

First, it would have been good practice for Radiant! (talk · contribs) to have notified me that my actions were being raised here, so that I could have replied more promptly. I do not usually monitor this page, so I was unaware of this discussion until another editor notified me on my talk page. It's really rather unfair to start a discussion seeking censure of another editor's actions without notifying them and giving them their chance to explain their side of the story.

Here's what happened. I had participated in the April 11 CFD on Category:Women television writers (I !voted to "keep"), and went back to look at after it had been closed. I was surprised by the way it was closed, because this seemed to me to be a case of "no consensus".

I had never before taken a CFD to deletion review, so I looked at WP:DRV#Purpose, which says "Deletion Review is to be used where someone is unable to resolve the issue in discussion with the administrator (or other editor) in question. This should be attempted first - courteously invite the admin to take a second look."

That seemed to me to be sensible, so that's exactly what I did: I raised my concerns on Radiant's talk page, in this edit. As I understood the situation, what I was doing was raising a concern with in an informal discussion with an editor, in the hope that we would reach agreement on a way forward, and failing that, that we would at least clarify the issues.

It seemed to me that at this stage of informal discussions, it would also be helpful to hear from the other "keep" !voters; if they were happy with the outcome, then so far as I was concerned, that would be end of the matter (the other voters would of course need to be contacted if the matter went any further). So, as Radiant noted, I left messages on the talk pages of the other keep voters, and in this edit I notified Radiant that this had been done. Please note that this was not a deletion review

In the meantime, the deletion of Category:Women television writers had been raised at the related CFD on Category:Women screenwriters, so in this edit I left a note on that discussion pointing to my discussion with Radiant. To my surprise, Radiant promptly deleted that note with an edit summary "please do not edit closed discussions". The discussion had not been closed (and I struggle to see how anyone could think that it had been), so I restored the comment in this edit, and left thi note on Radiant's talk page reminding him not to delete comments from talk pages.

After the warning, Radiant was kind enough to try to restore the deleted comment, although there was some confusion as this was done by reversion which removed some other comments, but he promtplly untangled it all.[26] and [27]

I was surprised that Radiant then simply reverted my warning; there was no acknowledgement of Radiant;s error, and no apology for the unwarranted deletion of my comment. I did think of issuing a further warning about removal warnings, but thought it better to just leave the issue as resolved.

Radiant and I then engaged a few further exchanges on the substantive issue of the CFD closure, and were joined by a few other editors. It seemed to me to be a useful discussion, which was enhanced by the presence of the other "keep" !voters who were able to correct Radiant's assumption that they had intended their votes to mean "keep or merge".

Unfortunately, the whole discussion was then deleted by Radiant in this edit, with the edit summary "get out of here", and replaced with a note "BHG/SW/AM, please take your snide remarks elsewhere".

A separate discussion on the CFD closure continued below, on Radiant's talk page, where User:BenAveling did an analysis of the CFD, and concluded that it should be taken to DRV: see How I would have closed it.

This morning, I have restored the deleted discussion to Radiant's talk page: see User talk:Radiant!#Deleted_discussion_of_the_closure

So, in summary:

  • I followed recommened procedure in discssing an issue informally rather than going straight to DRV
  • I did not "canvass"; I invited those affected by a CFD decision to join an informal discussion about it, in the course of which they provided useful info to correct a misunderstanding.

If WP:CANVASS is to be taken as applying to any discussion on wikipedia, rather than just to formal decision-making processes, then it needs to be very clearly rewritten to say so. ust as I strongly support support WP:CANVASS as currently applied to XfD, RFA, etc, I for pone would strongly oppose a change which tried to extend it to the rest of wikipedia. I have partcipated in countless informal discussions where someone has posted a few notes saying in effect "hey? what do you think of this?", and the rest has been to make much-better-informed discussion than would otherwise have been the case. Widening WP:CANVASS would shut down many of those discussions by restricting the to people who happened to notice them.

In this instance, it seems to me to be crucial that Radiant had (in good faith, I'm sure) misinterpreted some of the "keep" !votes, and we would not have had that clarification unless I had asked those others to join in.

The subsequent discussion in reply to Ben Aveling's assessment did mutate into a substantive re-examination of the issues (which ought to involve all the original !voters), but that was not what I had sought. I simply wanted to stablish whether I was correct in my initial feeling that there were issues which needed to be taken to DRV, where everyone could have their say.

However, Radiant has

  • Accused me of being "snide", with out identifying any particular offending remark
  • Wrongly deleted my comment from a CFD (later restored, but without apology)
  • Removed a warning from his user page without requesting its removal
  • Deleted from his user talk an entire discussion in which he was asked to re-examine his actions
  • Ignored the request from Ben Aveling to "Otherwise, as an act of good faith, you might consider taking this to DRV yourself and asking them to reweigh the arguments."

... and then, to, cap it all, raised a complaint against me (here at WP:ANI), without even having the courtesy to notify me (see the top of this page: "As a courtesy, you should inform other users if they are mentioned in a posting"), and -- most crucially -- he then deleted the discussion to which his complaint related, including crucially, the comment in which I personally notified Radiant that I had informed others. The result was a complaint which gravely mispresented the situation, by making it appear that I had been engaged in underhand canvassing of a DRV rather than in open notification of an informal discussion.

I don't believe in rushing off to WP:ANI whenever I have a disagreement with another editor, but now that I have been dragged here, is unreasonable to ask Radiant to accept that it is helpful to all of editors individually and to the project as a whole that when other editors ask them to review their actions they should not automatically dismiss any criticism, and in particular should not delete the discussions in which problems are raised? This seems to me to be particularly important for an admin, who should be expected to uphold high standards.

Thanks! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:55, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Are users appearing in user categories disruptive and does it warrant a block?[edit]

