Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive364

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

Noticeboard archives


Heath Ledger possible BLP issues[edit]

Resolved: BLP content dispute, no administrator action necessary. Sandstein (talk) 08:40, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Could someone please check on this thread? It speaks of drug use involving other living people and a minor is also involved so seems problematic at best. Benjiboi 06:12, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

How does this need administrator intervention? Sandstein (talk) 06:44, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Seems to me that it violates BLP but I was hoping someone else with more experience could see if my concern was on target. If it is then removing it would be seen as having a bit more weight coming from an admin. Benjiboi 07:24, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Probably want to report it on the Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard--Hu12 (talk) 07:45, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
I actually brought it over from there as this board is more active. Benjiboi 07:56, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Please limit requests on this board to issues requiring the intervention of administrators in their capacity as such, thanks. Sandstein (talk) 08:40, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Just for the record: Heath Ledger is dead. WP:BLP doesn't apply to dead people.   Zenwhat (talk) 10:40, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Indeed so. The other people mentioned are not, however, dead Mayalld (talk) 10:54, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

OCN ip vandal[edit]

I originally posted it to WP:AIV and heard that RFCU looks a right place. However, I think reporting it is suiting here because RFCU case takes time and mostly ip are not blocked. I have filed several RFCU and SSP files on disruptive and suspicious POV pushers. Some of them are blocked infinitely but I think real puppet master(s) seems active or evade their sanction. The aforementioned IP vandal takes interest in my recent edits and then simply alter information with a hoax link. The mentioned RFCU case, the listed people know well that I'm collecting ODN IP addresses from anonymous users on Japanese and Korean related articles. And then OCN (NTT telecom) and Plala ISP users appears. I need a help to intervene this case. Thanks. --Appletrees (talk) 07:40, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Pure Reason Revolution & User:Justpassinby[edit]

Further to the earlier reports (Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive362#Pure Reason Revolution and Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Justpassinby), there has been further vandalism of Pure Reason Revolution by,[1] which appears to be Justpassinby avoiding a ban. Bondegezou (talk) 12:28, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

User evading block[edit]

Resolved: Both sockpuppets have been indefinitely blocked —Travistalk 18:24, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Hello, User:Sigint746 is really User:Sigint74 evading a block. Also, look at the history of my user page (linked to on my signature.) The editor has been a minor annoyance, but an annoyance nonetheless. Please block. Brusegadi (talk) 17:21, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Looking at your userpage history, there is also an edit by Sigint7465. It appears that Sigint746 has already been blocked, though. —Travistalk 18:16, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
I have taken the liberty of reporting User:Sigint7465 to WP:AIV. —Travistalk 18:20, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Nauticalgalaxty and my talk page[edit]

Resolved: Socks identified and blocked. MastCell Talk 18:38, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh dear, it appears I've annoyed a silly billy.Nauticalgalaxty (talk · contribs) has moved my talk page. This may well have to do with the mirade of users compaling that the made up william trellis ward was fake and which ended up getting users banned. Might an admin check IPs for Nauticalgalaxty (talk · contribs) and Hippytrout (talk · contribs) against TonyMcnam (talk · contribs) and Yoshi525 (talk · contribs)? Thanks. --Blowdart | talk 22:06, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Admins don't have the technical ability to check IPs -- that has to go to request for checkuser. - Revolving Bugbear 22:09, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
(edit conflict) You might want to file a request about this at WP:RFCU. Ioeth (talk contribs friendly) 22:10, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Oh the things you learn; thank you :) --Blowdart | talk 22:14, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Actually, it looks like most of these accounts have been blocked already, except for Yoshi525, who's indefblock I issued was shortened to 8 hours by User:AGK. We'll keep an eye on this user's editing patterns after the block is lifted and determine if reblocking is warranted. Ioeth (talk contribs friendly) 22:16, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

AGK might want to rethink that block.  Confirmed these accounts and more are the same person. The question is, is this someone who could be a good contributor but needs a talking-to first or is this someone who wants to make trouble only. Thatcher 22:21, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, I've seen multiple talk pages of those users with warnings that were blanked, a number of hostile talk page messages, and some highly inappropriate page moves. I think the fact that they're using multiple already autoconfirmed accounts to do all these things points to disruptive editor. Ioeth (talk contribs friendly) 22:24, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
(My point here is that as a checkuser, having commented on the technical evidence, I would rather not also comment on the behavioral evidence, but have someone else look at it and decide whether to give the master account one more chance. I will block the confirmed socks in a little while.) Thatcher 22:29, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Understood. Thank you for the technical confirmation, Thatcher. I have acted on the new information here. Ioeth (talk contribs friendly) 23:02, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

(reduce indent) As a brief response to Thatcher, I reduced that block solely on consideration of the user's unblock-request statement, and the circumstances surrounding the block, and in particular the fact that he had refrained from further ill-behaviour after the final warning was issued. I was not aware of any sock puppetry, although that angle was opened after I handled the request, and made the block reduction without any knowledge of such behaviour. I generally do not make a point of unblocking repeat sock puppeteers, is what I am trying to say :) Anthøny 17:53, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Obviously I did not mean to imply that, rather, "in light of new information..." Thatcher 18:39, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

MOWA Band of Choctaw Indians[edit]

The edit war continues - [2] Corvus cornixtalk 23:38, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

someone neds to something about this. it's clearly a disruptive and contentions article. Perhapst he best solution would be for the article tobe palced on probation similar to that of Homeopathy. Smith Jones (talk) 00:10, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Despite the grandiose suggestions by Smith Jones, I merely semi-protected it for three days. We are far far far far far (add a far here) away from homeopathizing this article. Keeper | 76 00:15, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
okay fine but if a continuous edit war breaks tout again after the semi-protection expires it wont be on my head sir. Smith Jones (talk) 00:16, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Don't inject drama where drama does not exist, Smith Jones. Haven't you been warned about this in the past? Keeper | 76 00:18, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
where did i iunsert drama? it is obvious that semi-protection wont stop an edit war; it rarely does in sitautions like this involving editors who have been here for long and over conflicts that are unliekly to be resolved in 3-days. perhaps my solution was extreme for this situation but that is hardly the same thing was injecting drama. Smith Jones (talk) 00:39, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
The edit warriors are established editors, semi protection won't stop them from continuing their war. Corvus cornixtalk 00:20, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree, upon second glance. Any other admin to support a full protection and/or an article ban? Keeper | 76 00:33, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Would anybody support a short article ban for Verklempt (talk · contribs) and Uuu987 (talk · contribs)? I suggested to Verklempt that he start an RfC, but it appears that he hasn't gone that route. Corvus cornixtalk 00:34, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

it makes better sense than semi-protecting the article, which wont stop established users from just continuing they're edit war. Smith Jones (talk) 00:39, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm UNmarking this resolved, becaues until admins inform the users of the ban, it's not resolved, and that's assuming that all discussion is really finished here. I'd support the topic ban for a period of two weeks (I think, given the high level of editing, one week is too short) OR until an RfC is started, whichever comes first. If the editors choose to rev their engines on the starting line for two weeks, we can apply spike strips in two weeks and a day, and assign one year liberal topic bans, or whatever. ThuranX (talk) 06:59, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I would like to find a way to resolve this and I have tried to find a way to resolve this before but user Verklempt seems to be unhappy with anything short of full deletion of everything that I have added to the article. He seems to have a pattern of long term edit wars with other users on articles that pertain to race somehow. He has edited many different articles such as, an article on the Lumbee tribe, Blackface, league of the south, etc. and I have questioned what his motivation in trying to censor pertinent information dealing with the subjects. Also, in this specific article he seems dead set on including that the MOWA's are Cajuns and in the area where the MOWA are located Cajun is used interchangeably with Nigger and I dont think that Wikipedia's purpose is to spread inaccurate incomplete info and propogate racial epithets and stereotypes.Uuu987 (talk) 16:44, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Ad hominem is unproductive. The established procedure is to propose changes to the article on the talk page. I will continue to delete unsourced edits, per WP:RS.Verklempt (talk) 20:49, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Does that mean you can fully source your assertions regarding the vocabularies of the area? If not, I think you'd have to be uniform in your application of policy. ThuranX (talk) 21:05, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Do you mean the fact that these people used to be called "Cajuns"? That's already sourced to two different scholarly publications, and has been ever since I first created the article.Verklempt (talk) 22:18, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
No, actually, I meant that "cajun" and "nigger" mean the same thing in that region, that MOWA are Cajun, not native americans, and that the MOWA are, by extension, "niggers", to complete the probably offensive logical synthesis you're trying to get into the article. (and a strange synthesis it is, since my understanding is that Cajuns are pretty much Acadians. ThuranX (talk) 00:40, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
It is a fact that this group used to be called "Cajuns", and this is sourced to scholarly journal publications. It needs to stay in the article because that is the group's historical name. Readers may search on the name trying to find the Wikipedia article for this group. "Cajun" may be considered a pejorative term in that region today, and if that can be substantiated, then it should go in the article. It is not sufficient reason to censor history, however. I object to your accusation that I am trying to "inject" an offensive synthesis into the article. It's clear that you are not familiar with this group's history, nor have you even bothered to read the scholarly pubs I cited. One of my pet peeves with Wikipedia is editors who form strong opinions on topics they know little about.Verklempt (talk) 21:23, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Im sure I can find you many racist studies that refer to african americans as niggers but we should not be posting it as fact on wikipedia and if we do we must clarify that this is a stereotype propagated by racists. I havent had time to work on the specific semantics and technicalities of my article. But as I am a wikipedia novice I would appreciate a small amount of assistance on cleaning up the article so if the specific grievances with the article can be cited I wll address the problem. Also verklempt what is your specific interest in whitewashing the research that seems to conflict the articles that you added specifically regarding numerous racial issues? I think this question is pertinent to the discussion because you have a pattern of censoring views that conflict yours by bringing up technical issues with the content. Uuu987 (talk) 23:14, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

