Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive377

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

Noticeboard archives

Arsenic 99[edit]

People who deny the Holocaust are indef blocked. But its perfectly OK to deny and delete anything related to Armenian Genocide.

Please point to anyone who has been indef blocked for "denying the Holocaust". Tendentious editing is a reason for blocking, but not beliefs. Corvus cornixtalk 22:28, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Um... HalfShadow (talk) 22:35, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Nope, try again. Corvus cornixtalk 22:44, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Someone should defiantly investigate the canvassing and the spa accounts showing up for the vote. Not to mention the personal attacks. VartanM (talk) 21:29, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

  • This is the same VartanM who wrote to Arsenic99, the person about whom he now complains
"Comment I don't know what they teach you in the Turkish schools, but in civilized count[r]ies ... VartanM (talk) 02:54, 25 February 2008 (UTC)"[1]
VartanM owes an entire nation of people an apology for shamelessly promoting the idea of ethnic superiority and expressly setting forth his own contempt for an entire nation of people--and, meanwhile he so vociferously condemns genocide deniers-people who commit crimes against humanity based on the same sociopathic sense of racial/ethnic supremacy. To the Admin this is nothing more than a spurious witch hunt by a gang that has done everything it can to provoke the user they now complain about because he had the "audacity" to suggest a topic they are enamored of be deleted, and in the process they, specifically VartanM, impuged the integrity of everyone who posted an opinion contrary to his own. If any behavior requires investigating, it's that engaged in by VartanM. Pebblicious (talk) 02:58, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
  • See the Hrant Dink article to see what happens when a citizen of your country talks about the Armenian Genocide in your nation. Can you show me one diff of Arsenic99 being provoked. Take a look at his contributions, see how many times he insulted users, based on their nationality. VartanM (talk) 06:07, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Are you trying to insult me now too by presuming you know what "my country" is? The issue is your derogatory comment regarding people of one nation of origin which is something you unapologetically do here again. You do not even apologize for the crass racist remark you previously made. The issue you raised here is the behavior of a Wiki user that you intentionally continue to provoke by insulting what you believe to be his ethnicity. What is becoming clear is that you want to have banned all you think are of a certain nation of origin against which you harbor prejudice by provoking them with racist insults and then complaining about them. Pebblicious (talk) 14:53, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Hrant Dink was killed by a 17 year old, maybe someone didn't like him or whatever, maybe he was assassinated maybe the kid did not like him, but also remember that Armenians use to criticize him as well. Once he died, they now use him as a reference for whenever they wanna talk about how "uncivilized the Turks are", which you so shamelessly used again. Why don't you talk about how THOUSANDS of Turks marched the streets with "We are all Hrant Dink" "We are all Armenian" posters to protest how he was murdered. Why don't you wanna talk about the ethnic cleansing of Armenia from anyone that isn't Christian which is why Armenia is 99% ethnic Armenian Christian. You pick and choose what things to talk about, and you pick and choose what citatations to use and you use them to promote an Armenian POV and in the side promote how Turks are "bad". Your comments have personally attacked me and even though I even left you a nice message on your talk page complimenting you, you continue to stalk me and persecute me for disagreeing with your "infallible" opinions. Admins will see through you, and your continuous edits of Armenian Genocide related articles will be seen for what it is, Propaganda. Tell me, were you in the Armenian Revolutionary Federation youth groups, be honest (it doesn't mean you're bad, I'm just curious, so WP:AGF)? talk § _Arsenic99_ 06:55, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
  • VartanM is totally one sided and closed minded, he is also attacked me in personal level and deleted my posts in a discussion board. These sort of actions should not be tolerated. In the end as Wiki contributors we are trying to share the information to build the most accurate resources for our users to get information. otavilog (talk)
    • Otavilog, since you contributed very little outside of İstemihan Taviloğlu article. Can you tell me how you learned about the category discussion. Thanks for your honesty. VartanM (talk) 06:07, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
      • VartanM, my contribution might be little compare to yours (which I dont have enought time to go to your account to see your contributions, I am more mature than that, this is not a comparision on who contributed more or less, more contribution does not make you right) however; every information I have entered are not bias and does not represent only one side, in addition everything I have contributed are proven. So, I would rather contribute less and truth instead of contribute a lot that only shows one sides opinion and be against any idea that challenges your belief's.When it comes to your question, when there is a smoke it doesnt take to long to locate the source.
  • Everything should be investigated defiantly. Definitely. Guy (Help!) 21:36, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Tendentious editing you say?

Just as a separate note, but long unorganized complaints tend to be ignored fairly quickly. Personally, I'm not going to read all that nor really respond to it. It would be helpful if you focused and gave specific arguments (pointing to "deleting a section here", "removing this here", etc. are really complicated to review). If you think an article should be deleted, head to WP:AFD and make your point. If it is really complicated (not that AN/I tends to archive within a few days), follow the dispute resolution procedures. Now, if you have a focused point or two, I would be willing to review here. Otherwise, I'd say that saying "people who are against my view should all be blocked" isn't going to work particularly well. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:03, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