SchmuckyTheCat (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfa · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · socks) continues to add his user page to Category:Wikipedians by religion, which was the subject of a discussion [28] at WP:UCFD a couple weeks ago. He was warned by User:jc37 on Apr 16. No comments supporting him appeared in a discussion at WT:USER that he started. Nevertheless, he added it again this afternoon [29]. I am inclined to block for 24 hours for disruption and acting against consensus, but I want to get some feedback first. A more gentle solution would be to protect the page until the user agrees not to make such edits. CMummert · talk 16:44, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Even though I did place the warning on the user's talk page, I'm hesitant to see a block yet for this. It's obvious that he's trying to make a WP:POINT using an attempt at humour, and "civil disobedience", of a sort... I honestly was hoping that the user would just make a red linked variation of the category, and "let it go". I'd like to suggest that you revert for now, and let's see from there. - jc37 17:06, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
I don't see any evidence that my reversion wouldn't just get undone, in which case we'll be right back to this page. What about reverting and protecting the page? CMummert · talk 17:09, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Civil disobedience? Looks to me like this is just about Jc37 asserting his authority, rather than any impact on the actual project. Milto LOL pia 17:17, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
If SchmuckyTheCat disagrees with the UCFD decision, the correct thing to do is to find consensus to overturn it, rather than acting against it. I can't see any good reason why that category should have user pages in it, and "I want to" is not a very strong argument. CMummert · talk 17:23, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
There's no one who can name a way in which this disrupts the encyclopedia. Milto LOL pia 17:30, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Of course there is. That category is only meant to contain other categories - this is clear from trivial inspection and supported by UCFD. Adding user pages directly to it is clearly just making a point, and preventing the implementation of the UCFD consensus. As I said, the right way to remedy the UCFD decision is by discussion, not by intentionally counteracting it. CMummert · talk 17:34, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Who gave authority to UCFD to define the category? What notice did UCFD give to those who would be affected by its decisions? The answer is nobody and none. Consensus on their decision doesn't exist in the first place; consensus requires discussion, which requires notice. See also, smoke filled room. SchmuckyTheCat 17:37, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
I hate to keep being nosy, but what point is he making by having that category on there? And how does one "disrupt" a user category when they don't even add anything to Wikipedia anyway? But mostly I want to know what point he's making. Milto LOL pia 17:39, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
The point is "I have the ability to add my user page to this category even though there is strong evidence that others find this inappropriate." CMummert · talk 17:42, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
POINT requires disruption. When did the disruption occur - when I put in the category two years ago, or when you removed it based on your own ideal of what the category should contain? SchmuckyTheCat 17:13, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
I don't see any consensus or guideline that says a group of users discussing in an obscure location, who do not give any notice to anyone else about their discussion, have any authority to organize user categories according to their whim. User categories are by extension of WP:USER, a rather informal method by which users may choose to describe themselves. I've been in that category for nearly two years. No notice was put on the category that it was under discussion. No notice was placed on my talk page making me aware of the discussion. The WP:POINT disruption is with those who wish to edit other people's user pages based on their whim - again, without any guideline or consensus.
There is an entire encyclopedia to write, and yet we have this group of editors making decisions about other editors user pages. User pages are the only place we allow users free expression, short of being polemic. I'm not doing anything polemic. It's not confusing anyone. Some members of those making decisions have made no namespace edits in weeks, focusing solely on their fixation on other people's user pages.
What's more disruptive to the community - harmless, silly, expression in user space, or coming down draconian and dictating against it? And remember, there isn't any wide community consensus or guideline behind it.
SchmuckyTheCat 17:02, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Commenting on the line: "User pages are the only place we allow users free expression". You are aware of WP:NOT#USER, right? AQu01rius (User &#149; Talk) 17:23, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely. That is a paraphrase of WP:USER. By free expression, I mean user pages don't have to be NPOV (while avoiding being polemic), don't have to conform to a prescribed MOS, etc. I know very well what the "What can I not have on my user page?" section says about categories because I wrote it [30]. Even after revision, it still says nothing that gives authority to other users to unilaterally decide whether users belong in certain categories. SchmuckyTheCat 17:34, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Jc is asserting the "authority" of the "Categories for discussion" process, which is discussed by more users than him. The category has been depopulated because userpages in it make no sense: The users are listed "by religion," which suggests specificity of religion, which is what the subcats are for. We depopulated all the categories of "Wikipedians by (X)", so no individual user pages should go there. I wouldn't argue for a block (this isn't vandalism), but protecting the page seems okay if the user doesn't feel like going through the process of getting the decision overturned, which is obvious how to do. If there's a mistake made, it will be corrected through the normal process, or not, depending on the will of the community.--Mike Selinker 17:42, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
User Categories for Discussion process has no authority to go beyond guidelines and consensus. Defining user categories and threatening to ban users and protect their pages from themselves for not complying with that definition exceeds any guideline or consensus. It's positively draconian. Your admin tools have better work to do than trying to fit square pegs into round holes. SchmuckyTheCat 19:25, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Actually "user categories" are defined by policy/guideline. They are specifically to be sub-cats of Category:Wikipedians. As to "better work to do", how any Wikipedian chooses to contribute to the project is up to them. And I'll avoid the many obvious puns about currently dealing with a square peg : ) - jc37 19:48, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
So user-cats are supposed to be sub-categories of the top category. Fine and excellent. That has nothing to do with your banning threat to me.
You're right, I don't care how you contribute your time. I care when your volunteer effort intrudes on mine. If you want to obsessively organize user categories go ahead, until someone objects because that is where it ends. SchmuckyTheCat 20:15, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
I don't think there is serious doubt that CFD decisions should be honored by all editors; UCFD is the place that CFD discussions for user categories are carried out. CMummert · talk 21:38, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
There is doubt when some sub-sub-sub-discussion of users exceeeds the consensus and guidelines that they operate under. UCFD isn't CfD. CfD is the public face of the project containing articles of the encyclopedia. It's the stuff people come here to read. It's the stuff that will be on hardcopy, DVD, v1.0, etc versions of Wikipedia. There are different standards for the main project and user space. Period.

I was the nominator of the UCFD, and I normally do tag categories and notify the original creator if the category is up for merging, deletion, or renaming, but in this case it was simply for depopulating, and we don't have a tag to place at the top of pages for such discussions. Asking me to notify every user in the category is absolutely ludicrous, there are some categories that have thousands of users in them, and we never do that for any other nominations at UCFD. Now to the point, re-adding yourself to this category after a consensus has been reached on xfd not to should be considered disruptive and I'd support a block if it continues. If you think the decision should be overturned, get a consensus to do so. The UCFD was unanimous and I really don't see why you insist adding your page to the category, it doesn't make sense at all, which is why the nomination was done in the first place. VegaDark 23:42, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

You scare me in your fervor to block people who disagree with anything that you disagree with in user space. Really, you scare me. SchmuckyTheCat 01:55, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
You have an interesting way of interpreting things if you take what I said above as a "fervor" to block people for "anything that I disagree with". Mentioning that I'd support a block for disruption = "fervor"? Block someone for repeatedly going against a unanimous consensus of an xfd debate = "block people for anything I disagree with"? Please stay civil, I don't appreciate false accusations against me. VegaDark 02:29, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
There is no consensus without involving, or notifying, anyone but a small clique of users gauranteed to mirror your views. The authority behind the result of a discussion can't violate the wider consensus under which the discussion occurs (WP:USER). In this case, no consensus exists that UCFD decisions are binding, and especially not block worthy. And yes, I used fervor after reviewing your contributions. UCFD is all you've done for weeks and your talk page comments go way beyond reasonable in your willingness to disrupt other users pages. SchmuckyTheCat 03:59, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
So now you are accusing me of disruption? This is getting ridiculous, I see there is no point in trying to have a discussion with you if you are going to assert that all UCFD decisions don't have to be followed based on not liking the result. I'd like to hear what others have to say about that. VegaDark 07:55, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes, you've said in talk pages that you think you should delete non-offensive, user page content without any discussion with the users. That is disruptive. SchmuckyTheCat 17:01, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm assuming you are talking about me supporting removing redlinked categories from userpages? Yes, I support that. No, I don't support doing that without a consensus. I was expressing my opinion on what should be done. If you consider expressing a (quite reasonable, we do it in mainspace) opinion on a wikipedia issue "disruptive" then I'd hate to see what else you also consider disruptive. VegaDark 06:54, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