First, please stop the ad hominem. Second, my objection is to the article's uncritical replication of the current group's origins mythology without also addressing the scholarly work that penetrates the self-interested POV of the group's own propaganda.Verklempt (talk) 21:26, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

This has gone on long enough[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Resolved: no one seriously thinks this is a sockpuppet issue, and the other issue has been moved to the article talk page. No more to see here... 04:41, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Krymson made a very POV edit at Woodrow Wilson, which I reverted. Then User:Bentheadvocate restored the edit about an hour later. Earlier today I added tags to the biased statements when it appeared as though it was more than one editor who supported the additions. A few minutes ago User:Bentheadvocate left a post on my talk page explaining the edit to Woodrow Wilson and then two minutes later User:Krymson removed the tag and added an even more biased statement. It is pretty obvious that this is the same user and I think its time this ends.--STX 04:33, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I have reverted the edits as unsourced, and started a talk-page thread, which is what SHOULD have been done before coming straight to ANI. I would agree that the edits need specific references before being readded, but at least INVITE the editors to the talk page to discuss civily before making sockpuppetry accusations and other demands on admins. 04:48, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
I disagree. If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's probably a duck. This is just basic trolling by a sockpuppet, which can all go away with a simple block.--STX 04:56, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
But I haven't heard any quacking yet... 04:58, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
I heard it on my talk page. The "editors" have the same writing style. I'm not saying both should be blocked, just the sockpuppet.--STX 05:02, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Krymson hasn't even edited your talk page (at least, not in months if he did).
Even if these two have a similar voice, one account dates back 4 years, the other one is about a month old, and appear to have widely differing article edit patterns and interests other that Woodrow Wilson.
There is no duck here; the pond lies silent. Please remember WP:CIVIL and talk to these two people directly about your disagreement on the article. Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 05:09, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Do you have any proof that this is not just two different people who happen to agree with each other? That does happen, you know? 05:10, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
The proximity of the edits and style of writing makes me feel otherwise. I don't have time to file a checkuser and go through all that mess, hopefully the master will just admit what he did but I doubt it. I'm finished editing for the day.--STX 05:17, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Not only is there no proof that they're the same, short of a checkuser, which STX isn't willing to do; but they're not really wrong either. Wilson's behaviors towards race are well documented in the article, and this comes off like a content dispute, and should be taken to the talk page, where the need or not of that part of his life to be in the lead can be discussed, and what level of posthumous lionization is acceptable. ThuranX (talk) 05:21, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Looks like a content dispute to me. Wilson definitely was racist by the standards we apply today (and, to some extent, even by the standards of his own era). It shouldn't be hard to find multiple reliable sources saying this. Whether it belongs in the lead is a content question, not a conduct issue. *** Crotalus *** 05:29, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't think I'm a sockpuppet. ʟʘʟ. BETA 15:49, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I was actually already looking at this dispute. I was reading through ANi last night trying to catch up on stuff that has been happening while I've been away/semi-away and via the suicide note threads, I ended up on User:Bentheadvocate's talk page where I noticed a post from User:Southern Texas telling Ben off for "opening up the possibility for future edit wars" and so out of curiosity I followed the links. Basically, I agree with Thuran and Crotalus this is a content dispute and the involved editors need to find a reliable source and nut it out on the article's talk page. Furthermore, I've given User:Southern Texas a warning about misusing rollback.

  • Krymson added the line, "Wilson was a strong proponent of Segregation, and held controversial views on blacks."
  • Southern Texas reverts manually with the edit summary, "do not open that can of worms" [3]
  • Bentheadvocate restores the line with the edit summary "We're concerned with truth here, not protecting the faint of heart. Besides, he's not living now."
  • Southern Texas then reverted Ben with use of the rollback tool. [4]

I think this is an inappropriate use of rollback and the 'rollbackers' need to be careful not to use the tool in content disputes or on edits made in good faith. Sarah 18:02, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely NOT a place for Rollback tools, but for the talk page. If this isn't addressed as a content issue on the talk page, I'd support a week long block on STX for abuse of tools and refusal to follow procedure vis-a-vis consensus. This is a clear cut content dispute, and use of buttons to win is 100% wrong. I'll be there later for my own two cents. ThuranX (talk) 21:08, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
This really wasn't the reaction I was expecting. I thought this was a case of clear cut sockpuppetry. I meant to press "undo" but I accidentally pressed rollback, it was an honest mistake. I am sorry for wasting everybody's time.--STX 00:37, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Response to allegations of sockpuppetry[edit]

At first, I couldn't find a way to disprove these allegations, but I was flipping through my preferences, and I found something that let me see the server time for edits, to the second.

server times for one of my edits, and for one of Krimson's:

2008-02-05T05:35:24 krimson's edit to Woodrow Wilson
2008-02-05T05:35:32 My edit to book of genesis

If we were sockpuppets, I would have to log off immediately, log back on as beta, jump to book of genesis, click the edit this page button, find my place in the article, delete theoretical, add storied, then write "maybe this will work better", and save the page, all in only 8 seconds. That's highly unlikely. BETA 04:34, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

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

User talk:Orderinchaos#roxbo_and_duggy[edit]

Can someone please review this section and decide what to do re Duggy 1138 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)? He has been edit warring on a user talk page (User talk:Timeshift9) with the owner of said talk page on several occasions over the past three months, following on from a dispute the two users had in late November. Tonight I gave him a warning for his behaviour, and the result has been semantic games, accusations and personal attacks. Some of his comments on my talk page suggest that he is gaming the system, and I feel that admin action is required but as an involved party I am not in the position to make that call. I should note in this that I am not the party being harassed, my talk page merely seems to have become a venue for the discussion. Orderinchaos 13:08, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

An update - protection has become necessary as the guy will not cease no matter what I do. It's at times like this that the COI provisions of WP:BLOCK seem to be an impediment to the project at times. Orderinchaos 13:39, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
I've warned Duggy 1138 for the edits to the archived discussion. I can't work my way through the rest of it clearly enough to see the wood from the trees, so if other admins want to step in, I don't mind. Hiding T 14:22, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
I made a mistake and didn't realise that the discussion was archived until after I made the change. When I realised, I apologised and acknowledged that you could remove it. What more do you want?
Duggy 1138 (talk) 06:00, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

User talk:Squeakbox - block after resolved?[edit]

Enough already, who cares why Squeakbox wants User:Squeakbox deleted? Just delete it and done, it's his page. As long as the history of User talk:Squeakbox is easy for any non-admin to find and review for Dispute Resolution, why is this turning into a massive issue? Lawrence § t/e 16:29, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