When I made the complaint, a user was blocked because he made anti-semitic comments and denied the Holocaust. And I found odd that there was nothing being done not only to Arsenic99, but also to a number of other users that have systematically made anti-Armenian remarks and were genocide deniers. Corvus cornix pointed out that the user was blocked for making tendentious editing is a reason for blocking, but not beliefs. So I just showed him the tendentious editing of Arsenic99, who has called for the Armenian Genocide article to be deleted because its POV, removed categories and links to the article. Removed entire sections from articles. Radically changed the Taner Akcam article, the same kind of change that got him arrested before. Personally attacked users based on their nationality. Nominated the category to be deleted, then canvassed about it to other Turkish members and then SPA accounts appeared out of nowhere to support the delete vote. His POV and purpose here in wikipedia is clear, is to delete anything Armenian genocide related. So far he made very few edits outside of the Armenian Genocide topic and most of those edits have been reverted because of the strong POV by Armenian or third party users alike. Click around his contribution list and you'll see what I mean. VartanM (talk) 17:54, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes I agree, that is why anti-semitic users and especially anti-Armenian users should IMMEDIATELY be banned and blocked. But I have never ever been anti-Armenian, I simply do not want POV in articles that shouldn't have POV which usually push an Armenian nationalistic agenda.
If you follow through the list of "Tendentious Edits" you'll find that they are usually me presenting opinions in talk pages, and sometimes removing one or two point of view statements from an article not related to the Armenian Genocide. They are all very justifiable, and VartanM is exaggerating it like as if I committed a crime for presenting an opinion.
I can also follow VartanM's contributions and find that he's added Armenian-Genocide related comments to almost any article that even remotely deals with Armenians or Armenia. If it's a Turkish author, there is a comment about the Armenian Genocide, if it's an American who doesn't support the Armenian Genocide, such as Dr. Justin McCarthy then a magical "criticism of his work" appears on his biography violating many policies. I have never personally attacked you, and you may look at VartanM's talk page to see how nice I am to him. Many reverts by me are very justifiable because I deleted Armenian POVs. However, many reverts against me are usually by known Armenian editors. VartanM has a long list of incidents of harrassment against me and disputes with other Turks as well, and his contribution list of POV edits, is much longer than mine. He finds me a threat to his recognition of the Armenian Genocide POV so he has always been watching me and following me around wikipedia re-adding POV points. I removed some edits where he had citations but were unreliable sources or unrelated comments about the article. Such as in Murad Gumen's article, VartanM insists on adding a "" section, because some guy in America said that TallArmenianTale's writer is probably Murad Gumen, and he put this there with citations to that guy, and basically ruined Murad Gumen's (a Walt Disney cartoonist btw) biography. Since when did declaring someone as a possible author of a website become a fact that wikipedia required? I have mentioned that I wanted the Armenian Genocide article to be deleted yes, but things don't always go the way I want. I know that since there is much dispute on the issue, I cannot simply say "delete" or nominate it for deletion, since it is an article that many nationals watch. In that article, I've simply made 2-3 edits, which were always removed, and unsourced, unverifiable POV sentences were re-added and my edits reverted by nationalists. I don't think VartanM is a nationalist, but I think he is obsessively trying his best to prevent anyone from disagreeing with his point of view. I think he's a smart guy, but can sometimes be wrong about certain things, and sometimes doesn't realize his own POV edits, and that's understandable, I have my own POV edits as well, I use talk pages a lot before editing or maybe never editing (such as in the Nagorno-Karabakh article) but blocking me is just a little extreme. VartanM is also known for canvassing, but secretly using IMs and emails, and the SPA accounts that he mentions in the CfD, is an exaggeration, I only noticed 1, and don't know who it is, but if you suspect me, please check IPs or do whatever you can to prove it. But I don't think I should be blocked based on suspicion. Why was [34] deleted but this [35] is kept? Are they both not political labeling of people of differing views? If you said publicly well I think there is a God, and someone slapped a "Atheism Denier" or "Anti-Atheist" label on your wikipedia page, would you enjoy this? This is like me going up to John Edwards page and slapping a "liberal" category on his page, while it may be true, this is the danger of speculation and political labeling. This Category of "Armenian Genocide Deniers" was violating: Wikipedia:BLP, WP:Categorization of people,WP:OC#OPINION, and WP:NPOV, and yet people just fall over themselves and play it safe to appease the Armenians in wikipedia, why? It seems that the wikipedia I love is continuously falling under the power of nationalism and becoming a place where differing views are rejected simply because of seeking the truth. I admit I am new, and I admit I sometimes have made mistakes, but to label me away as a denier or a minority is simply un-Democratic. All one has to do is take a look at this page, VartanM User Page and scan around the history to see the nationalistic views and his primary focus on adding Armenian Genocide related comments on any article in wikipedia. talk § _Arsenic99_ 20:17, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Oh and, denying the holocaust is wrong (because it's proven by Nazi archives unlike the Armenian Genocide, where Turkish archives contradict the genocide thesis), but apparently VartanM doesn't think so, he seems to think the Armenian Genocide is the only genocide in the planet:

::*Comment Whats your opinion about Category:Holocaust deniers. VartanM (talk) 01:31, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

and it is apparent, that he is simply trying to compare the Holocaust and the Armenian Massacres, when there are Holocaust victims (or sons of) who denounce the Armenian Genocide label. Such as Guenter Lewy and Bernard Lewis, labeling respected historians and citizens of the world as deniers for something that is yet to be proven is simply wrong. talk § _Arsenic99_ 20:27, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment I'm not going to answer this, sine its pretty much self explanatory. VartanM (talk) 05:42, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment Yes it is self-explanatory, but if you aren't going to answer, why leave a comment? talk § _Arsenic99_ 07:20, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

You can't indefinitely block or restrict the voice of people, when at least one country, with 70 million population, disagrees with one-sided branding of these massacres (unlike Germany which unilaterally accepts the definition of Holocaust). I am not sure why it has been so difficult to conduct an international tribunal alike Nuremberg and review all historical accounts on this heated issue, used and overused for political purposes across the world. But I don't believe it's up to Wikipedia to determine right or wrong in this controversial and serious issue. Considering that many hundreds of thousands of civilian Turks and Muslims perished on that same front at hands of Armenian and Russian units as well, perhaps, both sides stories need to be listened to. Massacre as much as accusation of it, is a very complicated issue which has to do with dignity and spiritual healing of descendants. So only understanding of that will help to bring about recognition and solution, not just blocking one side's voice and imposing outside decisions. Atabek (talk) 02:39, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Comment Who told you that I want him indef blocked? Indef blocking someone with 0 blocks is a little harsh don't you think. Now to your point, I don't see your name mentioned anywhere on this page, so why are you stalking me? And unlike Arsenic99 here, who still doesn't know the rules, you were a veteran user when you did this You didn't forget about this did you? Also your above comment is nothing more then one big WP:SOAPbox. VartanM (talk) 05:42, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment You sure act like it, and I wouldn't be surprised with the amount of edit wars you've attacked me with. What rules, I haven't violated anything that might be considered violation o Wikipedia Policies (you even dared to claim I was canvassing, after-which I read the WP:Canvass and found out that I can contact Turkish editors that might be interested in a CfD, since them and Armenians are usually the only ones ever interested in this issue)... You on the other hand, your whole contrib list is a WP:SOAPBOX of how indisputable and undeniable the fact of the Armenian Genocide is, with minor exceptions here and there, so please don't take offense, you've done some significant work in other places as well, I hope as have I, but you do primarily edit articles and push an Armenian POV and no one can deny this. You're acting like I violated a rule by nominating a biased POV category for discussion.
    • On the one hand, I have tried discussing issues with you and even complimented you by using your talk page, but you on the other hand, have led a campaign to keep the Category, made incident reports about me for simply expressing some facts of which the interpretation did not agree with your opinion, and didn't even have the courtesy to warn me about this ANI. I really haven't seen anyone break so many wikipedia policies and get away with it so easily. Since you seem to be in good relations with many many wikipedians that think like you and have been a member for a while, I guess it's realistic for you to be so bold, sadly I don't have such an advantage. talk § _Arsenic99_ 07:30, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


I request an uninvolved admin take a look at this. I blocked Sarah777. She persisted in removing my post which was relevant to her unblock request and answers a significant accusation she has made against me. As an emergency measure I protected the page. Her unblock has been declined. No doubt she will appeal again and will again remove my post. Tyrenius (talk) 00:49, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Ty, I'm not uninvolved here, but I seriously think you should have asked another admin to block that time. Because it came from you and because both of you have a certain history, well ... You could have kinda predicted how this was going to go, too. Note to others: I blocked Sarah777 for 24 hours, just three days ago - Alison 00:52, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I have no history with Sarah777 to speak of. The only significant contact is at Wikipedia:TER#User:Sarah777, and I think it's established there we do not let people violating policy establish "no go" zones by making accusations aganst admins. (talk) 00:53, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm no admin, but it certainly looks as if that block was justified. It doesn't matter how much an editor contributes or how good those contributions are, if they can't deal with problems civilly, they should face sanctions. --clpo13(talk) 00:58, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Endorse block. Incivility is bad. Don't do it. If you need to do it, join an unmoderated forum like Usenet or the like. Simple. --John (talk) 01:00, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Aye, nothing wrong with the block, though Alison is right that it'd probably have been better for someone else to do it. I don't think you'd have found a shortage of takers. Black Kite 01:02, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
There is no reason why another admin should have done it. I am not in any editing dispute with the user. I have no history with the user, apart from warning her not to make abusive posts. The precedent otherwise is that an admin warns a user, a user makes some accusation against the admin, and the admin is then not allowed to interact with the user any more. This is asking for abuse and gaming the system. Tyrenius (talk) 01:08, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes, but she was blocked a few days back for telling you to "sod off" [36]. You're right though, I don't think it's a big deal to be honest. Black Kite 01:11, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I'd like to see this block lifted. Sarah777 was commenting on the block of another user that she felt was unfair. She said something like "trust the fascists to come up with an excuse" (not a quote, but words to that effect), and was blocked for it. That seems like overkill. There are far worse things said every day by people (including admins) whom no one would think to block for them. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 02:17, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Yes, I just noticed that, too. Did you mean another comment by her, then? Either way, that comment isn't really a good argument for the removal of the block. --Conti| 02:33, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Even if there is a legitimate problem, it should be handled civilly. Name-calling exacerbates the problem. --clpo13(talk) 02:31, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
  • (EC) - I'm not necessarily "uninvolved" as I declined the unblock request for this user, however, I believe that the block needs to remain. This user has a clear civility problem, as evident from prior blocks, and this comment that she left today while blocked. - Rjd0060 (talk) 02:27, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I think this was the comment that attracted the block:
  • "This is getting more and more like some institution run by a cult of abusers. 40k edits in "main"; not a single cross word ever uttered - and you get blocked. At least I put myself about as they say; there is simply NO valid excuse for blocking you no matter what self-serving rationalisation the fascists come up with. Plus, the block is totally illegitimate as you are using an undeleted system of categorisation." Sarah777 (talk) 22:24, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
  • It was inappropriate, for sure, but I can't see that it was worth a block in itself. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 02:35, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