In light of the comments above, it seems reasonable to protect the user page, rather than block the user, if the category is not removed in a reasonable period of time. CMummert · talk 02:17, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I do not believe that you or anyone involved in this matter should protect the page. WP:PROT: "admins should not protect pages when they are involved as a party to the dispute". Further, the protection policy outlines only one applicable reason that this page could be protected: to temporarily halt edit warring. And assuming someone does begin edit warring on User:SchmuckyTheCat, such a page protect would not be done to endorse any particular version of the page, and the discussion would continue, so simply from a tactical perspective, that is not a viable route toward your goal. As to blocking, I would ask everyone to consider how sure they are that a block, for what is ostensibly disruption, would not be overturned at WP:CSN (I'm fairly sure that it would). coelacan — 06:16, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
It's unrealistic to suggest that because I have posted to AN/I before taking action, I am now prevented from doing so. Several other admins (all the ones who have commented except possibly you) support either protecting the page or blocking SchmuckyTheCat, so I would not be acting unilaterally. There has been edit warring, as STC has added back the tag several times after it was removed by another editor.
Let's move the discussion forward. I am taking it as a given, despite SchmuckyTheCat's claims, that UCFD does have community consensus as a process. How would you recommend that the UCFD decision to depopulate the category be enforced in this case? CMummert · talk
Perhaps you should not take that as a given. I note that with the exception of you and I, the only admins who have bothered to give input here are those who close UCFD discussions, who presumably think that the process is important. I don't know exactly what brought you to STC's case, but I'm here because I take a general interest in users' pages. And most "user page is disruptive" cases involve something that is broadly seen as disruptive. Generally that involves polemical statements against a group of people, and indeed I can't think of any case in quite a while that did not (months ago, Jeffpw was asked to remove his then very large picture of Hillary Clinton, and that ANI discussion was an absolute circus, with many people expressing incredulity at the idea that someone thought this important). Now, there was one other admin not involved in UCFD who gave input about STC: Isotope23, who just said at WT:USER#Enforcement of WP:USER, "I don't particularly agree with the way this is being handled by the other editor involved here." The other editor is you, right? (If not then I'm unaware of who else is involved. I haven't been aware of this until you brought it to ANI.) It really does not appear to me that you have any widespread support to use admin tools on this. Maybe a bunch of other uninvolved people are going to show up and tell me that I'm wrong, but this appears to be a case of very narrow interest, which implies to me that the page is not disruptive. If you're going to go outside the usual boundaries of the protection policy, or if you're going to block STC, then you're going to have to make a pretty convincing case that this page's categorization is disruptive to those of us who are trying to write an encyclopedia. Disruption is usually obvious to many people; this is not. Can you quantify the supposed disruption here? coelacan — 14:53, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
I believe he became involved in the WT:USER discussion that STC started. - jc37 15:41, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
No, the "other editor" was jc37. That comment was made before I even edited the page. The substance of the comment was that the discussion ought to be at ANI, which is one reason that I brought it here. It's hard for me to see how responding to STC's question after the UCFD was over makes me "involved" in it. CMummert · talk 17:37, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
All right, I had a vague misunderstanding earlier that I probably couldn't accurately describe now. You're sufficiently uninvolved, I agree. Which would allow for use of admin tools if you could make a case for disruption. So, can you quantify the supposed disruption here? coelacan — 19:14, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

While it appears likely that another edit to implement a unanimous UCfD decision will be reverted by the user, it'd be ABF to make that assumption. If, however, the userpage is corrected for its violation of USERCAT rules, and then reverted without going through the proper channels (i.e., DRV), then the user should be warned for edit warring, and the page protected by an uninvolved admin. Xiner (talk) 13:58, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Would you be willing to remove it? CMummert · talk 14:10, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
With much love to my friend Xiner, I have to note that regular UCFD admins are hardly "uninvolved". coelacan — 14:53, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Apparently I was writing my comments below while you added this. (I'm surprised there was no edit conflict.) Anyway, I am wondering at your interpretation of how being involved in a process means that a person's "involved" in a dispute? - jc37 15:41, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
UCFD is an small and insular process that most of the community does not bother to get involved with. As such, the few admins who decide to involve themselves there have a vested interest in maintaining UCFD's ability to make and enforce decisions. This is not a judgment upon any of you; I like all of you. This is an acknowledgement of your humanity, and it is a feature of human behavior to stake out territory. We all have an interest in fighting vandalism, thus we all encourage each other to do so. If an admin who does not close UCFD discussions were to come along and use admin tools to enforce UCFD discussions, then that would be an outside acknowledgement of those discussions' legitimacy. But if no outside admin steps up to do so, well... coelacan — 17:24, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
To the best of my knowledge, I have never participated in UCFD. So I looked into it when this issue came up. I saw that there is a link from CFD to UCFD, along with directions to take user category requests there. I looked at the history, and the link from CFD to UCFD has been there for a long time. So it appears to me that UCFD does have community consensus to make decisions about user categories, and I am an "outside admin" as you describe. I have no objection to using admin tools to enfore UCFD decisions when it is necessary, which is why I started this thread. But it shouldn't be necessary, especially not in this case. CMummert · talk 17:44, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Comma, pause, arbitrary section break[edit]

I think it's odd the way that this has "moved forward". There is an established process to determine consensus. An editor (me) was going through the minor tasks of following through with the results of that consensus. Another editor, who in the past has chosen freely to be a part of that page's discussion now states that the discussions on that page have no validity.

And further, the suggestion that, since there is a discussion on this page, admins can't take action based on an AN/I discussion because they're involved in that discussion? That would be like saying that by reverting a vandal twice, and then discuss it on AN/I, perhaps for clarification, then means that you can't then block the vandal... (Not that I'm saying STC is a vandal, just using that for example). That seems entirely contrary to the "Wiki-way", in which we often and do ask for advice and help from others.

It also should be noted is that the user makes it clear at Wikipedia talk:User page#Enforcement of WP:USER: "Any perusal of my user page shows that I parody other user pages. My categories are red-links, I have one single joke userbox, instead of barnstars I repost insults and vandalism." - So the things added to their userpage are not accurate. Which, while perhaps tongue-in-cheek humourous, it is clearly contrary to WP:USER#Inappropriate content as well. (Perhaps MfD is the way to go to deal with the larger issues of the user page in question, though on that, I am not certain.) However, I do find the last comment in that section particlularly interesting in relation to this discussion. Oh, and obviously at least one of the user categories is not a red-link, else we might not be having this discussion...

If STC has issues with the process, fine, there are channels for that, but in the meantime, I believe that this is a case of m:The wrong version. As it stands right now, there has been a consensual discussion, and the category is to be removed per that discussion. If STC wishes to take this to WP:DRV, fine, but right now, the user is merely engaging in, first, edit warring, and second, gaming the system. (If in doubt of the latter, read this page, and the user's talk page. And also note that right now there is a discussion to MfD WP:UCFD in direct opposition to this discussion. "Gaming the rules", indeed.)