This was just closed prematurely and I reopened it. If this guy wants to dump his user page, more power to him, for whatever reason. Anyone restoring a user page that was deleted at a user's request is out of line. If I ask for my page to go for threats, personal reasons, or because I like daisies today, it's gone, its my decision alone. There is still however a big problem here--the history on User talk:Squeakbox is completely botched from all the moves and deletions. Can we please get this fixed? This entire mess will then be done, unless someone disruptively restores his userpage again. Lawrence § t/e 16:36, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, I asked Squeak here on his talk page and he says he is not doing a Right To Vanish. Once his user talk page history is fixed this can all be resolved. Does it require an admin to fix it? A history merge? Lawrence § t/e 17:06, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Um, possibly, but there's potentially edits that were previously deleted that should stay deleted, and someone more familiar with Squeakbox's talk page should do it. As an aside, if anyone wants their user page deleted for whatever reason or for no reason at all and a {{db-userreq}} gets refused, then drop a message on my talk page or email and I'll do it as soon as I pick it up. Neıl 17:44, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Userspace pages are still community pages. If a user has questionable edits in their history and to delete those edits could be considered by some as "covering their tracks" or "hiding the evidence", then there should be some further consideration in these cases before clicking the delete button. Particularly if said user has a history of such attempts to hide past behaviors. LaraLove 18:43, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
There is a most compelling interest situation here - the community has some interest in seeing edit history retained, but in this case it has to be balanced against the risk attached to not deleting the page when the user is the subject of death threats. Protecting users from harm based on Wikipedia editing is a far more compelling interest than keeping some userpage edits. The page (in practically every revision) has personally identifying information (age, location, photographs etc.). Since no one has said "This edit is bad, and we shouldn't erase it" then there is no reason not to. The question now is - will someone just fix the talk page? If you were speaking generally, and not about the Squeakbox situation, then I would argue that db-userreq's should be granted first and reviewed later if necessary. Denying a request would, in my mind, require proof that granting it harms the encyclopedia. Avruchtalk 19:42, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
The deletion of the user page isn't the question here though. If there is offensive material we can delete or Oversight those revisions. Theres no reason to blow away 2+ years of talk page history. That's what is broken and needs fixing. Lawrence § t/e 19:45, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm still confused. Are we talking about his user page or his talk page? Even this very thread seems to be jumping between the one and the other. Fut.Perf. 21:33, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
I know, it's confusing. User:Squeakbox is fine, he wanted it deleted, and it's gone for good. It now lives as a new redirect. The history on User talk:Squeakbox however is gone, and that's the mess. The talk page history needs restoring. He mentioned on his talk page today that he has no problem with that. Lawrence § t/e 21:41, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Talk page! Argh! ;-) Avruchtalk 21:44, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
When I checked yesterday the talk page is not deleted, only archived. — Carl (CBM · talk) 22:02, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Its true that there is an archive of the talkpage - but the archive has the history, not the talk page. The history of the talk page is only 2 days long. Avruchtalk 22:11, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with that, as long as the history exists somewhere. Better than those talk pages that crash the 'pedia when we have to delete an edit, anyway. Guy (Help!) 23:13, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
I think we should let SqueakBox do what he wants with his pages, because current accepted practice is very unclear, then we should clarify what's acceptable at Wikipedia:Right to vanish. We should include a section about when people simply want to remove information but don't actually want to vanish, and start applying the guideline right across the board. At the moment, some people are allowed to vanish quietly (or vanish, sort of, and re-emerge with clean talk pages or a new name), while with others there's a giant fuss, which is unfair. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 23:19, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Slim, Guy, the issue with his user page is resolved--he wanted the old one and history removed, and it's gone. The only future problem there is if an admin restores it again like Swatjester did before, which would be out of line. The only remaining problem is his user talk history. I asked Squeak if he was going Right To Vanish, and he said he was not, here. He wrote:

"I am happy to see the talk page history restored or to move my archive to correspond with it, its only my user history not my talk history I wish to see removed from wikipedia, so can we please resolve this issue amicably"

That's all that is left, is to fix his talk page history that got completely mixed up from a series of moves, deletions, and restores. Its just a history merge admin housekeeping task now. And I agree with you, SlimVirgin. Anyone asking for their user page to be nuked should for any reason get that done immediately. User talk, not so much. Lawrence § t/e 23:26, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Talk page history seems to be associated with User_talk:SqueakBox/Archivehistory, going back to late 2005. Issue a Wikitrout (or perhaps a small whale) for disruption because this kerfuffle has occupied the time and attention of waaaaay too many people and, intentionally or not, utterly confused the record of what history is where. SqueakBox really should know better after being around for at least two and a half years. Pairadox (talk) 23:34, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Thats the one, so it just needs a history merge from User talk:SqueakBox/Archivehistory to -> User talk:SqueakBox and this whole thing is done. Right? Lawrence § t/e 23:40, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Why? There's absolutely no need. The history exists somewhere, and insisting on a merge is a pointless waste of resources and effort. Guy (Help!) 23:54, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
I think what JzG is alluding to, Lawrence, is that it is somewhat-acceptable practise to archive a talk page by moving it to a subpage. See WP:ARCHIVE#Move_procedure for some more detail. --Iamunknown 23:56, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
OK, I didn't know you could do that acceptably for talk histories. Seems fairly stupid, as it forks histories, and could allow for people to hide things with enough moves. And I'm used to bots just shuffling them around. My suggestion for that was to just bring everything back to the way it was before Squeakbox and Swatjester broke all the histories with moves and unacceptable restorations. Lawrence § t/e 00:03, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes, it forks histories. On the other hand, it also keeps histories short, which works well for heavily-trafficked pages that may need the occasional edit deleting, for example if an editor has been subject to a degree of harassment. It's no big deal either way, in my opinion. Guy (Help!) 18:41, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and would an admin mind reviewing User:Raving Nutter, who joined Wikipedia to offer commentary on Squeak's privacy concerns? Lawrence § t/e 23:42, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Was Squeakbox's blocking yesterday discussed in this thread anywhere and I'm just missing it? Since when do RtV people get blocked? Why would the mismatch of talkpage history necessitate a block? Even Swatjester didn't block him... Avruchtalk 15:24, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

  • That was a particularly bad idea, but I see Arthur thoguht better of it after a fairly short while. Guy (Help!) 18:43, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
    • As far as I can tell, SqueakBox isn't an RtV person; He only said he was when requesting deletion. His intent was to stay. --SSBohio 19:43, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Which would seem to be irrelevant based on the blocking reason. Avruchtalk 22:52, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

On a related note, would anybody care to mention to him the problems inherent in having an archive that is 1,074,894 bytes in size? Pairadox (talk) 23:15, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Well [perhaps just tell this troll to back off [5] [6]. I do not apreciate being trolled. Thanks, SqueakBox 00:14, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Other than the unfortunate {{trout}}, Pairadox's description of what you said & how it differs from what you intended is pretty accurate. Really, I feel worse for the trout than anyone else involved. Catch and release is my motto. :-) --SSBohio 00:30, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
The real problem here appears to me to be that some users immediately assumed, and continue to assume, bad faith. If folks had calmly asked Squeakbox what was wrong and how could they help there never would have been a problem here. And applying a "Trout" to a user is one thing, but posting it a second time is uncivil. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:26, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
No assumption of bad faith at all - I find the entire situation amusing, actually. And I didn't post it a "second time," I simply moved the trout that Squeak gave me from my page back to Squeak's per my BIG ORANGE BANNER. It wasn't the same trout at all. :) Pairadox (talk) 00:32, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Are trout spawning on your talk page, Pairadox? :-) Seriously though, Will, if you'd check the talk page history (wherever it is today...) you'll find that I asked SqueakBox twice what he was doing. All I got was a (rather mild) telling off. The assumption of good faith doesn't require that it be carried on in the face of evidence to the contrary. The claim of WP:VANISH was false. Squeak had previously taken part in deletions that removed problematic edits of his, and it was reasonable to be concerned with what he actually intended, as it was at odds with what he told the deleting admin. --SSBohio 00:48, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
If you'd read the message that Squeakbox had already posted then you wouldn't have had to ask the question which was already answered. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:03, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Echoing your tone, if you'd read the edit history, you'd see that I asked my question in response to Squeak's post. A brief history: He made his statement. I asked my question. He deleted it. He told me off on my talkpage. Inconvenient facts, but facts nonetheless. --SSBohio 01:39, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Of course, it is rather disappointing to see that Squeak apparently has carte blanche to refer to other editors as trolls and assume bad faith without consequence. Pairadox (talk) 00:50, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Stirring up trouble is a definition of trolling. Most of this issue appears to have been the result of people stirring the pot rather than seeking resolution. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:03, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
That is your justification for harassing me, looks to me exactly like trolling, is harassment for the sake of getting a reaction. If you don't wasn't to be called a troll you need to stop trolling, if you want to be seen as acting in good faith you need to act in good faith. But nobody has the right to be treated as a good faith user while acting in a bad faith trolling manner, as you were clearly doing. Thanks, SqueakBox 00:56, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Squeak, you denied trolling when you were making factually untrue statements about me. How is Pairadox's commentary trolling when yours wasn't? A troll deliberately exploits tendencies of human nature or of an online community to upset people. What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. --SSBohio 01:39, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

This thread is a demonstration of favoritism by admins. Hence, again, per standard procedure, could someone please slap {{Discussion top}} and {{Discussion bottom}} templates around it? At the very least, we need an unsigned {{Resolved}} template.

These kinds of user grievances about administrative corruption do not belong on WP:ANI or anywhere else. Also, after this page is archived, I also hope that it is either hidden and\or deleted from the archives permanently, so that nobody else can ever bring this subject up again.   Zenwhat (talk) 01:30, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Corruption? What are you talking about? There's no corruption or favoritisim evidenced here. Any user, even an admin, is allowed to ask to have their user page deleted. It's not a big deal. The disruption seems to have come from folks who wanted to make a federal case out of a routine request. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:34, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Will, how was an untrue statement used to induce an admin to make a deletion any kind of routine request? There is a blind spot here exactly the size and shape of the user in question. It's existed for months. --SSBohio 01:46, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
A) Did you read the link I posted? If you did you'd see that Squeakbox promptly corrects himself regarding the reason for the deletion. B) The reason for the deletion is irrelevent since no reason is needed. C) How does asking him the same question again and again help? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:51, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
A) My reading comprehension is up to scratch. However, you're misrepresenting what happened, particularly the sequence of events.
B) When any user induces an admin under a false pretense, it doesn't matter if they needed to use a false pretense or not. They did, and that falsehood makes whatever rationale is substituted less believable.
C) Your statment is at odds with the facts. I can't make a meaningful response to it for that reason. --SSBohio 05:44, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

WP:TALK: "Do not misrepresent other people: The record should accurately show significant exchanges that took place, and in the right context."