You might like to check out Sarah777's long term history of abuse. Wikipedia:TER#User:Sarah777 is a good starting point. Editors should not be subjected to her insults. Tyrenius (talk) 02:48, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

If we were routinely blocking users for those kinds of comments, it'd be fair enough, but we're not, which is the problem here. This seems to have become something of a self-perpetuating thing, whereby she makes an inappropriate comment, gets blocked, is pissed off, makes a snide remark, is blocked, gets even more pissed off, says something else, and on and on -- where each comment in itself wouldn't normally attract a block. I recommend an unblock as a show of good faith, which might turn things around a little. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 02:55, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
We do (or at least have been recently) routinely blocking for those sorts of comments in this particular subject area. The problem with Sarah, is that when an admin makes a decision not to her liking, it is always an example of fascist abuse, Anti-Irish abuse, Anglo-American abuse, and she is not shy in telling anyone who will listen. In the already politically fraught subject areas she occasionally edits in, her comments are particularly inflammatory. Its difficult enough to keep editors working together on the Irish/British issue, but when editors regularly throw accusations around like that, it quickly degenerates into edit-warring, sock and meat puppetry, legal threats, off-wiki threats of violence and we all end up at ArbCom again. I'm being a little dramatic, of course, but all those things listed have happened by editors in this subject area over the last year. Most of the participants put their actions down to being insulted or goaded. Hence the zero tolerance policy on civility and personal attacks on this subject, especially since everyone has been warned countless times already.
Now, Sarah is certainly not among those who have indulged in the worst behaviour I have listed above, but she does, for want of a better phrase, "have a mouth on her". We can continue to discuss issues with her (as I have done many times before) and ask her time and again to stop calling people offensive names, but she resolutely refuses to stop. If asking doesn't help, perhaps blocks will. Though I doubt it, to be honest. Rockpocket 03:09, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Sarah777 made the comment above, was warned by Rockpocket that is was likely to get a block and then endorsed her comment:

Sarah, please don't refer to other editors, named or implied, as "fascists". In addition to being wholly incorrect, it is also gratuitously offensive and likely to earn you a block yourself for WP:NPA before too long. How many times do you need to be asked - make your point without resorting to name-calling, please. Rockpocket 23:31, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
I'd have thought it was a pretty good description. Don't you? And if some goon can block Ardfern then we should all be proud to be blocked, don't you think? And I reckon we'd be rather more interested in your take on the Ardfern block than on my civility (yaaaaaawn!) Sarah777 (talk) 23:36, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

She continues to insult editors whenever it suits her. Fine, if she states she will desist from making abusive personal comments, I don't object to an unblock, but in the past she has stated quite the opposite intention and there is no sign of her attitude changing.

Tyrenius (talk) 03:01, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Per this comment, and per lack of a clear consensus to endorse this block, I have left a comment on her talk page suggesting I will unblock if she states she willd desist from making personal comments. See how it goes ... - Alison 03:14, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
No, there is a clear consensus to endorse the block, but I'm prepared to show good will. Tyrenius (talk) 03:22, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
My comment is in the below section- basically, a slightly longer block, but don't go mad and block for long, or we would have to block numerous individuals. Special Random (Merkinsmum) 03:33, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
If there are numerous individuals with long term incivility problems, then that needs to be addressed. ArbCom rulings show that it is not acceptable. Tyrenius (talk) 03:36, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Tyrenius, please see my comments below at #Sarah777:_there.27s_more_to_this_than_meets_the_eye. But I note from your comment above that you even think it was a blockable offence for her to call the admin who blocked Ardfern a "goon". Sorry, but I think that given the outrageousness of that block of a highly productive and respected editor, an expression of outrage was well-justified. "Fascist" and "goon" are not exactly parliamentary terms, but nor are they a completely unjustified or disproportionate response to a very bad block.

In effect, Sarah was blocked for objecting to another block, and that's a form of victimisation. If you can't see it that way, please recuse yourself from further use of your admin powers towards Sarah. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:18, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

No, she was blocked for how she said it, and other ways she expressed herself- swearing etc. Special Random (Merkinsmum) 12:25, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Community ban[edit]

Initiating this straw poll as a neutral party. Sarah's conduct is way over the line. The whole "Brilliant means block" section and the edit summary "get off my page you twat" is just the latest I can see in a row of gross incivility, and I think enough is enough. We don't need this, especially in such a contentious area. Ramp the block up to indef community ban. Will (talk) 03:17, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely not. I certainly won't endorse that and I feel you're "ramping up" the issue here just a bit - Alison 03:21, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Is this really acceptable? Will (talk) 03:26, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Is this, please stop rocking the boat all over AN/I. David D. (Talk) 06:03, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
No, but neither is a community ban. If I show you an admin that called someone a "cunt", will you campaign to have them community banned? - Alison 03:27, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Was in a contentious area such as The Troubles or Eastern Europe, where opinions don't need to be more inflamed then they already are? Will (talk) 03:36, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Strongest oppose. Look at her block log- they've all been short, she could be given a slightly longer one, say a fortnight, to reflect. I agree with SV on the other issues- I think there should be a block, but not a ban, because there are plenty of others who swear etc. on site and they haven't been banned.Special Random (Merkinsmum) 03:30, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

The word "twat" is used much more lightly than "cunt". However, there is a long term problem with her incivility, not just an occasional mishap. Community ban would be an answer. If not, then there needs to be some other arrangement in place to contain it, and to prevent her from excluding any admin who tries to address the issue. Tyrenius (talk) 03:35, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

A longer block would make her consider her actions more. In that regard, an analogous case would be User:TharkunColl, who after a two week (I think) block and warning that he would next face one of 3 months, has been comparatively well-behaved. :) Special Random (Merkinsmum) 03:37, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Ty, there are also cultural differences to be recognized here, too. Profanity in Ireland (where myself and Sarah are from) is treated a lot more lightly than in, say, the United States. Thus in her own view, her transgression may not have the same weight as it does to others. Seriously - Alison 03:53, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Incivility is a problem on Wikipedia these days, but I don't think that community banning everyone who's uncivil is remotely the right answer. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:06, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