As such, I'm going to remove the category from the user page due to the original WP:UCFD discussion, and because there is nothing above showing that it should remain. As I noted on the user's talk page, from going through the user's contribution history, one thing is rather clear, this isn't a case where the user is unaware of policy and guidelines. I am going to give User:SchmuckyTheCat the benefit of the doubt despite the above discussion, and presume that the user will follow process rather than this continued disruption. I don't oppose the page being protected, but unless the user continues to revert, I at least won't protect it. Further comments are, of course, welcome. - jc37 15:29, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I would appreciate it if you would assume good faith on my part. I asked SchmuckyTheCat for that user's opinion on an MFD of UCFD because I saw this discussion, but I've been planning to make that MFD for quite some time. I did not know any of the backstory to SchmuckyTheCat's page, and had I known, I wouldn't have mentioned MFD to that user. I should have known someone was going to conflate these two issues. They should not be conflated; my desire to tag UCFD as {{historical}} stems not at all from SchmuckyTheCat's issue. I will not be making an MFD nomination, nor will I be airing my general concerns at WT:UCFD, while SchmuckyTheCat's page is an open issue. I want to keep these issues separate. Since you knew already from reading my comments that I want to keep any possible MFD discussion free of drama, jc37, I cannot imagine why you would now fire the first drama bullet. Can we please take a step back to the time before I was "gaming the system"? coelacan — 17:11, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
You misread my intention in what I said about the MfD, but I'll presume that the fault was mine for not being clearer, and apologise. You and I discussed taking it to talk pages rather than MfD, so I was aware of your "good faith" in this, so sorry that that wasn't more clear. And I agree, the question about whether WP:UCFD should be remerged to WP:CFD is immaterial to this discussion. I might point others to the bright banner at the top of WP:CFD in response to questions of "hidden". In a nutshell: User:SchmuckyTheCat has normal process options to voice their concerns. The rest of the complaint is, just as you have called it: Drama. I note in the checkuser link at the top that the user is a member of (and apparently an admin of) Encyclopedia Dramatica. I make no other comment about it than to note it as interesting at least to me. - jc37 17:50, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, jc37, I'm relieved to hear that I just misunderstood you. coelacan — 19:20, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
  • There is an established process to determine consensus.
And it wasn't followed. No notice was given to anyone. It's not like UCFD is widely followed, it has a core group of people who make and close all the decisions. Without notice, and without broad participation, you can't say consensus was gained. You can only say you followed your own processes. Where your processes exceed existing Wikipedia guidelines (which do have wide consensus, and should be instructive on how UCFD makes decisions) you DO NOT have consensus to enforce UCFD decisions.
  • So the things added to their userpage are not accurate.
And? User pages don't have to be accurate. After the Essjay thing and Jimbo's credential proposal I toned down even the factual things because I don't want anything from my main user page taken as truth or semblance of authority while writing the encyclopedia. If you think parody and humor on my user page matches inappropriate content per WP:USER you've really been living in UCFD for too long. Why don't you leave UCFD and build the encyclopedia for awhile? You seem a little too devoted to witch-hunting user pages you don't like.
I've never had any meaningful participation in UCFD. It is, literally, its own little committee doing its own little thing.
The controlling sentence for removal is "if user page activity becomes disruptive to the community or gets in the way of the task of building an encyclopedia, it must be modified to prevent disruption." And you cannot say my user page does that. A committee that goes out its way to hunt down and find things they disagree with on user pages is disruptive to community building and THAT is what is disruptive to encyclopedia building. This was on my user page for two years - you had to go on a witch hunt based on your own ideals to purposefully decide to disrupt my page. That is where and when the disruption occurred. You are standing POINT and USER on their heads if you claim it is my deciding that non-offensive, non-polemic, non-disruptive content can be on my user page. SchmuckyTheCat 17:01, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
All of this has been responded to above several times, by several people. If you have further concerns or complaints about an XfD closure, please take it to WP:DRV. It says rather clearly at the top of this page that:"this is not the Wikipedia complaints department." - jc37 17:50, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Don't be obnoxious. You're the one who brought this worthless complaint to ANI in the first place, at no benefit to any encyclopedic matter. Just let it go, jc37, and find something marginally useful to do. Milto LOL pia 17:59, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
I suggest you look again. I didn't start this thread. The Wikipedian who did, was asking for insight from other admins, which I presume is the appropriate use of this board. My first post was to suggest that STC not be blocked. However, User:SchmuckyTheCat's subsequent posts above are complaints. I offer the same suggestion to you as well: "This isn't the complaints department". If you have further concerns, please take them to WP:DRV. - jc37 18:24, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
I don't think that's a fair analysis. CMummert begins the thread by requesting input on a proposed use of admin tools, and SchmuckyTheCat responds that there is no disruption, hence no policy-based use for the tools. The question of what is the disruption is thus pertinent to the purpose of this board and quite on topic for this thread. coelacan — 19:24, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Coelacan. These are user categories we're talking about. They're not even part of the encyclopedia. How is the encyclopedia hurt by whether or not user categories conform to somebody's standards? I think those bugging SchmuckyTheCat about this category should let it be and worry about something else. Why would anybody care if he's in a meaningless user category? -GTBacchus(talk) 01:46, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
The fact that these categories exist means that the people who use them believe they are not meaningless. And arguments of the form "why don't you find something better to do with your time" are hardly persuasive - I could equally well ask "Why doesn't SchmuckyTheCat find something better to do with his time than edit war to put his user page into inappropriate categories? They are meaningless anyway." And it would be equally unpersuasive for me to do so.
In order to work with a large group of others, it is necessary not to be involved in all the decision making. I don't participate at UCFD, because I prefer to do other things, but I would never claim that this means that I am free to ignore the decisions that are made there simply because I chose not to participate in making them. This is no different than AFD, or RFA, or any of the many other areas where a limited number of users make decisions on behalf of the entire community. CMummert · talk 02:05, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Delegating decisions is fine. But, those decisions are correctly ignored when they go against prevailing consensus. And they are ignored when they don't bother telling anyone about the discussion. Both of these are true in this case. UCFD is a process without a purpose. SchmuckyTheCat 03:49, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
For the umpteenth time, if you think the UCFD is invalid, why don't you bring it to DRV? You keep insisting it was invalid but you won't even go through the proper channels to try and reverse it. VegaDark 06:54, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
The title of this section is "Are users appearing in user categories disruptive and does it warrant a block?" If you are not going to use administrative tools to enforce this, then that's great. But if the option of blocking STC is still on the table, then it's reasonable for this discussion to continue. I see that SchmuckyTheCat has not reverted the removal of the category, but if that user does, the original question, "is this disruptive and does it warrant a block" would still be open. I think the answer is obviously "no", but some admins seem to be leaving open the possibility of a block. I hope this will be the last that I say about SchmuckyTheCat's particular issue. Admins should consider whether or not it is likely that a block would be overturned at a WP:CSN discussion. I believe it would, and in the end it would reflect poorly upon the judgment of whomever would stretch the definition of "disruption" so far and so thin. This is not a Nazi flag flying over the state of Israel. coelacan — 08:49, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
If he can not be blocked for this (I'm not saying he should now, but if he continues to re-add the category I would be open to the possibility), then UCFD decisions would not be enforceable. If someone repeatedly added a category that was deleted via CFD to a page, they would eventually be blocked (if all other measures failed to work first). If someone repeatedly re-created an article deleted via AfD, they would be blocked. If someone repeatedly went against an MfD consensus, they would be blocked. If someone repeatedly went against an RfD consensus, they would be blocked. But if someone repeatedly goes against a UCFD consensus, you are saying nothing should happen, simply because it is in the userspace? If that were the case then there would be no point to even having a UCFD (which is why I take it you plan on nominating it for MfD-doubt it will succeed but feel free to try). But, we do have a UCFD, which tells me that decisions made there need to be enforceable, which means if necessary a block may be justified. If he is allowed to keep re-adding the category to his page without reprocussions, then everybody might as well stop contributing to UCFD, as anything decided there wouldn't matter. VegaDark 10:18, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
This is my opinion as well - a block could be warranted, but other measures (including discussion. and possibly protecting the page) should be tried first. But it should be restated that user categories are in the category namespace, not the user namespace, and the disputed content is the link in the category listing page, not the link on the user's individual page. If the user can put a link on their own page without affecting the category listing, that is completely acceptable. CMummert · talk 11:42, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