People? What people? There were no people on User talk:Squeakbox before 3 February 2008. Hence, this policy seems to be totally irrelevant. Per WP:TALK, anyone, even if they engage in contentious behavior, has the limitless right to wipe their talkpage history clean. This is how Wikipedia has always been run. You're right, Will.   Zenwhat (talk) 01:37, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Er, no. They can wipe it clean visually, but they can't delete the history of others have contributed significantly. Avruchtalk 01:56, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Ah, the confusion continues unabated... Pairadox (talk) 02:03, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
There's no confusion. That's been the case all along. User pages may be deleted, but user talk pages that have significant contributions from others may not be. There's nothing more to resolve. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:10, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
And there haven't been pages of discussion all over the wiki? Any time action is taken under false pretenses, confusion increases. It's one of the reasons why process is important. And, regardless of who does it, how does keeping the history but obscuring it in an unlinked subpage serve the purpose of having an edit history?
Finally, while I've hardly been heard out on this issue, I've been threatened with blocking if I talk about a particular involved user. As discretion is the better part of valor, I'm refraining from further comment to avoid incurring any more harm, dishonor, or retalliation. --SSBohio 05:44, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Orthodox Judaism[edit]

A series of IP addresses have repeatedly removed a photo, [added: making comments] with strong language on the talk page (See the bottom part of Talk:Orthodox Judaism#Recent photo) including personal attacks on the photographer. The IPs, who have been taking over an existing edit dispute, are claiming they constitute a consensus. I removed the attacks, blocked one of the IPs, and semi-protected Orthodox Judaism. I suspect sockpuppetry to evade the block, and possibly a previously banned editor, but don't have proof or time to look further into the matter today. Could someone take a look? Thanks, --Shirahadasha (talk) 19:24, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

the photograph, of identifiable private individuals who would not ordinarily let themselves be photographed in the circumstances, and which the photographer admits taken with a telephoto lens, is in this use a clear privacy violation. It would be right for any ed to remove it, and wrong to reinsert it without clear consensus. I think it would be covered by the spirit of WP:BLP. I can understand the frustration at having to repeatedly remove it. The language is not all that nasty considering its a WP talk page. You should not have semi-protected the article; you should rather have removed the photograph under BLP and sanctioned anyone trying to reinsert it.DGG (talk) 19:57, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
That's absolutely ridiculous. First, photographing people in public places, especially next to a tourist attraction like the Western Wall (check out that page - have all those people given consents) is not a privacy violation. Second, this IP has been engaged in a series of vile personal attacks that if DGG can identify with this IP's "frustration" then perhaps DGG should not be an admin ([7],[8], [9], [10], [11], [12] et. al.). It's strange that DGG is siding with what amounts to a troll over a photograph that is no different than the multitude of photographs we have on this project of people in public places. Perhaps DGG should actually look into an issue before commenting on it; because clearly the edit summaries of the IP alone on the Talk:Orthodox Judaism page should have clued him in better. --David Shankbone 20:06, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
I'd support month long IP blocks on all IPs making the attacks, since apparently a rangeblock won't work? or would it? I can't figure out IP stuff like that, but since it's all different after the 72, I'm guessing no? and thanks for the link, it added some thoughts on the OJ page about the photo. ThuranX (talk) 21:04, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
The deleted content cited by David Shankbone was not visible on the talk page when DGG commented on it, it had already been deleted. The edit summaries all come from different IP's. Thus, being unknown to DGG, DGG was not speaking of the frustration of a specific editor or what others perceive as one sigle editor, but of any good faith editor who seeks to legitimately remove unwanted content, only to have said content restored over and over. The evidence for trolling is circumstantial -- IP's of such large ranges can carry tens of thousands of persons simultaneously. An attempt to block such a range would be, frankly, laughable. Fortunately DGG's candidacy for anything is not being decided here, moreso that such decisions won't be undertaken by persons seething with anger and teetering on instability. -- (talk) 21:19, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

A suggestion:

  • Delete the photo
  • Re-upload it without any crap about it being taken on shabbat

Problem solved.   Zenwhat (talk) 22:36, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

The issue of whether the photo was taken on Shabbat or not seems to have fizzled out some time ago and been hijacked by general attempts to remove the image altogether. I'm not sure why: taking a photograph of someone in a public space (possibly one of the most public spaces in the world) is not an invasion of privacy. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 23:12, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
I think the discussion involved is legitimate and suggest letting it proceed to its conclusion. Rational people can disagree about matters of privacy vs. free expression and have, both here and on the talk page involved. The purpose of posting here is not ot stop the discussion but to prevent it from being disrupted. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 23:24, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

* Newsflash, kids - As was just clarified on the article talk page, David took the photo on a Friday during the day. I'm pretty sure this clears up a major portion of the problem here (with the possible exception of the woman not wanting her photo taken, which we can't really assume confidently). Avruchtalk 23:44, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, taking and publishing a photo of a private person or persons is a privacy violation, and illegal in many countries (see e.g.: de:Recht am eigenen Bild). This is not a case of some people incidentally in the way while photographing the landscape - the two people are clearly the subject of the images. I'd be very wary of using them without an explicit release from the people pictured. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:51, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
This isn't the German Wikipedia, it's the English Wikipedia. That German law applies to Germans, not to Israelis, or Americans. Germany is also one of the few countries that has such a law. --David Shankbone 23:56, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
please dont bite the newbies. if sure it was just amistake. Smith Jones (talk) 23:58, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Its a beautiful photo in a wonderful setting, why can't we take Zenwhat's suggestion and be done with it?--Hu12 (talk) 00:05, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Smith Jones, Stephan Schulz has been a member of the English Wikipedia since October of 2003. He is not making any sort of "newbie" mistake and no one is "biting" any newbie here.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 00:07, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Indeed, and I'm fairly bite-resistant. Back to the topic at hand. I'm not a specialist in various laws, but our article on model release indicates that even in the US there are privacy concerns with publishing (not taking) a picture of somebody without his or her explicit agreement. And the European Convention on Human Rights establishes a right to privacy in much of Europe. Whether any of this applies to this case is an open question. But it is obvious to me that this is a reasonable position to take. I don't think we should use explicit pictures of non-public figures without their agreement. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 00:38, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
It's a reasonable question, and here is an article in USA Today that will likely answer every basic question you can have about US photography law relevant to the Wikipedia project. Israel's freedom of panorama laws are more liberal than the United States; it includes public artwork! --David Shankbone 03:49, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Suggest that folks wishing to offer an opinion on the merits of the photo dispute do so at Talk:Orthodox Judaism#Recent photo. My purpose in posting here was only to address disruptive behavior. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 01:20, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Over there, there aren't good arguments to remove it, so if you've got one ,go for it. Here, we need to resolve the actions of a bad editor. What are the options? ThuranX (talk) 01:44, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Banned user?[edit]

Please read Talk:Orthodox_Judaism#Wait_a_moment this section. Is this a photo of a banned user? Lawrence § t/e 00:02, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Nevermind, I'm half blind and apparently due to upgrade my eyeglass prescription again. Old age is a terrible thing. Lawrence § t/e 00:16, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Slow-motion edit warring on Wikipedia:Search engine test[edit]

On January 12th, Jonathan de Boyne Pollard made a substantial, undiscussed change to Wikipedia:Search engine test. diff The primary source for these changes was a self-published website he wrote. I partially reverted the change at 21:40, 12 January 2008. He reverted the change with only the log comment "Have the correct information again" - which he would use on every subsequent revert without any further explanation. diff (From here on, the versions of the page are essentially the same; see the edit history for more detail.)

I reverted at 02:30, 14 January 2008 with the comment (rv - To talk.) and initiated a discussion here: Wikipedia_talk:Search_engine_test#Jonathan_de_Boyne_Pollard.27s_revision. Several other editors have replied in agreement that the changes need to be discussed; Pollard has read these, but has not responded on the essay talk page. He has responded only on his talk page (and rather tersely and dismissively). There have not been three reverts in a 24 period, so this is not eligible under WP:3RR, but clearly the same principles apply. Several users including myself and others have asked for discussion on this, and have been totally ignored.