We'd only be left with about 5 editors. Nandesuka (talk) 05:40, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
(ec) I don't think there's been any gross profanity as such. It's the ongoing ad hominem posts like "Stop talking complete arrogant bull. YOU have imposed "criteria" that nobody bar your pompous self accepts. You abuse of power is passing the point of annoyance and becoming nauseous".[37] That needs to stop. The only question is how it can be stopped. Tyrenius (talk) 04:08, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I think Merkinsmum's suggestion is sound. Sarah is a productive editor with a volatile temper. A period of disengagement might help defuse some of the recent drama, and drive home the point that wikipedia is a collaborative effort, which means sometimes agreeing to disagree without launching into nationalistic attacks. Horologium (talk) 04:13, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
From an observers view - she seems to carry a big chip on her shoulder, and grudges against certain admins. I agree with Will (talk) in that somethings need to be dealt with firmly, and not just swept under the rug with a wink and a nod, and don't let it happen again. Its gonna happen again. Modernist (talk) 04:18, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
I think we need to remain in the middle ground here; no community ban and no unblock - sit out this block, and we'll go from there. - Rjd0060 (talk) 04:21, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
I tend to agree with User:Rjd0060. If we're going to community ban for this level/frequency of incivility, there are a lot more bans to be given out, including some to admins. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 04:27, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
I tend to agree that a more comprehensive approach is needed. I think the proposed actions, e.g. long-term blocks or bans, are not in line with the way we have approached similar issues of late. Such actions would be viewed, correctly, as capricious, and the consequences of this might be worse than the problem we are trying to correct. Christopher Parham (talk) 04:32, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
(ec) I agree a ban is excessive at this stage. My concern is that the issue is addressed and not just ignored. As Rockpocket has pointed out, such behaviour impacts considerably in an area where there has been a lot of trouble. It would be a good start if Sarah777 were to recognise that attacks on others are not the way to address differences. To date she has asserted that she is justified in making them. Tyrenius (talk) 04:35, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
A ban is way to harsh at this stage, especially considering the leeway we have given to other editors for incivility. Rockpocket 04:47, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I think I see a clear consensus against a ban. Including by one of the admins that has previously blocked her. For the record, having reviewed this, I agree with the consensus above that a ban is inappropriate. If we were going to issue bans for incivility, there are multiple admins we'd need to ban before we got down to Sarah's level of incivility; I've seen so much worse from others. GRBerry 05:02, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Sarah has agreed to make a "supreme effort" not to repeat this if at all possible and has also apologized to Rockpocket. Per discussion above (esp. per blocking admin) I have unblocked her. I'll try to mediate over the next few days and try to address everyone's concerns here. I think BHG makes some excellent comments below and I'm largely in agreement. There is a lot more to this than meets the eye and I think amongst all of us us who are familiar with the situation here, we'll work something out. Unblocking - Alison 11:30, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

That's great, as long as Sarah777 delivers on her promise to make that effort. We have to assume good faith and I would love to see Sarah continue to edit - yet it seems her incivility has been increasing in both frequency and magnitude of late, and there is simply no place for that kind of behaviour on this kind of project. Hopefully there will never be the need to block Sarah777 again, but should that need arise, I don't think a short term block would prevent any future occurrences. I'm against a community ban at this stage, but if Sarah's behaviour does not change, that stance will. Waggers (talk) 12:15, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Sarah777: there's more to this than meets the eye[edit]

The suggestion of a ban is a terrible proposal, and I'm glad to see that there is a consensus against it. Yes, Sarah does have an ongoing problem with her short fuse, and her responses exacerbate the situation. However, the latest block was a very bad one, by an involved admin whose objection was to the removal of his comment from her talk page, and traditionally we have given editors a lot of leeway in removing stuff from their own talkpages.

Furthermore, the issue that triggered Sarah's outburst was the rapid and unjustified blocking for alleged "disruption" of Ardfern (talk · contribs)}, who is an incredibly productive and uncontroversial editor who has no history of trouble, by an admin who had made a dodgy closure of a related DRV. I was shocked at Ardfern's block and had intended to raise the issue here later today, but while I don't use her colourful language I fully share Sarah's dismay at that block. I happen to be a lot better at biting my tongue, but I am starting to get very concerned at the way that Sarah now feels that she is be being "targeted" by a group of admins who were involved in "The Troubles" arbcom. The issues here have very little to do with that arbcom case, but some of the admins (notably John (talk · contribs) and Tyrenius (talk · contribs) who were involved in that case now appear to be running into regular conflict with Sarah, and I think it's time to ask them to step right back from dealings with Sarah, because whatever their intentions (and I assume good faith), they are not helping to calm things, and on the contrary they are consistently provoking the worst reactions from Sarah; they have become part of the problem. I would like to contrast this with the calm and balanced approaches of Alison (talk · contribs), who as usual seems to remain calm and to retain the trust of all involved; the contrast is important, but it demonstrates that this is not simply a case of any admin who confronts a miscreant being demonised.

There are several serious issue behind all this. The most visible cloud is the set of issues considered at The Troubles Arbcom case, a huge and long-running mess which still rumbles on 4 months after it was closed, and which now turns out to have been in significant part to have been underpinned by a bunch of sockpuppets of a banned far-right British politician (as well as the antics of Vintagekits (talk · contribs), whose misconduct continued after more "last chances" than North Korea has been given over its nuclear weapons). That arbcom was supposed to draw a line under everything, and to say "no more misconduct", but that didn't really happen: the far-right sockpuppets were only recently uncovered, and Vintagekits eventually turned out to have been sockpuppeteering too. So there is a long history of trouble here, and considerable post-arbcom evidence of some nasty stirring by banned editors.

One of the ongoing problems is cultural difference in what constitutes civility. I have lived in England for over years and understand how more of English people conduct themselves and can play by those rules, but as Alison (another Irish exile) pointed out above, social norms in Ireland are very different: raucous outspokenness and swearing are much more acceptable.

And one of the reasons that this comes to the surface so often is that Irish editors routinely find themselves outnumbered by British editors, and end up at a severe disadvantage in the formation of consensus. I have watched too many instances where Irish editors and British editors polarise on different sides of a dispute, and where there is no shortage of British admins ready to condemn the culturally different conduct of Irish editors, and thereby exacerbate a difficult situation.

It's far too simplistic in this mess to simply condemn the "wild" Irish editors; there's a lot more going on here. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:39, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

If you don't mind me saying, in the words of Ali G, "is it because I is black?" :) (joke). There are English, American, all sorts of people that swear, and people can't have licence to swear at other people and in other ways be incivil, just because of their country of origin. You do the irish a disservice if you say they don't have it in them to be as well-mannered as the English- any one I've met has been, more so if anything as they have a reputation for being friendly. On the other hand, it did seem weird to me that people were discussing a 'community ban.' Special Random (Merkinsmum) 12:18, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
May I offer the following poem by a pal of mine from Dublin, by way of explanation?

"Terms of Endearment"

Two Irishmen meet.
They like one another.
They are friends.
"There ye are ye bollix."
"Fair play to you you cunt."
"Ask me arse you tit."

Very shortly they will be best friends.
God alone knows how they will express
This extra closeness.