VegaDark, you say "we do have a UCFD, which tells me that decisions made there need to be enforceable". I disagree with that step of logic. The only reason to have any kind of "rule" on this website is to benefit the encyclopedia. As I've said already in this conversation, making rules about how others may use user categories is even further removed from our project than using those categories in the first place. To block Schmucky for messing up some unencyclopedic user category game would be to suggest that playing such a game is an appropriate use of Wikipedia resources. That's the part I'm not seeing. -GTBacchus(talk) 19:15, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
If you disagree with that logic, then for what purpose do we have a UCFD? You are saying that UCFD decisions should not be enforcable, and hence useless? VegaDark 20:33, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Why do we have a UCFD? I'm pretty sure it was created to relieve CFD of hosting discussions on user categories. People who thought it would be a good idea to have a UCFD set it up, and have been running it... right? Nobody ever vested them with any kind of official power, and their decisions don't carry the weight of policy. If we're talking about encyclopedic user categories (like Babel categories), I can see an argument that their misuse is disruptive, but we're not talking about those. I don't know why anybody thinks they have authority to dictate how others participate in unencyclopedic activities unless they're disrupting or damaging the project somehow.
To turn the question around, what gives UCFD the authority to tell people how to use unencyclopedic categories? As far as I know, nobody has any authority here to do anything that doesn't flow from the mandate to build the encyclopedia. You can do unencyclopedic stuff, but when you start telling others how to do unencyclopedic stuff, you're walked off the edge of your authority. -GTBacchus(talk) 21:03, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
I thoughts I'd clarify what apparently is misdirection, or at least a misconception. "People who thought it would be a good idea to have a UCFD set it up, and have been running it... right?" - Wrong. First, the Wikipedian community is "contributing" to it, no one is "running" anything. But to respond to the intent of the statement: Wrong again. Mike Selinker and I actually opposed the separation of WP:UCFD from WP:CFD (with concerns that fewer people would be commenting there), and VegaDark and Xiner (among others) weren't admins when it was started. However, since then, the WP:CFD page has been refactored, and WP:UCFD (along with Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion, is now listed right with the daily CfD discussion links (which are no longer transcluded to the WP:CFD page). And since then (actually before then) we've seen an influx of contributors, with dicussions roughly the same size as seen in a typical WP:CfD discussion. Not to mention (what I already mentioned) the bright banner at the top of the WP:CFD page informing about the WP:UCFD discussion page. Even [[User:SchmuckyTheCat has been a contibutor there. (22 edits between 12/09/2006 02:27 and 04/21/2007 01:53). And GTBaccus, 9 contributions between 09/20/2006 19:49 and 11/06/2006 21:10. And there have been 451 unique editors with 12 IP addresses. So much for claims of it being someone's personal Idaho... - jc37 09:09, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
CMummert, you're right. It's equally valid to ask Schmucky why he spends time on this. Schmucky, is this actually worth arguing over? I dunno; maybe it is. The thing is, I tend to the view that it's usually better to let people do as they like, unless it's somehow affecting the encyclopedia. I'm open to hearing how Schmucky putting himself in an inappropriate user category makes the encyclopedia any worse, but it's not obvious to me. What, will people will be confused by it? It's not anywhere near article-space, so... why care?
We generally allow a wide latitude in user space, but we also generally like to use user categories for purposes that are at least vaguely encyclopedic. I'd be happy enough if the whole category and all the subcategories were deleted. Look, here we are, caught up in the disruption these things bring about, and what has any of it got to do with building the encyclopedia? Nothing that I can see.
If we're keeping unencyclopedic user categories around, I see no reason not to let people do what they want with them, within the bounds of WP:USER. Making rules about which unencyclopedic user categories others can and can't put themselves into is even further removed from the project than using those categories in the first place. -GTBacchus(talk) 09:33, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
I personally don't subscribe to or read any of those categories. But I think that a large number of community members do feel they are useful, and I don't think that it would be easy to find consensus to delete them. In order for the categories to remain useful (to the extent that they are), everyone has to respect their clear intent. Moreover, user categories are in the category namespace, not in the user namespace. I feel this is a significant point and appeals to WP:USER are misguided. User pages are, by their nature, individual. User categories are communal and can only function if everyone uses them correctly. (If I wanted to be more lawyerlike, I would point out that the list of "what is your user space" at the top of WP:USER does not include user categories. But I think the distinction between individual and communal here is clear enough.) CMummert · talk 11:42, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
CMummert, you say, "in order for the categories to remain useful, everyone has to respect their clear intent". This seems to suggest that Schmucky's action is making some user category less useful? How exactly is that happening? Is he preventing users from being able to find each other? Where's the damage? Are the categories actually prevented from functioning by what Schmucky's doing? As for "user cateogories" not being included under "what is in your userspace" at WP:USER, I could just as easily point out that "other unencyclopedic content" is listed under "what you may not have in your user space". Are any of the categories in question encyclopedic?
I repeat: making rules about what other users can and can't do with user categories is even further removed from our project than using those categories in the first place. Unless you can tell me how these categories benefit the encyclopedia, I'm going to go ahead and not care if Schmucky uses them however he wants to. No harm to the project; no foul. -GTBacchus(talk) 19:15, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
I think that "not encyclopedic" is a common argument in deletion debates about these categories (from scanning UCFD in the last two days), so my guess is that the categories are "encyclopedic" under whatever the prevailing meaning of that term is at UCFD. I think the standard argument is that the categories benefit the encyclopedia by encouraging collaboration.
Yes, Schmucky's userpage being listed in categories where it doesn't belong makes them less useful. The opinion "I can do whatever I like with user categories", if left unchecked, would lead to them being useless for their purpose of categorization. Moreover, there was a unanimous UCFD decision that agreed to remove all user pages from the category in question, and acting against consensus is disruptive by defintion. CMummert · talk 20:20, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Consensus only derives its authority from its support to the encyclopedia. Wikipedia is not an exercise in consensus governance. I'm aware of the line that categorizing users by religion encourages collaboration, but it's nonsense. WikiProjects encourage collaboration; user categories encourage identification of oneself along partisan lines. That's why one's called a "project" and the other's called a "category".
Finally, if the prevailing attitude in UCFD is that these categories are "encyclopedic", that's a pretty good indication of how far the walled garden of UCFD is from the reality of Wikipedia. -GTBacchus(talk) 21:11, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
I missed one point - you make a slippery slope argument, that such category abuse left unchecked will lead to rampant abuse, and a decline in so-called usfulness. I see no evidence of that. I think most people who use user categories use them to categorize themselves because they enjoy categorizing themselves. The proportion of people using them to make little jokes is going to be negligible; at least, that's what my impressions of Wikipedia's demographic tell me. -GTBacchus(talk) 21:18, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
(unindenting a bit) To GTBacchus: Yes, it's worth arguing over. My issue is a single tree in a big forest. The forest is that a small minority of editors is attempting to lord authority over hundreds of others, mostly based on WP:IDONTLIKEIT. That is a a serious problem. It is the exact opposite of consensus and drives away users. It's anti-wiki, power for the sake of having power.
To CMummert, this is based on this last entry of yours, and one above a bit. WP:UCFD was driven out of WP:CFD because the users that cared about mainspace were sick of it, not because it has consensus to perform the actions they are doing now. It was created out of spite to get the UCFD busy-bodies out of the serious work of mainspace category discussion. A guideline was proposed, Wikipedia:Guidelines for user categories, which now has the red X for rejected, as it never gained any consensus.
User categories being in [[:Category:]] is a red-herring. User categories were driven out of CfD because they are fundamentally different than mainspace categories. User categories won't be in Wikipedia 1.0, hardcopy versions of Wikipedia, or CD/DVD versions. They do not appear on articles, and they are entirely separate tree of categories from articles. They only exist to serve users, however users see fit. SchmuckyTheCat 16:53, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Schmucky, you suggest that users exercising arbitrary power over others in user categories drives away users... I guess I can see that, but I'm not sure I really care about users who think that it's appropriate to spend their time on Wikipedia messing around with unencyclopedic user categories in the first place. Direct question: how do these benefit the encyclopedia? -GTBacchus(talk) 19:15, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Amended, per the rudeness of my earlier statement. Schmucky, I'm sorry; that was inappropriate, what I said. I know you to be a good Wikipedian, and I certainly do care whether or not you are able to enjoy your experience here. Please accept my retraction. -GTBacchus(talk) 22:19, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