Here is the remainder of the applicable revision history:

  • 12:53, 5 February 2008 Jonathan de Boyne Pollard (Have the correct information, and the links to the scholarship, again.)
  • 12:22, 4 February 2008 TimidGuy (Undid revision 189004026 by Jonathan de Boyne Pollard (talk) Please see Talk page)
  • 11:11, 4 February 2008 Jonathan de Boyne Pollard (Have the correct information, and the links to the scholarship, again.)
  • 18:59, 2 February 2008 JohnInDC (rv per Talk consensus - please comment there before restoring self-published link again)
  • 13:15, 2 February 2008 Jonathan de Boyne Pollard (Have the correct information, and the links to the scholarship, again.)
  • 09:28, 30 January 2008 Torc2 (Talk | contribs) (rv - no consensus for change.)
  • 20:38, 22 January 2008 Jonathan de Boyne Pollard (Have the correct information, and the links to the scholarship, again.)
  • 08:51, 21 January 2008 Torc2 (rv again - I have asked on the user's talk page to discuss this before changing it again.)
  • 03:30, 21 January 2008 Jonathan de Boyne Pollard ((Have the correct information, and the links to the scholarship, again.)
  • 21:47, 18 January 2008 Torc2 ((rv - You going to discuss this on the talk page, or just keep linking to your own website again?)
  • 13:03, 18 January 2008 Jonathan de Boyne Pollard (Have the correct information, and the links to the scholarship, again.)
  • 19:16, 14 January 2008 Torc2 ((rv - This change does not represent consensus. I have asked for discussion before it is added.)
  • 11:13, 14 January 2008 Jonathan de Boyne Pollard (Have the correct information again.)

Torc2 (talk) 19:33, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

FWIW, it's a very good well-informed essay of his, but it can't be used as a RS. Could be an external link. DGG (talk) 19:46, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
I dunno. It jumps from evidence saying Google results can be faulty to 'search engines counts are totally useless and you should never use them ever' a little too easily. I don't know if it would qualify under WP:EL or WP:COI restrictions either. Links directly to the studies he cited seem like they would be acceptable. Torc2 (talk) 20:05, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Corrected. I note also that a good deal of it does not concern use of G counts in WP , but in other contexts. You're right that it's not the best of links. DGG (talk) 22:09, 5 February 2008 (UTC)


Resolved: IP blocked for 24 hours. MastCell Talk 22:45, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

User has revieved multiple warnings about the deliberate introduction of false infomation but continues to do so. [13] [14] [15] Three edits made after the final warning. --neonwhite user page talk 19:36, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

WP:AIV? D.M.N. (talk) 19:44, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
There's no certaintity that this is vandalism. --neonwhite user page talk 22:30, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
From WP:VAND: "change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia." Pure and simple, and seems resolved to me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alex.muller (talkcontribs) 22:33, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
It's vandalism, and appears to match the pattern of the banned sockpuppeteer AFI-PUNK (talk · contribs), though it could be unrelated. I've already blocked the IP for 24 hours. MastCell Talk 22:45, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

User keeps violating copyright and image use policy[edit]

Resolved: blocked after further problem editing

User:Alex 8194 keeps violating copyright and image use policy even though I've warned him several times. He insist on claiming that images like Image:Lay-z Homer.jpg are his to release rights to (and they blatantly are not). I personally have removed a fair use image (the same one, over and over again, just in different image formats and names) from his userpage *six* times, and another editor has removed it once as well. Regardless, this user insists on putting the image on his userpage. I strongly recommend blocking this user to stop this behavior. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:24, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

  • User keeps going on and on. He's now claimed that Image:Familyguy2006 Peter Griffin.jpg and Image:Lois.jpg are free licensed, and has used them to replace properly licensed and rationaled images on the articles related to those images (Peter Griffin and Lois Griffin). He's also now removing warning templates without fixing the problems they represent [16]. This user needs to be blocked, immediately please. Trying to keep up with him is a pain. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:45, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Final warning left on talk page. A block will be next. Black Kite 21:49, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
      • Then block. He just uploaded another image claiming he had rights and he most blatantly does not. [17]. He's already had a final warning before this. --21:50, 5 February 2008 (UTC) --Hammersoft (talk) 21:51, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
        • That upload and my warning were pretty much simultaneous, so let us AGF. He has removed your warning, so I'll assume he's read it and hopefully digested it. Black Kite 22:16, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
          • Blocked for 31 hours; the user made an "apology" by uploading another copyright violation. — Coren (talk) 23:21, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
            • Ah well, it was worth a try. Black Kite 23:24, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Is this ok these days?[edit]

Resolved: Deleted as vandalism

User talk: Tvoz |talk 22:46, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Nope - hence the 72 hour block. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 22:48, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
I've reverted the tirade. [18] No need for it to stay. Blanking warning may be considered okay, but that ain't. Pedro :  Chat  22:50, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Oh, I deleted the page too - it will be easy enough to recreate but why bother with having a history they can revert to? LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:52, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
I didn't see the block, just got the tirade on my watchlist. Tvoz |talk 22:54, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
I restored the talk page (Less and I are discussing this on our respective talk pages - if somebody else wants to selectively delete the offending edit, I'm fine with that, although I don't see it as necessary) and semi'd the page for the same 72 hours as the I.P. is blocked. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 23:03, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Block of Gp75motorsports[edit]

A month ago, Gp75motorsports was placed under a topic ban by the community limiting him to editing only articles, article talk pages, and user talk pages. Relevant discussion on the ban can be found at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive353#Request_input_on_topic_ban. Since the ban was put in place, he has been blocked 3 times for violating the scope of the ban (see block log). Once by me for 24 hours, once by Daniel for 31 hours, and then today by me for 2 weeks. During the block by Daniel, Daniel agreed to lift the block to give a second chance if Gp75motorsports agreed that his next offense would wind up with a 2 week block at the bare minimum. He assented to this and you can see the notation in the block log as such.

I blocked him today for his edit to Image talk:Nuvola apps kteatime.png. I have laid out why his edit there was inappropriate at User_talk:Gp75motorsports#Blocked_for_two_weeks. For anyone who cannot see the former content of the page (i.e. non-admins) it was him writing the word "Cute" and signing it. No productive relevance to the image. And something that was clearly outside the scope of his ban. After I blocked him, he posted with an edit summary that I feel to be a personal attack, see this, where he calls me a "commie admin" with "nothing better to do".

After all this, Keilana reduced the block to 48 hours. After some discussion amongst ourselves, we have brought it here for community input. Metros (talk) 02:26, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

As I said at his talkpage - I think that GP has made some significant progress. He has a coach (Riana) and has made some good edits to articles since she has begun working with him. His transgression consisted of a single edit to an image talkpage. It wasn't constructive, and it does violate his ban - but I don't think a prior agreement of 2 weeks for the next violation is binding if its clear that the transgression was utterly minor. Metros made the point that we don't want to allow minor transgressions while he's making progress (for fear that he might believe the restrictions are being weakened, I assume). I think a 48 hour block, or even a very stern warning, would be sufficient to this task. Avruchtalk 02:29, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the 48 hour block. Yes, he violated the ban, but to block for 2 weeks for this utterly minor violation is draconian even given the agreement. Let the 48 hour block stay. —Kurykh 02:32, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
I think that even 48 hrs is overreaction here... The objective of the topic ban shouldn't be to actually restrict him to ZERO article / talk / user talk page space edits eventually - it's to get him to be a contributor who's balanced appropriately in total contributions, and not someone focused on community / social stuff only. He's never been disruptive in the project as a whole, and being this strict in interpreting it given that he's never abused anyone or the project is abusive admin behavior. We have sockpuppets who have been massively trolling longtime users, real vandalism problems, and you focus this much attention and inflexibility on him for that small an edit? Jeez. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:37, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I find this totally inappropriate too, and I almost always agree with Metros. I didn't realise we were being such hardasses about this ban. It's just a very minor, completely inoffensive comment on a talkpage. 48 hours, for something that doesn't hurt anyone. His previous behaviour did piss off a lot of people. This is just... y'know... silliness. I'm really concerned and hope that Metros lifts this block by himself. Gp's doing alright with coaching and he's on the right track, and things like this will just send him back off into previous silliness. ~ Riana 02:49, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
FWIW, in the last 10 days, I'm counting 9 non-vandalism patrol edits in the mainspace. I know real life can intervene, but thats out of 148 total edits in the last 10 days. Even minor work (copyedit, spelling, wikifying) would tend to indicate a desire to work on articles, as opposed to the "social" aspects of the encyclopedia. Not saying a 2 week block is the best solution, but maybe extending the namespace ban to also preclude vandalism patrol/reverting would be in order. In that vein, Riana, I'm just wondering if this is a traditional admin coaching relationship (with a goal of RfA), or if its like an adoption, or a mentoring? MBisanz talk 02:51, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
How can we, with a straight face, suggest that banning someone from vandalism patrol and reversion, is in any way a good thing? I understand the point of the topic ban, but as soon as said ban begins to hurt the encyclopedia, then it is, and should be, invalid. SWATJester Son of the Defender 06:05, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
No goal of an RfA. Just trying to keep him on track. Within reasonable bounds, of course... ~ Riana 03:02, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, if it was an RfA goal, my comment would've obviously been self-contradictory. MBisanz talk 03:14, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm going neutral on this one. Sure it's a very minor edit, no real harm. However, he was fully aware that he was on topic ban, and he violated it for no real reason. Definitely leave the block shortened. Justin(c)(u) 02:55, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Come on. It's like telling a little kid to keep his eyes closed and slapping him in the face when he takes a peek. ~ Riana 03:02, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm going to have to agree with Riana here. Yes, Gp75 is on topic ban... but this seems overly heavy handed. Giving him an only warning first may have been more appropriate. krimpet 03:06, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
An "only warning"? Isn't the actual ban and the 2 blocks prior to this one a fairly sufficient warning? Metros (talk) 03:08, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
He absolutely should not have made the edit. Period. Also, at some point, this community's patience will be exhausted and it's important that he know that. I think 2 weeks is too strong, but I absolutely advocate at least 48 hours. At what point will he get the message if we don't send a strong statement? Obviously, he hasn't gotten it yet. - Philippe | Talk 03:08, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
The message being sent at the moment is that WP admins are dicks. The escalation here, whether it was stated beforehand or not, was inappropriate. He isn't causing problems. If you want to assert that the topic ban should be that strict, I'll be happy to propose that we drop the topic ban entirely and limit him to normal anti-disruption rules and mentoring for a while. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:13, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
We want him to get the right message, not a message. The right message is that he needs to contribute to the articlespace constructively and stay away from treating Wikipedia like a social event. The wrong message (and yet still a message) to send is that we want him gone, gone, gone. Avruchtalk 03:15, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Agreed with Avruch. ~ Riana 03:16, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Disagree. I think the message being sent is "we meant what we told you." Nobody's saying that he can't be a productive contributor, we're just saying he needs to be monitored - for exactly this time of reason. He's showing a lack of maturity and is - yet again - a disruption to the encyclopedia. - Philippe | Talk 03:24, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
See Philippe, I would completely agree with you, had he done something actually disruptive. His sketchy efforts at RCP - I would agree. His silliness in userspace - I would agree. But this is such a minor edit. I'm just having a hard time understanding why anyone would find this disruptive in the least. ~ Riana 03:28, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
We're treating him worse than we treat actual vandals. That's grossly disproportionate. It borders on abuse of administrator powers - he does not vandalize articles or bother people. Yes, we are not a social networking site, and users who show up here and primarily do that need to be properly handled and not allowed to turn us into WikiMySpace. But this sequence of events leads me to conclude that the topic ban needs to be reversed, because the community is not capable of enforcing it in a reasonable manner. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:29, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
I think we're going to have to agree to disagree on this one. :-) - Philippe | Talk 03:34, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Agree with Philippe, if admins tell him that his next questionable edit will mean a two week block, and he makes one full well knowing that, he should get a two week block. An admin's conditions to an account that's already been blocked a couple of times should be upheld. If the user is sorry, he'll have another chance in two weeks to show that he's interested in contributing on a regular basis. Snowfire51 (talk) 05:50, 6 February 2008 (UTC)