— Pat Ingoldsby, "Terms of Endearment"[38]
- Alison 12:53, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
But as the poem said, they are friends already. It would be like me calling TharkunColl a drunken old c**t.:) I'm allowed because I'm his mate lol but people don't tend to in a formal situation such as wiki. Also Sarah777 wasn't talking to a friend, but to one of her wiki 'rivals', so her words weren't meant in a joshing way, you big !*^!er.:) (joke) :) Special Random (Merkinsmum) 14:00, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Nice try BHG and I appreciate you for sticking up for her. I am from an Irish family, and have spent a lot time in Ireland, North and South. Any contention that Irish people are unable to follow conventional rules of formal civility, though, is laughably inaccurate. Yes, in the pub, old friends will use terms to each other that would make a maiden aunt blush. We Scots are the same. However Wikipedia is not the pub and Sarah's ongoing incivility does need to be addressed. I did not (yet) support the idea of a ban, but that is the way this needs to head if Sarah demonstrates that she is unable to follow our norms, and we need to be clear about that and not make excuses for her on the basis of her nationality. She is not stupid and knows very well what she is doing. --John (talk) 16:01, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Point I'm trying to make here is that there is a certain cultural aspect to this, and that I feel people may be focussing on her language and delivery rather than looking behind it and seeing the frustration it stems from. Thus the root of the problem never gets fixed and she remains ignored (or worse, reprimanded). I've stated this a few times already - she may indeed have genuine grievances here about certain matters, so let's try to find out what's behind it all so we can all move on and get back to editing - Alison 20:33, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I see your point. It's a fine line between cutting people slack and allowing for cultural differences, and making it carte blanche for certain users to be abusive. Let's hope Sarah takes all the advice she has been given on board as I do value her contributions. I approve the unblock but it needs to be clear to this editor that we cannot accept abuse from anyone here. --John (talk) 02:35, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
People can express legitimate frustration without resorting to swearing etc. Most can, anyway-- except maybe certain admins. :) Special Random (Merkinsmum) 17:54, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Response to BrownHaired Girl[edit]

You were in the minority in opposing this block, which was endorsed by clpo13, John, Black Kite, Conti, Rjd0060, Rockpocket and Special Random. I haven't mentioned or alluded to the word "goon", and I wasn't even aware Sarah had used it. Sarah was not blocked for objecting to another block, something she is quite entitled to do through the proper channels. She was blocked for a personal attack, namely calling someone a "fascist". Several of those who endorsed the block have no prior connection with the situation.

You state that I am an "involved" admin. The attack by Sarah wasn't made against me, and I wasn't involved in the conversation about it. I have had very little to do with Sarah777 previously, apart from very recently, when my only involvement was to address her incivility at Wikipedia:TER#User:Sarah777 and remove offending comments about John, which Alison said she was just about to remove,[39] which Sarah then reinserted and which I removed again.[40] In the meantime Alison, not I, blocked her for her response to my warning about that removal. That is the extent of my supposed involvement. According to your rationale, if an admin warns a user and the user is uncivil in return, the admin should then refrain from dealing with that user over any other issue.

You say I am running into "regular conflict" with Sarah. I have only had dealings with her for 5 days, since removing the posts mentioned above. Apart from John, I note she also objected to Fram, Ioeth and SirFozzie, all of whom she wished to see de-sysopped.[41]

You have also got your facts wrong, when you state my objection was the removal of material from her talk page. That happened after the block and was not the cause of it. She was not entitled to remove this, as it responded to a statement she made concerning the unblock which was incorrect, though that was an understandable mistake: removal of my correction was not.[42]

You have previously said the accusation that John is partisan "is not without some reasonable basis",[43] failed to provide any evidence, then apologised, [44] but still thought John should not intervene, because he had been accused of partisanship, regardless of whether it was just or not.[45] (In that post SirFozzie was one of the acceptable "calming" editors, but it seems he as now lost that status.) User:Lar said, "what I see as an outsider is John trying very hard to be helpful in the face of others applying the bias label unjustly."[46]

Your assertion that this is a nationalist issue is inappropriate, objectionable and false. Regarding "British admins ready to condemn the culturally different conduct of Irish editors", I have not stated my nationality, so you should not presume, Fram is Belgian, Ioeth is American, and SirFozzie is, if I recall correctly, of Irish extraction in America. You have also said Rockpocket (American) should not intervene because of what you perceive as "victimisation" and being "trigger-happy" (although he has never blocked Sarah),[47] and no doubt the "fascist" Fram is not welcome, so with John and myself, we are now up to 7 admins. It strikes me they cannot all be the problem.

Most "Irish editors" are not uncivil, and editors of any nationality can be.[48] Nationality is not the issue: WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA are the issues, for which I have previously blocked "British" editors, David Lauder,[49], Astrotrain,[50] (twice, as well as lengthening a block for continued incivility while blocked), and Counter-revolutionary,[51] (for "Derogatory implication based on another user's nationality"). In the Troubles ArbCom Astrotrain accused me of "bias and harassment" on behalf of "Irish" editors.[52]

The only admin that is allying themselves nationalistically is you:

Yes, once again, Irish editors have been stitched up, and wikipedia's coverage of Irish history has been impeded, but ... big but it's really important to remember that however much we are provoked, incivility or pparent WP:POINT violations won't help us undo the damage.[53]

I am surprised that you take this stance, as I have not noticed it previously, but it indicates that you are the one who should recuse yourself from this issue. I see no reason to recuse myself.

Tyrenius (talk) 15:52, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Point of information: I'm not American (though I live there). Neither I am Scottish, English, Irish (though I have lived in all three countries) or Welsh. I find the fact that we are even discussing the nationality of our admins utterly depressing and demonstrative of how much the false accusations of problem editors have influenced us. It doesn't matter what nationality you are from to recognize POV pushing, personal attacks and name calling.
I too take exception at BHG's accusation that I am involved in "victimisation" of Sarah by being "trigger-happy." My relationship with Sarah, from my own POV, is entirely cordial. I have never blocked her and I very much enjoy interacting with her. I don't think Sarah would dispute that either (though I could be wrong). If you have an issue with an unfair block, then I suggest you address that through the proper channels, BHG, but leave me out of it. All I did was ask an editor to stop calling another offensive names, which is about the least "trigger-happy" response I can imagine. Rockpocket 18:00, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
The last time I remember the "Its ok to call people cunts if you're Irish" defence being used was after an (admitted) drunken tirade by User:Vintagekits against an admin, where threats were made. It didn't wash then, it doesn't wash now. Anyone who disagrees with Sarah777 ends up being accused of being anti-Irish Anflo-American-centricism - no matter where they're from or what their politics - even the likes of User:OneNightInHackney, for God's sake! The bottom line is Sarah777 needs to accept that WP:NPA is a policy that applies to everyone on WP, including her. BastunBaStun not BaTsun 00:45, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Sorry to add my ha'penny-worth, but here it is anyway: (1) there is now a general mood to tighten up perceived incivility, and if that means hauling people up for what would have been allowed in the past, so be it. Sarah777 certainly wasn't the worst offender; she's now promised to calm down; a line has been drawn and we all know now where it lies. She, or anyone else, will cross that line now at their own peril. (2) I notice that David Lauder is described as 'a banned far-right British politician', which, as I understand it, is an assumption rather than a fact. Even if correct, it's a (pejorative) description of him rather than his editing interests, which lay in medieval Scottish history rather than overtly political subjects, and he, by-and-large, kept his nose clean in the issues surrounding 'the Troubles'. Whilst I certainly don't approve of the foolish politicking through sock-puppets, his contribution to WP deserves more respect than the casual reference to his politics and lumping him in with another editor with a considerably worse record.
A propos of posting here, it's my belief that posting on WP:AN/I, or even reading it, reduces your intelligence rapidly. A warning, similar to those printed on cigarette cartons, should be posted at the top of the page and someone should draw up a User box for everyone to 'lead us from temptation'. --Major Bonkers (talk) 02:38, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
You don't think everyone should be encouraged with the "this user loves wikidrama" userbox then?:) Special Random (Merkinsmum) 17:51, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Disregard for blocking policy[edit]


On the 28th of January, I was blocked [54] by William M. Connolley, with whom I was involved in a content dispute at the time. I pointed out [55] that he had breached blocking policy, specifically:

"Administrators must not block users with whom they are engaged in a content dispute; instead, they should report the problem to other administrators. Administrators should also be aware of potential conflicts of interest involving pages or subject areas with which they are involved."