GTBacchus, I think you'll find that many of our best contributors use these unencyclopedic user categories. I'm not going to tell you who to look for, but think of some of the editors you consider top-notch contributors here and go look at the bottoms of their user pages. If you're going to propose the elimination of all user categories in one fell swoop, that's a fair discussion to have (I would oppose it, but it would be fair). But as it is currently, all these decisions seem arbitrary, and arbitrary feels unfair, and unfair drives away otherwise good editors, newbies and regulars alike. Everyone who's used Wikipedia for more than a month has seen User:Can't sleep, clown will eat me. That user is in Category:Wikipedians who fear clowns. Anyone looking at CSCWEM's userpage realizes that it's okay to use unencyclopedic user categories. But then their Category:Drug-free Wikipedians or Category:Fishless Wikipedians are suddenly and inexplicably deleted and removed from their userpage. It's unfair, and continually upsetting since no one is informed ahead of time that they need to give arguments for keeping the categories they reside in.

But! The real problem lies in the logical fallacy you've presented with "I'm not sure I really care about users who think that it's appropriate to spend their time on Wikipedia messing around with unencyclopedic user categories in the first place." This supposes that there are two non-intersecting kinds of Wikipedians: those who build the encyclopedia, and those who use unencyclopedic user categories. The fact is that there is a nearly 100% overlap. I have threatened to block users who edit only their userpages and do not contribute to the encyclopedia, and I will follow through on that threat if it's ever necessary. But otherwise productive users are not obliged to spend all of their time here in the mainspace. If a handful of "clever" or "cute" user categories boosts someone's enjoyment and morale, then what's the harm in it? If it makes them want to come back to Wikipedia, then they make more encyclopedic contributions and we all benefit. (Workplace studies show this is true, which is why employees are allowed to decorate their offices and cubicles.)

It's not just a neoliberal economic dictum: when you micromanage what people should and should not do to achieve their goals, you very often end up retarding their potential to work toward those goals. We can always get rid of blatantly offensive user categories by speedy deletion and those concerns can always be raised at ANI like they are for Nazi flags flying over the state of Israel. Outright disruption does inhibit the encyclopedia. But aside from polemic, it's very hard to know whether a particular category benefits the encyclopedia or not. Whenever possible, we should assume good faith on the part of the invisible hand, and be laissez-faire about this sort of thing. Your, or UCFD's, micromanaging judgments about what is and is not beneficial are as likely as not to be wrong, and often, unnecessarily stripping away a bit of fun is most certainly detrimental to the encyclopedia. Are we paid to be here? I'm not. I'm a volunteer. I'd rather not work in a barren cubicle. From time to time I'd like to have a giant picture of Jefferson on my user page and I normally categorize my page in Category:Wikipedians who love cats. Silly? Yep. Unencyclopedic? Sure. But a lot of people seem to think that I'm doing good work here anyway. So let's not pretend that we shouldn't care about editors who are using unencyclopedic user categories. Nobody is only doing that, and if they are, I'll personally block them. For the rest of us, live and let live. Otherwise you might as well blank all userpages or insist that they only carry quicklinks to policy pages and the new issue of the Signpost. coelacan — 21:55, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Lest that last paragraph imply that you really only care about Wikipedians who don't use user categories, I do realize you weren't exactly saying that. Sorry if I'm flagrantly off-target there. coelacan — 22:07, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Coelacan, you're right to call me out on my careless statement about not caring whether contributors are driven away. That was unfair, as you explain, and intemperate, and furthermore, it's not what I really think. Thanks for making sure I noticed my error.
Regarding your point, though, I'm not micromanaging anything. I'm not doing anything. I'm one person, stating opinions. I'm certainly not going to block anybody, or use any of my buttons to enforce my opinions that I know aren't shared by a consensus. However, I'm going to state my opinions aloud, because I have to do what I think is best for Wikipedia.
I'm not suggesting that people not be allowed to have user categories, or that they all be deleted without community consent. I would be happy if we voluntartily gave up certain of them, which are damaging, but "users who fear clowns" and "users who love cats" aren't divisive. (Unless perhaps you're a clown, or a mouse...)
As for your "live and let live" argument, you'll note that I'm arguing for precisely the same thing. I'm just pointing out that the unencyclopedic nature of certain user categories is precisely why no other user has authority to dictate how they're used. I don't have that authority, and neither does UCFD. I'm sorry if I was unclear on that point. -GTBacchus(talk) 22:19, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
By the way, if you think I would want userpages to be blank and without creative content, then I really misrepresented myself. The best user pages I've seen here are extremely creative, interesting, expressive, full of personality... and yet, lacking anything that would be taken as flag-waving for some political or religious faction. That's the only thing I've got against the category we're currently talking about. -GTBacchus(talk) 22:28, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