Keeps adding credits for an non-exsistant animated special called "Cartoon All-Stars 2000s".--Hailey 03:49, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Carlstar3 Single purpose account, edits going against consensus[edit]

User:Carlstar3 is a single purpose account (edit history here), exclusively editing Sanjay Gupta. In particular repeatedly attempting to remove a particular piece of sourced information: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

it's getting old having to monitor the page for this one thing. Carlstar3 is the only one submitting this edit, whereas several editors including myself, User:Andyvphil, and User:Orderinchaos have been reverting his deletions. See here, here, here, here for attempts to express that his edits did not have consensus support or to educate him on wikipedia policies and guidelines such as consensus, NOR, & civility. Several of his responses in those sections are uncivil. He recently expressed here his intention to continue submitting his edit despite the fact that nobody else supports it. Ripe (talk) 04:08, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

This sounds like a content dispute. Have you attempted to get the opinion of uninvolved editors by means such as requests for comment or requests for third opinion before coming here to ask for admin action against this user? 04:11, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Requests for third opinion is pretty much not an option, since there are three people reverting the contributions of one editor. requests for comment might be appropriate, but for the article, or for the user? Horologium (talk) 04:20, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
For the article. Right now, I don't see consensus has been established in either direction on this one. If one party is clearly acting incorrectly, an article RFC will clearly show that, and establish which "version" of the article is right... 04:29, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Block-evading IP trolling David Shankbone[edit]

Resolved: The user has been blocked. — Wenli (reply here) 05:06, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

 Done An editor who's been blocked on several IPs evaded the block again to post this at my user talk. Please intervene with the tools. DurovaCharge! 04:54, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Done. ViridaeTalk 04:58, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Thank you. :) DurovaCharge! 05:01, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

User:ChrisO gaming WP:AE[edit]

User:ChrisO gamed the WP:AE board rather badly yesterday. Here's the sequence of events that took place.

After a fairly lengthy discussion on the Pallywood Talk: page, on Feb 1 User:ChrisO decides to make a bunch of unilateral changes to the article. [19] His changes are reverted [20] and the reverter explains why on the Talk: page: [21]

Rather than discussing the issue further, ChrisO decides he needs an advantage. So, on Feb 2 he posts a comment to the Talk: page: [22]

then at 00:18 he rounds up an ally on IRC, kylu, who offers to take action on WP:AE as soon as ChrisO puts up some evidence.

At 00:52 Chris then reverts Pallywood to his version: [23] and at 00:56 Chris files his arbcom enforcement request: [24]

And at 00:57 he then goes back to IRC, and asks someone to enforce his request, pointing Kylu directly to it.

At 01:06 Kylu applies 1RR. [25]

This is perhaps the most blatant abuse of the WP:AE board I have seen; he lines up a "neutral" admin, reverts the article, puts up his AE request, then his "neutral" admin puts a 1RR per week restriction on the page *after* Chris has just reverted it. It's obvious the 1RR restriction should be removed, but what other sanctions are appropriate for ChrisO? FeloniousMonk (talk) 17:44, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