On the 5th of February, I asked for an undertaking that this breach would not be repeated, and then on the 8th I asked again. I'm still waiting. This is the second time I've become involved in a content dispute with a block-happy administrator, and it's not getting any more pleasant.

Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 12:54, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

If you don't want it to happen again, I suggest you cease inserting content without sourcing, and heed administrator warnings. KillerChihuahua?!? 13:39, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
William M. Connolley did not breach the blocking policy and was not involved in a content dispute with you. Just because an admin reverts you does not automatically make you untouchable. You were blocked because you continued to repeatedly revert and insert unreferenced text despite having been warned several times. Nothing wrong here. Shell babelfish 13:42, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
P.S. This request is ridiculous. Shell babelfish 13:42, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Let's see... block expired a month ago. No one is seeing a blocking policy violation here. I don't see a need for urgent administrative intervention, and as the red type at the top says, "This is not the Wikipedia complaints department." I'm going to mark this resolved. MastCell Talk 20:27, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Althought the block happened a month ago, as stated by the respondent, this notice was posted only a short while ago-- an hour?. Since I have been blocked by this admin myself, the claim is not intrinsically absurd to me, and I would have wanted to look at it. So I object to summarily marking it resolved. Pete St.John (talk) 23:21, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
It has been looked at, both on William's talk page and now by 3 admins in this forum, and in both cases no one seemed to see a violation of the blocking policy here. In any case, this is a forum for incidents requiring urgent adminstrative attention - even assuming the block had been out of process, it's not clear what resolution this board can provide for a block that expired 1 month ago. There is a forum for raising concerns about abuse of administrative tools (RfC or, in more pressing cases, RfArb) - if there is a real problem here, then those fora would be the appropriate ones in which to address it. Nonetheless, anyone is free to remove the "resolved" tag if they'd like - I won't replace it if you decide to do so. MastCell Talk 16:47, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard[edit]

I've done the bold thing and created Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard, which was the last core/major policy whose implications seem to get fought over all the time and lead to no small number of edit wars. Lawrence § t/e 16:26, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

It seems like the "in thing" is to create more and more noticeboards these days - is there enough volume that this can't be handled on one of the other noticeboards, or at WT:NPOV? —Random832 18:35, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I personally like the addition, it will help lower the case load here at AN/I and help direct requests to specific user who enjoy working with POV violations. Tiptoety talk 19:21, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
I support its construction without a doubt, per Tiptoety. Also, it only stands to reason that, logically, we should have a noticeboard for all three core policies. However, it may need a fleshing out. Wisdom89 (T / C) 21:31, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
And the fringe board can probably be merged into the NPOV board. Lawrence § t/e 21:33, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Not a good idea. WP:FT/N also covers nonsense (== beyond fringe), where NPOV is irrelevant. rudra (talk) 23:44, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Oppose What constitute NPOV violation? It is just going to make it confusing and hard to follow, being that we will have a complaintents running around from board to board. ANI is not Arbcom and we should not just dirrect users from one board to another but try to help diffuse the situation. Igor Berger (talk) 23:54, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

ANI and AN specifically are not for content disputes. NPOV disputes can be very specific, and very intense, and often lead to (to my eyes) a disproportionate number of RFARs. This would lead to RFAR case deflection, making life easier for everyone. Lawrence § t/e 23:59, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Well we all work hard on article talk pages and user talk pages to enlighten the community about NPOV. I do not know how comfortable will editors feel if they are sent to NPOV board. And also will the board achive enough attention to give full consensus to an issue at hand? Will their be enough editors looking at it to be able to adjudicate rationally? Will their be a enough community attention to resolve the problems at hand without making it look as one or two admins telling the editors how to behave. Igor Berger (talk) 00:09, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't think this is a good idea. Issues of NPOV are properly handled through dispute resolution, not through a noticeboard which I strongly suspect (let's hope I'm proven wrong) will degenerate into a sniping ground for disagreeing editors and factions. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 04:37, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

It's not that I think this is a bad thing, but I would think most of the issues would be taken care of at the COI notice board. I know there are other NPOV issues, but COI is the big one, and I'm not sure what's left over that can't be discussed/clarified on existing talk pages. -- Ned Scott 04:41, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

The problem with WT:NPOV is that editors often bring specific content disputes there, phrase them in bland generalities which lead people toward the response most useful to them, and then return to the content dispute saying: "Removing NY Times article per discussion at WT:NPOV." It may be more useful to have a forum where specific NPOV issues can be discussed, as a shortcut to getting the sort of outside opinions that 3O and RfC provide. Of course, it may turn into an auxiliary battlefield for the usual problem areas. I'd suggest we give it a month or so of "probation" and then assess how well it's working, whether informally or at MfD - that would be my preference. MastCell Talk 16:51, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I'd second MastCell, with the note that I quite like the idea but one can never tell how an idea will work out until it's implemented. Noticeboards seem to me to be a good place for editors who become very familiar with certain policies and guidelines to gather and offer opinions and suggestions in conflicts. More places to find help = a good thing. RfC has been a bit of a disappointment to me, at least. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk)

Possibly bogus/vandal edits[edit]

Could someone please check the contributions of the following:

Thanks. Thatcher 18:01, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm taking a look at these as time permits. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 14:16, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm being impersonated...[edit]