User:131.215.220.112 and User:Michaelbusch and Teslascope[edit]

  • Me and User:Michaelbusch (a graduate at Cal Tech University ... this info becomes useful below) have had our debates over Topics in ufology , and I had previously had added Teslascope to the Topics in ufology which was later removed by User:Michaelbusch here [31] ... the problem is that after the Teslascope link was removed from Topics in ufology, the Teslascope article was deleted very quickly and I didnt even get a change to actually re-write and add citation to the article which someone else had previously written ... so I re-wrote the article and added good citation (including a classic 1931 Time magazine citation and a more specific Scientific American citation with the actual page number and what was actually said ... not what the previous writer of the article seems to have partially made up) ... after republishing the Teslascope article it was resubmitted for deletion because it had been deleted in the past, and the deletion request was submitted by User:131.215.220.112 (which is a Cal Tech School IP) and I instantly saw there may be a connection between User:131.215.220.112 and User:Michaelbusch and I am very saddned because it seems my re-write of the article was just ignored and it was requested for deletion without any reasoning... I thought I should report it because it felt "fishy" if you catch my drift on this one? (:O) -Nima Baghaei talk · cont · email 20:51, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
I can't speak for Michaelbusch, but the complaining editor Nima Baghaei is currently at Way-More-Than-3RR on Topics in ufology [32]. Gavia immer (talk) 15:53, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Yanksrule80[edit]

Resolved: Killed 'em—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 08:34, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Yanksrule80 (talk · contribs) is uploading several images of himself which he is properly releasing to PD, but then is using the images in several articles which are only tangentially related to the subject of the image. Is his activity proper, or is this verging on vanity? Corvus cornix 23:25, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't hurt anything where there aren't images, but it does when he replaces valid images with his own, and some are just out of place. SchmuckyTheCat 23:33, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
The images, after a brief review aren't him, unless he's a shapeshifter, going from a stocky, scruffy brunette to an anorexic much younger blonde, and so on. This guy probably lifted half a dozen MySpace images of his friends, and is posting them. The netire load should be speedied for privacy and copyright reasons ASAP. Probably should also ban the user too. ThuranX 00:17, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Nom'd them for normal deletion, would prefer admin act to speedy them? ThuranX 01:36, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Recommended response to possible joke about the Virginia massacre[edit]

The only edit from 75.8.60.237 (talkcontribsWHOISRDNSRBLsblock userblock log) was to state that the incident was "awesome". While this may be simply juvenile humor in poor taste, Wikipedia could look very bad if this turned out to be something. The IP addresses traces back to Green Bay, Wisconsin. Does anyone think we shoud alert the police there? JoshuaZ 02:49, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

No, why would we? Even if they said "I'm going to do this too!" I wouldn't think we should do it. Think how easily we would be disrupted if that could happen. Prodego talk 02:51, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Concur. Vandalism is vandalism. We get people writing "kill all niggers" on the nigger article on a regular basis, that seems as disturbing to me as this example. Issue the standard warning. Rockpocket 02:54, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Apply common sense liberally here. Lots of anonymous nitwits come here to stir the pot and see what boils. Barring specificity (a location, a plan of attack, a manifesto or screed mentioning names or places, and so on), assume it's another moron, revert and warn as per 'I hate XYZ' idiots of all sorts. ThuranX 03:20, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
We are not the GDI. Wikipedia gets countless vandalism on a daily basis. If we were to alert the police per every case of vandalism things would turn ugly pretty fast. -- Cat chi? 03:45, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Alert the police? For what crime? Having no taste? --Golbez 08:47, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

It's worth noting that in Wictionary the first and formal-language meaning of "awesome" is "causing awe or terror". Thus, "Causing terror" is the simple and literal meaning of the term in formal (if now arguably slightly archaic) English. One might as well call the police if the editor used the adjective "terrorist". "Remarkable", "causing excitement", etc. comprise the second meaning of awesome listed in Wictionary -- a meaning that in some dictionaries is still considered slang. If our policies require a "formal" tone, we are obligated to consider the formal as well as the colloquial meanings of words. Best, --Shirahadasha 19:56, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Comment: Alright, saw the rest of this IP's "contributions", it's a vandal all right. Best, --Shirahadasha 20:29, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Of course it is a stupid vandal but Awesome does mean scary, terrifying, bewildering, frightening which of those adjectives does not describe this tragedy? In my view, If there is bad taste here it is having a page so soon on this subject while emotions are so poignant - at least let the dead be buried and a decent interval elapse. This is an encyclopedia not a news program. Giano 20:34, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Artaxiad[edit]

User has been creating even more sockpuppets. As of this post two waves of sockpuppets have been confirmed and blocked. I have already requested clarification on the matter by arbcom but in the mean time was wondering if measures can be taken to minimize disruption - whatever these measures may be... -- Cat chi? 03:40, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

What is about your socks. You should check this realty too. --Bohater 12:02, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Trust me, if I had sockpuppets, I would know about them. I find your overall attitude disruptive. -- Cat chi? 20:17, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Bohater[edit]

Stalking and disturbing the Cat in all the areas of en:wiki and also in common. One evidence is at above section.Must.T C 13:25, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

MyWikiBiz style PR accounts need blocking[edit]

Please block Century1901 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) and Centurypr (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) and delete all their contribs. Their contributions have been nothing but blatant spamvertising for various people. They have admitted to being a PR company, see here. This sort of behaviour is completely unacceptable. MER-C 03:54, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Also see [33] - Alison 03:59, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Blocked both; not quite sure what should be deleted, though.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 04:02, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
      • I speedied both of the articles under G11, as they were both severely POV astroturfing efforts. For example, the first line from Howard Fine: "Howard Fine is one of the most sought after acting coaches in the entertainment industry". Q.E.D. // Sean William 04:04, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Here is another resumearticle that needs attention: Carter Oosterhouse. Anynobody 04:51, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
This is what it looked like when I found it: resume. I don't think it should be deleted, but the version I cited violates Verifiability (saying stuff like "always excelled at sports" is hard to prove), Reliable sources (The stuff that was cited came from his website) and was written by a paid representative of a pr company which itself is also several violations. Ryūlóng (竜龍) did the right thing. Anynobody 01:36, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

User:B.Soto and Rob Liefeld and WP:POINT[edit]

User:B.Soto was blocked yesterday for 3RR on Rob Liefeld, specifically for introducing the phrase "most hated man in comics" into the lead, without any kind of real citation, and without edit summaries. His reverts here (rv my edit), here (209.214.97.66's edit), and here (User:Mordicai's edit). And he continually deleted {{fact}} tags put on the statement in an attempt at a compromise. While he was blocked he removed the live block notice from his user page once, and then did it again after an admin specifically warned him not to.