As the editor ChrisO went against, let me just state for the record that a) I'm not particularly proud of some of the comments I made to ChrisO, though (and I don't offer this as an excuse), they're scarcely worse than his to me; b) I actually do believe kylu when he claims (albeit rudely) neutrality; c) I stand by my comment to kylu that this is an area where, by now, angels fear to tread; d) as an act of good faith, I'll voluntarily comply with the 1RR ruling, whether or not is it upheld. --Leifern (talk) 19:18, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, abusive as heck. Chris, you don't get to do this; it's exactly the same sort of abuse as an admin getting into an edit war and then setting up his opponent for a 3RR block with the aid of a confederate. It's the same using admin tools to gain an edge in an edit war. It won't be tolerated twice, I suspect; for now, I'd suggest removing the 1RR and moving forward. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 18:37, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Is there evidence of the IRC conniving? Spartaz Humbug! 19:15, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
There is evidence on IRC of conniving, but I'm not sure whether or not I should post IRC logs here. FeloniousMonk (talk) 19:48, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
No, probably not a good idea. I presume that they can be made available to arbiters as necessary? I'm happy to take your word for the fact that they exist. I'd be interested in Chris' views but, if true, I'd say that some kind of sanction is appropriate. Spartaz Humbug! 19:54, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
I find this whole thing befuddling. I see a dispute that has to do with some fairly specific isues of content, including the phrasing of some passages and the section headings. I do not see any notable violation of personal behavior policies that would justify ArbCom - is this some kind of diversionary tactic, or just an attempt to bully? - and I do not see any major policy violation that would call for administrative enforcement. I want to just say "Fellas, keep talking it out on the talk page, try to bring others into the discussion" but that would be half my response to an RfC. It's ChrisO's taking this to AE. I just don't get it. Why? The 1RR restriction is wholely unjustified. I'd like to hear ChrisO's justification and Kylu's justification but frankly I can't imagine what they would say. FeloniousMonk asks what sanctions are appropriate. I am willing to be generous with ChrisO and suggest that he got overzealous and just needs a cooling down period, say a 1 week ban from editing this article. But gaming AE - this is really serious, it undermines the whole process, and does call for some more serious sanction. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:18, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks Felonious for bringing this up. I saw the AE report yesterday and was confused as to why this article was put on probation as there didn't seem to be a huge problem here. Consider the restriction removed. -- tariqabjotu 19:40, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I think your notion of "neutral" admin assumes bad faith on Kylu's part, and I would ask you to reword that slightly, as after inspecting the logs, I think Kylu is in fact fully neutral. On the rest of the dispute I can't tell much, but I don't think the minor discussion on IRC is much to worry about. It's not like the cabal is planning some evil takeover here. AzaToth 20:32, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Kylu didn't show bad faith; the only problem is that Kylu didn't notice that ChrisO was gaming the system. I wouldn't think it necessary for ArbCom to issue a clarification that this sort of manipulation of arbitration enforcement (not to mention this sort of manipulation of other administrators) is improper; isn't it just common sense? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 21:18, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
A clarification: While ChrisO did in fact bring attention (in general, not to me specifically) on IRC to the AR request, I applied it and made sure he understood it applied to all participants, including him. The problem I see is that instead of discussing the situation, someone used revert to simply wipe someone else's edits and avoid discussion instead of using it to remove vandalism, which is not what Help:Reverting suggests it be used for.
This sort of putting one's fingers in their ears and ignoring the other side in a content dispute is exactly why the whole Israel-Palestine case got sent to ArbCom in the first place, and the reason I asked those involved to not involve me further. I was trying to maintain my distance from what I see as a distasteful and mutually-disrespectful content dispute, however Leifern refused to allow me to do so. The enforcement needed to be done lest the article devolve into another pointless series of revert warring, but it certainly doesn't mean I need to be involved in the arguing after it.
Was the enforcement timed to benefit one party over another? Of course. They usually are, when one of the parties involved is doing the reporting. Does the enforcement do more harm than good by minimizing the revert-warring and promoting discussion? I think it does, and that's why I set it for that article. Thanks to tariqabjotu for informing me of this thread, btw. ~Kylu (u|t) 21:39, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Regardless, you got took. ChrisO first looked for an admin willing to act (no problem there), then went and reverted the article to his favored version, then posted the request on AE, which you acted upon. That's the only problem -- his reversion before requesting the AE was not appropriate. If he had not reverted first, we wouldn't be having this discussion at all. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 21:57, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
There are two cases: 1. At the time ChrisO was reverting, he had already in mind the later enforcing of 1RR. 2. He reverted and then noticing that his revert might be followed with a series of edit wars as was normal in such articles, filed the AE request.
This two cases should be also considered against the following context: It also appears that ChrisO was certain of the soundness of his edit and aside from the content dispute had found the reaction of the other editor inappropriate.
I can not personally think of a test that can distinguish the case 1 from case 2. Either one can be the case but only one of them implies gaming of the system. Regarding the claim of Kylu playing the role of an ally, I don't know but it appears to me that it considers an event in the light of subsequent developments and is kind of akin to conspiracy theories. Just my humble view and I am the first to admit my mistake.
Now, my suggestion is that: 1. ChrisO's version to be reverted. 2. The community decides the validity of ChrisO's statement that "User:Leifern, who created the article in the first place, has indiscriminately reverted my good faith edits with an aggressive edit summary (diff) and accusations of bad faith on the talk page (diff), but no explanation of what he considers unacceptable about my edits" and takes an action if this statement is correct. Cheers, --Be happy!! (talk) 23:13, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Well, it's more a matter of case 3, if I can put it that way. I originally had in mind posting an AE request directed specifically at Leifern after I saw that he had reverted without discussion. I reconsidered after it occurred to me that Leifern's action was just a symptom of a wider problem - editors on both sides blindly reverting. I saw a danger of this happening on the article, as it had already experienced edit wars. I therefore decided to act in the spirit of the ArbCom's decision in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles, which avoided targeting any individual editors and set general principles for the entire topic area. I reverted the blind revert solely because it was a blind revert and not permitted by custom; if he had justified his revert with discussion it would not have been an abusive revert and I would have had no reason to act. After I did so, I posted my request to AE pointing out the problems that blind reverts have caused on articles in this topic area and requesting that editors on all sides be restrained from abusing or overusing reversion (note that 1RR still permits reverts - it just limits their frequency). And I would add that there's no cause to revert my edits, as that too would violate WP:REVERT#Do not. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:30, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for clarifying. My main point was that Jpgordon and FeloniousMonk's reading was not the only possible interpretation of the bare facts; the only interpretation that makes you guilty. The reason that I asked for your edit to be reverted was that Jpgordon and FeloniousMonk's reading is a possible interpretation anyways but at the same time I suggested that your statement be investigated by the community and a serious action is taken against the other editor if your statement is correct. That decision can also involve restoring your edit later if the community decides that you were making good faith edits and the other editor blindly reverted you. Just a suggestion, you guys know better than me. Cheers, --Be happy!! (talk) 23:43, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Actually I wouldn't support taking action against Leifern. As I've already said, he was simply acting in the same way that people have been acting on these articles for far too long. He wasn't a party to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles, I don't think he made any statements in it, he wasn't informed of it and I'm not at all sure that he was aware that the articles were "under new management", so to speak. I wouldn't be at all comfortable taking or requesting action against him in those circumstances. The important point is that he now knows about the arbitration and (hopefully) understands what the ArbCom now requires of all editors in this topic area. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:50, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
You guys know better than me about this; I haven't edited those articles and don't know what's going on. I just saw an admin-against-admin case and that attracted me here :D because such cases are usually exciting and interesting :P. This is my last comment here. Have a nice time everybody... --Be happy!! (talk) 23:59, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
(ec) I'm not sure what he did was wrong from the point of view of encouraging people not to blind-revert. He'd just attempted a rewrite which was reverted without discussion. He asked for restrictions on all participants. What difference would have putting the AE request up and then reverting made, precisely? Relata refero (talk) 22:48, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

This is really not accurate. I wish FeloniousMonk had bothered to ask me about it before posting accusations here (and it would be nice not to be burned at the stake in absentia, if you'll excuse the mixed metaphors). There certainly is no "gaming" going on. The article has a long history of edit warring and disputes including two AfDs. After another editor recently added a "coatrack" tag to the article (an action with which I had absolutely no involvement), I had another look at the article to see whether it could be improved - I hadn't touched it since November last year, since when there had at least 100 edits by other editors. I had recently found some media articles which actually discussed the topic of the article. I decided that the article needed to be a bit more concise and would benefit from having some newly published citations - the changes I made are discussed in detail here.

Leifern (talk · contribs) reverted the changes without discussion here. Now, there is absolutely no doubt whatsoever that this was an abuse of reversion. WP:REVERT makes it clear that reversion should not be used in such circumstances: "If what one is attempting is a positive contribution to Wikipedia, a revert of those contributions is inappropriate unless, and only unless, you as an editor possess firm, substantive, and objective proof to the contrary. Mere disagreement is not such proof." Kylu took the same view (which is after all just basic editing policy) in this exchange with Leifern on his talk page. (Leifern's visible hostility and accusations of bad faith should be noted. Unfortunately it seems that any admin who intervenes on one of these articles can expect to be attacked.)

I therefore restored my good faith edits; as Leifern had abused reversion, it would not have been appropriate to let the results of an abusive edit stand. I posted this request to WP:AE. In it, I pointed out the history of disputes on the article, the clear misuse of reversion in this case and the role that aggressive reversion has played in inflaming disputes. I requested 1RR on the article - not on any specific editor - for the sole purpose of restraining all sides from using reverts to edit war. I did not request any enforcement action against Leifern, so jpgordon's implication that I somehow "set him up" is off-target, though I did ask if someone neutral could explain to him the rules of WP:REVERT. My intention in doing this was not to "game" anything - don't forget I'm just as constrained by 1RR as anyone else editing the article - but simply to prevent a nascent content dispute from escalating into a revert war as it has done so many times in the past. At that point, as far as I was concerned, both Leifern and I had had the "1 revert". I had no intention of reverting again but given that editors on both sides have abused reversion before, I had good reason to believe that someone would do a further revert and spark an edit war. I took the view - and I stand by it - that it was better to restrain both sides from escalating.

Kylu is completely innocent of any "collusion". As far as I know I've never had any contact with her before so I can't consider her an "ally" (see Kylu's own statement on this accusation). I simply asked on IRC if someone could review an AE request for me (log available on request - admins only). Kylu volunteered to review it and she was certainly under no obligation to act on my AE posting, let alone implement the requested 1RR. I actually asked the channel twice (at 00:17 and 00:57) and Kylu was simply the first to respond on both occasions.

To put the issue in a nutshell - which is better, stopping a potential revert war before it starts, or waiting until the house in on fire before acting? I requested 1RR solely as a preventative measure to encourage all sides to discuss rather than revert. I made this point explicitly in my AE request: "editors ... need to be encouraged to collaborate rather than confront. Discouraging aggressive reverting is an essential starting point." It seems to be both an overreaction and rather an assumption of bad faith to construe a request for an even-handed discouragement of revert warring, on an article where that's been a problem before, to be somehow "gaming the system". -- ChrisO (talk) 22:23, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