Hello all, [56] this user appears to be making comments with my signature, notably at User_talk:Crystalclearchanges, a user I have filed a SSP for relating to banned vandal user:iamandrewrice. They have also been adding to and altering my comments at that SSP, notably here. Can someone take a quick look, as SSP has a backlog and I can be dealing with tracking down impersonators right now. Thanks Whitstable 21:24, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Who is it that "impersonated" you at my talk page then? Crystalclearchanges (talk) 21:29, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
IP: Whitstable 21:31, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
What is your IP address then? How do I know it was not you?? I dont understand what is happening here. Will someone please explain this?Crystalclearchanges (talk) 21:36, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
That IP has been blocked for 1 month. They are obviously not a new user, and thus deserve no quarter. If another IP address continues this, please let us know, and they will be blocked as well. 21:34, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
That's a dynamic IP so a month block will serve no useful purpose. Polly (Parrot) 21:38, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
What does that mean?! Look it is me that is the victim here so why is no one explaining to me? Crystalclearchanges (talk) 21:40, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Can urgent action be taken here because we do not want the whole iamandrewrice farce starting again. Whitstable 21:41, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
And oh no-one is still explaining to me what is happening. Can't you "scan" my IP address or something to make sure I'm not the same as the IP since apparently Whitstable thinks I was talking to myself between an IP and my account somehow? Crystalclearchanges (talk) 21:45, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
(ec)Does anyone else see a similarity in MO here? --WebHamster 21:52, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I do. It is very similar to the situation before. Whitstable 21:54, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm unsure whether this situation would qualify for checkuser. Hasn't this already been resolved anyway? Rudget. 21:49, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
If Crystalclearchanges is yet another sock of banned user iamandrewrice then it would seem they have managed to return. The edits are broadly similar, especially when iamandrewrice's Simple Wiki edits are looked at (before he was indef blocked from there, too!) and the disruption soon after I pointed that out - as mentioned on the SSP - suggests something is happening Whitstable 21:53, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Given the history of disruption from the Iamandrewrice account and the strong indication that the ban is being evaded at least through the IP a checkuser is entirely warranted. This needs to be dealt with early or we get in the same situation as last time. EconomicsGuy (talk) 21:57, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm not even going to bother asking anymore then, as apparently, Whitstable is not talking to me for some reason. I am just going to get back to my editing, and this time, please do not interrupt me with taunts of me talking to myself or whatever you come up with next. Crystalclearchanges (talk) 21:52, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
I havent been doing anything! look at all my edits and not a single one has caused purposeful disruption. Why are you assuming bad faith on me? Crystalclearchanges (talk) 21:54, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
By your second edit, you all but admit you were previously banned, not just blocked, then you start working in ianandrewrice's pet areas - fashion, Malta, Latin Europe. So it's hard to AGF Whitstable 21:56, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
But have I actually done anything wrong? Crystalclearchanges (talk) 21:58, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
If you are banned user iamandrewrice, and I take it as you are accepting you are, then clearly yes. Whitstable 22:00, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
No. Please tell me what I have done that is "wrong"? Crystalclearchanges (talk) 22:01, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Your second edit heavily suggests you are a banned user. In which case you should not be here. And I agree with EconomicsGuy (II) below Whitstable 22:05, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

If anyone involved here is Iamandrewrice I have no problem with contacting Alison and making sure that we do as we threatened last time. Absolutely no hesitations about doing that. EconomicsGuy (talk) 22:02, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

What am I doing that is wrong??? Crystalclearchanges (talk) 22:04, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
What you MAY be doing wrong, and I am saying this to Crystalclearchanges so that it is clear I am talking to you, is that you may not create a new account and resume editing if you are a person who has edited under a different account which as since been blocked. The accusation is that you are a blocked user Iamandrewrice. Do you deny this? 22:07, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Add to that, based on their contribs, it looks like WP:CANVAS is a possibility too. --WebHamster 22:26, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
You don't even understand what the content of the email to EcoGuy was about so please do not assume any kind of canvassing here. I can assure you for one thing that it is not what you think, but he can tell you that if he chooses to afterwards. Crystalclearchanges (talk) 22:28, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Crystalclearchanges has denied being Iamandrewrice, and has also expressed a willingness to undergo checkuser. I think that is the next logical step to take. I shall be filing a request myself soon. Ayla (talk) 22:29, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
actually i was reffering to scanning my ip address to compare with that of the IP impersonator of Whitstable that was posting on my page. Buy yeah thats good too... Crystalclearchanges (talk) 22:32, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Strange how both iamandrewrice and Crystalclearchanges both spell consistency as consistancy, as a quick look at their edit summaries show, pure coincidence I'm sure... Polly (Parrot) 22:30, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
If poor spelling were indicative of being the same person, there would be exactly two people on the Internet: me (along with my millions of sockpuppets), and the other guy (along with his millions of sockpuppets). "Consistancy" returns greater than one Google hit for every 30 Google hits for "consistency", an awful lot considering it is a patently incorrect spelling. CCC has indicated he is willing to undergo a checkuser -- let's wait for that before we start analyzing spelling and grammar. - Revolving Bugbear 22:39, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Please remind me why that user is banned anyway? Crystalclearchanges (talk) 22:32, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
What happens with my IP address once you scan it though? Surely the person who sees it will then know my IP address and could go do anything (like fraud) with it. I will happily enter a user scan as long as it is automated and no human eyes see it at all... otherwise I refuse. Crystalclearchanges (talk) 22:51, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
No, knowing your IP address does not mean that anyone could perform fraud. Every website you visit on the Internet "knows" your IP address. Every single one. And chances are good, every time you send an email to anyone, that person could know your IP address. --Yamla (talk) 22:56, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
I would prefer it to be done by a machine... but if you can guarantee that no one will use it for bad purposes. Can I have some kind of written guarantee for it? (You may know more than me about IP addressi so please do not mock me if i am wrong) Crystalclearchanges (talk) 23:00, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
It wouldn't be possible to use it for bad purposes. You are at no more risk by having a Wikipedia admin look at your IP address than you are every time you visit another website or any time you send an email via your ISP or via hotmail or the like. However, if it makes you happy, I can personally offer my guarantee that having a Wikipedia admin run a checkuser on you will absolutely not lead to fraud. --Yamla (talk) 23:07, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Wikimedia has a very rigorous privacy policy [57] which is enforced by the Ombudsman [58] to ensure that the very few users permitted to access IP data do not use that data outside of the policy. MBisanz talk 00:58, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Evidence posted at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Iamandrewrice. Ayla (talk) 00:57, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

And the checkuser result is in thanks to Alison. As predicted this is Iamandrewrice evading his ban but no socking it appears. In response to Ayla, please see this. EconomicsGuy (talk) 08:01, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Indef blocked as user evading ban. Can post to talk page or email unblock list to properly appeal. MBisanz talk 08:09, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Per [59] this banned user did many page moves that will require an admin to move them back. I'm signing out for the night, so could someone else please tag this as done when they do it? MBisanz talk 08:14, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Ok, I think I got them all, but I wouldn't mind a double-check. MBisanz talk 15:57, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Tom Bates consensus violation[edit]

Multiple IP addresses, most likely the same person, continues to violate consensus on page Tom Bates concerning sourcing of his military record. I'm not sure where to post this issue, so I've posted it here.User:calbear22 (talk) 01:53, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd try communicating on the various talk pages of the anons, or start a thread on the article's talk page. If that fails to get their/his/her attention, I'd attempt a dispute resolution starting with WP:RFC. If the POV pushing continues despite this, a temporary semi-protection on the page might be order - but approach this with caution. Wisdom89 (T / C) 04:44, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
I left another two messages on two of the user talk pages. I left another message on the talk:Tom Bates. This incident has been going on for some time now with a long history of exchanges on the article talk page. RFC has already occurred.User:calbear22 (talk) 05:27, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I took a closer look and noticed that. I'm not sure WP:RFPP would be appropriate as these users are actually constructively discussing things with you (more or less). This would effectively destroy their ability to edit the article. Are there blatant WP:3RR violations? Wisdom89 (T / C) 07:18, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
No. The back and forth has gone slowly. I counted about 23 back and forth. We had a constructive discussion early on when I added a second source, which was unnecessary but done to appease the IP contributor. But, the contributor has refused to budge since even after 3 editors joined me in consensus. Maybe if you were to weigh in on the article talk page, that would help. Thanks.User:calbear22 (talk) 08:23, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Self admited sockmaster needs additional eyes...[edit]

See User talk:Colleenthegreat. She admits to changing IPs and usernames to dodge a block. I have no idea where she has gone to, but one should check her contribs history carefully and block any relevent socks as needed. I am off to bed myself, but someone else should keep a close watch on this. 05:49, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I just reblocked with autoblock on IP addresses. I protected the talk page (she deserved it) for only a day (at least a little time off) so she can try another unblock tomorrow and see if someone else is interested then. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:05, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Good idea, I think that should help. I'm going to bed, too. Useight (talk) 07:19, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