Okay, so that's yesterday's news. But as soon as his block is over, he immediately reverts the article again, replaces the POV language, and leaves a deliberately misleading edit summary, saying "Cited valid source for the original lead-in version", when no source has been cited at all, valid or otherwise. So my question is this...do I (and the other editors on the article) just continue to revert this down? Continually edit-warring him into 3RR does not seem a terribly healthy or productive way to maintain an article. I am requesting a further block of this user. Ford MF 06:18, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Blocked 48h for gaming the system and repeatedly violating BLP, let us know if this continues. --Golbez 08:46, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
His additions aren't deliberately disruptive, but they violate the attribution and neutral point of view policies solely due to the manner they are added in — I've given a message on the talk page further explaining this. Michaelas10 09:03, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
I would agree that they aren't deliberately disruptive - if he wasn't using false edit summaries. --Golbez 09:24, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
I'd assume good faith when saying he did cite his sources on the talk page and probably wasn't aware of properly citing them inside the article itself. A protection would be a better solution here than a block, to allow him discuss his (rather valid) changes. Michaelas10 09:36, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Well now he has a few hours to read WP:CITE. I will not object if others want to unblock him, but hopping right back in to the reverting as his first edit when getting back from 3RR? No, sorry, not good form. I am assuming good faith - I'm assuming he's horribly ignorant of our standards and pracices. He has another 46 hours to learn them before my block expires. --Golbez 11:50, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm shortening the block to time served. --Golbez 11:58, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

User_talk:JEWSDIDWTC_is_an_invalid_nick_on_Freenode...[edit]

JEWSDIDWTC_is_an_invalid_nick_on_Freenode... (talk - contribs) is indef-blocked but continues to post repeated and egregious WP:NPA vios on his User Talk Page, including (at one point) a "hitlist" on various editors. [34] Seems to be using massive HTML tags in an attempt to make the page so laggy as to be uneditable. User also just today reverted another editor's WP:AfD template on the same page. [35]

I'm entirely uncertain precisely who's domain this falls into or what the options are (since he's already indef-blocked), but it seems to pretty clearly violate Jimbo's directive on WP:NPA vios in User Spaces, to say nothing of the "hitlist" reference... BullzeyeComplaint Dept./Contribs) 09:53, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Page deleted and protected from recreation. - Aksi_great (talk) 09:58, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Nothing to see here, move along. MER-C 10:34, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Disruption[edit]

Makalp (talk · contribs) is still being disruptive after I filed a complaint he needs to abide by the rules. He reverts me with no discussion if I revert him he will revert me automatically so I bring this to admin attention not the first time. The context is not third party nor neutral. [36]. I told the info adder what to do in his talk page and on the articles talk while Makalp just reverts causing edit wars. Ashkani 12:21, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Also here he insists on adding "Terrorism" [37] Ashkani 12:28, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Vandal's move needs reverteing[edit]

New user/vandal Moved artcioel about band to bogus name Andy Mabbett 13:39, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Done. You don't need sysop buttons, which I don't have, just move the article back. Cheers, Moreschi Talk 13:44, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism warnings being changed by vandal[edit]

I noticed ([38]) this and reverted it. The vandal has subsequently reverted me, with an edit summary that I've vandalised his talk page. Admin intervention requested. Furthermore, if my action was inappropriate, I'd be grateful for constructive criticism. --Dweller 13:53, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Well, it's his talkpage and I think any admin will see through this very easily if he starts vandalizing article space again. I say block the next time he vandalizes. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:56, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
He was already indef blocked. I've tagged his user page as such, and protected his talk page so he can't write more nonsense there. Blatant vandalism like this can go to WP:AIV in future (but check the block log first). --kingboyk 13:57, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Ah, good point. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:58, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Whether it's his talkpage or not, nobody is allowed to change other people's Talk page comments to say something the originator didn't intend. Corvus cornix 15:35, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Persistent abuse by IP 64.83.143.13[edit]

Please help with the repeated and persistent abuse from the IP 64.83.143.13! Please see the numerous warnings and previous blocks at User_talk:64.83.143.13. Вasil | talk 15:04, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Threat of violence by IP 82.47.160.142[edit]

Someone with this IP threated to shoot up Niagra Falls here. I think making claims as such goes beyond vandalism. Someone may want to look in to this IP address. —MJCdetroit 15:55, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Ordinary vandalism IMO. We should ignore it. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 16:07, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Possible incoming Colbert-related vandalism; be careful[edit]

See this video. Its funny, but in it he asked that his viewers "make [this poem] into the most famous poem in America!" Watch Samurai song or Samurai Song. I'm not sure whether its notable enough for an article, as it is a real poem, but especially if it is, we need to be careful. —Dark•Shikari[T] 16:30, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

If it gets bad, they can always be salted for a few days. Natalie 19:45, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Message found on Recent changes[edit]

User talk:Crazytales This could be related to recent vandalism. --Savant13 16:34, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Can you be more specific? My Nancy Dre- er, Hardy Boys gene is on vacation today. - CHAIRBOY () 16:52, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Hey, this is pertaining to me. How about dropping a message on my talk page?? Anyway, I posted in an earlier AN/I thread about that user - scroll; up. ~Crazytales 21:37, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Anon-user removing warnings from talk page[edit]

See User talk:85.233.183.210, and [39]. --DrBat 16:59, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

It's still not illegal for people to remove warnings, partially because you can assume that if they remove it, they've read it, so the warning has done it's job. If you want a 'permanent record', use an edit summary that references the problem. There's an argument that if you have to add a new warning, it might be useful to recover the old ones for context, but really, is it worth edit warring about? It just escalates the situation... -- nae'blis 17:03, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Not a big deal. The warnings are in the history and he or she is (within reasonable bounds) free to edit his or her Talk page with great latitude. --ElKevbo 17:04, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

"Demonstration" vandalism?[edit]

User:Tusitala is making "demonstration" edits to Yosemite Sam [40], Lyman Maine [41], and Saint Fina [42] with comments such as "Actually Handicapped people. Temporary change made for demonstration purposes not feasible in sandbox. Please leave until 20 APR 2007, 15:00 EDT. Tusitala.". Earlier change to Yosemite Sam was done anonymously, which I reverted and left a message on the IP talk page; Tusitala has emailed me since making these new edits. I don't believe vandalism for demonstration with the intent to repair is any less vandalism, but would like some admin input. -- JHunterJ 17:16, 20 April 2007