  • I guess I'm missing something. You first went to IRC to find an admin to help -- that's OK. You knew to make sure the help you were requesting on IRC was backed by an on-wiki request; that's also OK. But before you made the request, you reverted the article to your own favored version, to make sure that the article was in the condition you wanted before restrictions were placed on it. In what way is that distinguishable from an involved admin making sure their favored edits are in an article before protecting it from a good-faith edit war? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 22:55, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
As Relata refero asks above, would it have made any difference if I'd reverted the article after I had posted the AE request? As far as I was concerned, that was my 1RR. Bear in mind that under the 1RR regime I would have been entitled to restore my edits anyway. Or are you arguing that Leifern's reversion without discussion was a legitimate action and should have been left in place? My sole concern was that another editor - maybe Leifern, maybe someone else - would revert my reversion, and another would revert that, and so on to the point of an edit war. The fairest way of preventing that was to restrain both sides equally - including myself. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:07, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes, it would have made a difference, because that revert would have counted as your 1RR. You should have just waited, and then this whole kerfuffle wouldn't have arisen. Small details change the tone of sensitive situations, and anything covered by the arbitration in question is necessarily sensitive. Just be careful, that's all. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 01:03, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Fair point. For the record, though, as I said above I did count that revert as my 1RR. -- ChrisO (talk) 01:07, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
I think it would be best if "involved" admins (such as ChrisO) would just stay away from the enforcement of the arbitration decision. Completely. I think that's what the ArbCom really had in mind, and I hope they will take this opportunity to eliminate any doubt about that. I think the committee was trying to reduce the scope of the dispute, but if involved admins are constantly pushing up against the "line" of what they are permitted to do (and in this case, I believe, crossing the line), that will only expand the scope of the dispute. 6SJ7 (talk) 23:27, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Any "involved" editor can and should submit arbitration enforcement requests if they feel it's justified - note that I acted as an editor, not an admin (obviously I can't enforce the arbitration decision). Prohibiting "involved" editors from making AE requests would make the arbitration decision unworkable. Obviously the "involved" editors are the people most likely to be aware of disputes, and therefore are best placed to explain what the problem is and why enforcement is needed in a particular case. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:30, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Figures, I take a week break from AE and the whole place collapses! But enough about how great I am! One universal I'd like to narrow this down on, as a lesson to be drawn for the future, is that for enforcement which is likely to result in such probationary measures, it is important that the enforcement nomination itself remains disconnected from the nominator's preferred version being last due to their own efforts. Which is to say: the nominator should not have the article reverted to their own preferred version immediately before or after filing the nomination. Because that does tend to defeat the point of having enforcement as, ultimately, a balancing mechanism. El_C 00:09, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I wonder if this is a reasonable solution. There's no real dispute that Leifern's actions were specifically prohibited by WP:REVERT. If a violation of editing policy like a blind revert is permitted to stand, isn't that in effect allowing the violator to get away with it? A revert that isn't a violation of WP:REVERT should of course be allowed to stand, but I don't think we should be encouraging or permitting editors to enjoy the fruits of a violation of basic editing rules. Oh, and don't feel too guilty about things going to pot in your absence - it's just that some people are too fond of drama. See where WP:DRAMA redirects to. :-) -- ChrisO (talk) 00:16, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
My approach goes so far as to even leaving counter-reversions to the closing administrator's discretion. The greatest difficulty, I think, is finding uninvolved admins that are clued-in and oriented enough to close these reports. This, since some disputes cannot be resolved by, robotically, following a set of rules. As soon as a facet of enforcement is oversystematized (like with last reverts), one side may play that to their advantage and then the enforcement platform loses its cohesion and the confidence of the community. That's why I want closing admins sometimes doing the unexpected, to keep the disputing parties on their toes, to motivate them to play fair. El_C 00:30, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
I think you've put your finger on the key problem - the need to find uninvolved admins. There's a related problem, which is that some editors are likely to attack even uninvolved admins if they dare to intervene in disputes on these articles. If you want examples, ask User:MastCell, User:^demon and User:Betacommand (who was an admin at the time). I said during the arbitration that I believed that a number of editors were doing this deliberately to discourage and intimidate admins into giving them a free pass. I still believe that's the case. It's certainly been true that outside Wikipedia, partisans in this conflict have been quite vicious in attacking individuals whose involvement they dislike - this guy, for instance, has reportedly been the target of death threats for his news reports. I fear that the same heckler's veto mentality is a factor here as well. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:45, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Chris, you went to IRC to find an admin, then when you had one lined up, you reverted the page, quickly asked for enforcement, and got that enforcement. That is the issue at hand; attempts to deflect this to a larger "key problem", involving intimidation of admins, death threats against journalists, and who knows what else, about which you are merely a disinterested observer trying to solve a vexing problem, become less and less convincing each time you play that hand. It is little different from the times you have protected articles over which you were edit-warring, except this time you did it once-removed. Jayjg (talk) 02:15, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Predictable nonsense. You're wrong about the sequence of events; I didn't ask anyone to review my request until after I had posted it (obviously, there was no request to review until that point). Don't rely on FeloniousMonk's timeline - it's inaccurate and out of context, like most of the rest of his tendentious accusations. And I might point out that you're in no position to lecture given your own record -- ChrisO (talk) 08:04, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Predictably ridiculous deflection. You gamed the WP:AE board, and your attempts to blame that on everybody but yourself don't wash. And, by the way, the sequence of events is exactly right. Jayjg (talk) 12:49, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

(reset indent) ChrisO, I did in fact discuss my revert after I did, but more importantly, your unilateral rework of the edit was in direct response to my concerns about the scope of the article. In other words, you thought the article should be about B, I thought it should be about A, and rather than discuss you just went ahead and made it about B. When I reverted and asked that we discuss before making further changes, you went running to a forum only you as admin have access to. And your request included an admonishment to me. --Leifern (talk) 13:06, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Thatcher reinstated the probation because he believes I'm -- sigh -- "involved in the I-P dispute", so can we get some comments on whether the 1RR/week restriction should stay in place? -- tariqabjotu 13:19, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I said on my talk page "I was under the impression that you have been involved in the I-P dispute, although perhaps on other articles...If I am mistaken in either of these assumptions then I apologize. If you are uninvolved in the I-P dispute and you believe that a 1RR limit is not required, then you can lift the limitation." Why is this still an issue? Thatcher 16:04, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Just to be clear, I do consider Tariqabjotu to be an "involved" editor as regards the I-P articles and I don't think he should be carrying out any actions to do with the Arbcomm decision. Tiamuttalk 23:17, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
The Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles#Uninvolved administrators ArbComm decision directly defines the phrase "uninvolved administrator" for the purpose of this case and its sanctions. If an admin has ever been involved in any content dispute on any article concerning the Arab-Israeli conflict at any time in their editing history, then they are not an uninvolved admin. Since this is a restriction on the person, for those with multiple accounts the rule also applies to their other accounts. This is intended to make sure that those implementing the case both 1) truly are neutral and 2) are perceived as being neutral.
Tariqabjotu, reviewing your contribution history and talk page, it seems clear to me that you are not an uninvolved administrator for the purpose of the ArbComm case enforcement. This is true regardless of whether or not you are involved in any specific sub-dispute. GRBerry 19:43, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
I am acknowledging, GRBerry and Tiamut, that I have read what you two have said. However, I am sticking by this statement. Don't expect me to change soon. -- tariqabjotu 21:49, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
I guess this raises the issue of who decides who is an "uninvolved" editor, if it's disputed? -- ChrisO (talk) 22:09, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
I assume you are referring to "uninvolved" admins. If that is the case, the answer would still be the same... It is the community via discussions of this sort - preferably using appropriate venues. By 'if it's disputed', while still assuming you meant admins, i undersnatd that there would/should be a prior administrative action. If that is the case, please note that any discretionary sanction imposed under the provisions of the ArbCom decision (be it appropriate/acceptable/reasonable or not) may be appealed to the imposing administrator, the appropriate administrators' noticeboard (currently WP:AE), or the Committee. This appeal can be done by the community itself as well (including the sanctioned user). Please note the logic behind the sequence of the case's remedies. It all makes sense. The establishment of a working group (WG) will follow; which is another step to curve the bad atmosphere surrounding this case and many others. Appointments will be announced within a few hours. The ArbCom has closed the case and now is deciding on the WG membership. Probably and hopefully this group would come up with some good recommendations or views on who is "involved" and who is "not". For now, it is for the community to handle it. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 03:21, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Can somebody explain clearly how this is not just a case of m:The Wrong Version involving a lot of experienced editors who should know better? It is already being worked out productively on Talk:Pallywood, which was the whole intent behind ChrisO's action; there's no pressing issue here. <eleland/talkedits> 09:41, 6 February 2008 (UTC)


Resolved: Blocked. — Scientizzle 21:26, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Z1perlster (talk · contribs) has become a troublesome headache for those editors working on the intelligent design, creationism, creation-evolution controversy and level of support for evolution articles. His behavior has the hallmarks of a disruptive editor and he is remarkable uncivil in his opinions about other editors. As everyone is well aware, these articles are troll magnets and these trolls keep coming back, time and time again. Here is a time line of his actions, only broken up with the parts about the warnings he received.

I have posted a notice of this filing on his talk page. As everyone can see, the editors on these talk pages have tried to help this editor understand policy but to no avail. I personally tried to handle the situation by first posting a reminder but soon thereafter I had to post a more serious warning. I don't know if this editor will be able to contribute to the project effectively, as evidenced by his minuscule amount of positive additions to the articles he has edited compared to his large amount of disruption. I shall let the community decided what to do regarding this matter. Baegis (talk) 08:14, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Are you asking for a ban because an editor is tedious? If you are you may want to bring the case to WP:RFAR because there is nothing we can do here but impose a temporarily block for disruption if his actions are a threat to Wikipedia project. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Igorberger (