IP admits to being an open proxy[edit]

Resolved: Ryulong blocked it, two years. ➔ REDVEЯS knows how Joan of Arc felt 12:10, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

[60], looks like he just openly admitted to being an open proxy, looks like he may also be User:LBHS Cheerleader, and has recently been released from a block. Tiptoety talk 05:51, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Longer block requested[edit]

Resolved: User blocked (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) - IP was previously blocked for vandalism and personal attacks. Now he/she is back after the previous ban and making personal attacks again: 1, 2. The IP is removing WP:SOCK notices from other user pages: 1, 2,. IP is removing categories with no explanation: 1, 2. IP is vandalizing user page (in addition to the personal attack on my page): 1. IP is adding categories without explanation even after being asked to explain numerous times the reasoning behind it. 1. IP is adding WP:SOCK notice to a user page that I believe has not been accused of sock puppetry. 1 I'm asking that the user be blocked, this time longer than 31 hours because evidence shows the IP is not here to contribute to WP in a positive manner. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 12:13, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I've blocked the IP for a week for the personal attacks. -- zzuuzz (talk) 12:20, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Thank you. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 12:24, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

St. John's University - UConnStudd[edit]

On February 29, User:Uconnstud made a major revert to the St. John's University (New York City) artilce despite it being semi-protected, and without discussing the changes on the Talk page. The version he reverted to caused many contructive additions to be lost, and constitutes vandalism. See version prior to revert [61], and then version UConn reverted and edit too [62]. This has been an on going frustration, and many less experienced users, like myself, are having a hard time dealing with this individual. Please take a close look at the content lost, and the actions of UConnStudd. He is using the article to degrade and misrepresent the university. See talk page for past discussion on his additions and reverts. - --TiconderogaCCB (talk) 13:36, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Looks like a content dispute, which administrators cannot help you with. Were you looking for dispute resolution? ➔ REDVEЯS knows how Joan of Arc felt 13:43, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Its not just content. This user continously reverts so that content is lost, and tries to report other users for vandalism each time they try to resolve the dispute. We have been warned not to revert the article, and now that I have corrected the situation, I am sure he will turn around and report me for reverting, however, the revert was necessary to restore pages of content that was lost when he reverted the article. Bottom line, I'm frustrated. This user continues to use the system to manipulate this article, and though it is partly a content issue, the manner in which he is adding content is absurd. He will not discuss issues on the talk page, and adds every negative item he can find while removing other additions of substance. Please help in some way. - --TiconderogaCCB (talk) 14:09, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Possible sockpuppetry/abuse on Council on American-Islamic Relations[edit]

AIV is backlogged[edit]

Resolved: Empty as at this moment ➔ REDVEЯS knows how Joan of Arc felt 14:33, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Someone please handle it. It's a real pain having to revert a user 10 times since he was reported 16 minutes ago. The Evil Spartan (talk) 14:20, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

RFR - Not Done[edit]

Resolved: Have discussed this amicably with User:Bpeps on my talk page. ➔ Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 17:39, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Rollback has its fans - but its probably here for good. I've applied 5 times now and been beaten by a hedgerow each time [63] [64] [65] - Can just a single sysop say no and be done with. Whats the point of count and contribs if nobody ever bothers to look. I agree I was a little fresh this time but still shouldn't a couple of sysops decide before RFRbot sweeps editors away? Dunno bpeps (talk · contribs · count) --- BpEps - t@lk 14:48, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth, this single sysop says no. While I would consider granting rollback to some editors with two months' experience, I would only do so to people whose edits during that time have been calm, civil and collaborative. Please take a couple of months, work quietly on vandalism reverts and prove you need the tool. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 15:56, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Not being calm, civil or collaborative isn't a good reason to deny, having a fundamental misunderstanding of what rollback is is a good reason. John Reaves 16:39, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Actually John, if you have bothered to read my comments on the rfr page, I do have a good understanding of Rollback and its downfalls. want diffs - just ask. -- BpEps - t@lk 16:50, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Ah, you mean the comment when you said "Anyway, Ive done good now, give me candy."? 5 people have declined you, stop wasting our time. John Reaves 17:00, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

User Goth and Throbb99[edit]

Not really a vandal so much as clueless, so I thought I'd report it here. Has uploaded slews of copyrighted pictures, has had a slew of contentless stubs on the television show "Silverwing" deleted, has been blocked for disruptive editing before and has returned with yet another contentless stub based on this TV show. Hasn't shown any willingness to cooperate with other editors. Thought you should know. I left a message on the talk page which I hope will alert him to the fact that this isn't a fansite. Thanks. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 15:51, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

  • PS: Just checked his history. No history whatsoever of editing a talk page. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 15:54, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Blocked indefinitely based on the lack of communication. Any other admin is welcome to unblock without contacting me if the user begins to communicate towards resolving the various issues with their editing. - TexasAndroid (talk) 18:21, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


I appologise in advance for not discussing this directly with Mikkalai but if you read his talk page you will hopefully understand why. He's put a notice up refusing to take part in any discussion within Wikipedia whatsoever and that talk page messages will go unanswered and most probably reverted. The note is inflammatory as well, calling other admins trigger happy cowboys and wikilawyers and if anyone comes to his talk with a concern about this, it makes them a jerk. A quick look at his talk history shows he's simply been reverting any complaint for some time now. I'm sorry to say it, but this isn't the behaviour we expect of administrators and communication is something that admins must be good at. This attitude, and lack of civility is simply not the way an admin should act, but I'm at a :loss as to what to do about it. Has anyone got any suggestions? Ryan Postlethwaite 04:03, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

An admin who refuses to discuss anything should be desysopped. Corvus cornixtalk 04:10, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
We have had this conversation before regarding Gustafson. If you're an admin engaged in administrative tasks, you'd damn well better be prepared to admit liability for them, and discuss them. If he doesn't want to discuss editorial issues, that's a different issue, but if he's including admin tasks in this too, bad idea. No go. ~ Riana 04:13, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
WP:AOR. He wouldn't pass a second time. seicer | talk | contribs 04:11, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Ok, this is really ridiculous now. It's almost like pouting. Wisdom89 (T / C) 04:14, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
So you support this type of behaviour? seicer | talk | contribs 04:15, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Not pouting at all - just a serious concern about an admin who is refusing to discuss anything. Ryan Postlethwaite 04:17, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
I was referring to the admin's unacceptable behavior. Wisdom89 (T / C) 04:36, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
(ec)I have to agree with Riana, while it is not the best practice to not discuss article building, it does not require de-syoping. Now, if this user was not communicating about admin related functions, thats a whole different boat. Tiptoety talk 04:20, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
At the risk of sounding dangerously like Gareth Keenan, if you've got a man on the front line firing his rifle at people and not listening to anyone around him, you take away that guy's gun ASAP. Then you decide whether or not he should be allowed to have it back. -- Hux (talk) 09:58, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Considering he's still performing admin-powered actions [66] I'd agree that there is a problem given that another admin wouldn't be able to check an action with him before undoing it. A non-admin user wouldn't be as much of a problem, as the same rules of discretion in acting wouldn't necessarily apply. MBisanz talk 04:19, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Sorry but I have to play Devil's Advocate here. Is anyone really disagreeing with his admin actions? Is it possible everyone could simply leave him alone for a bit and let him cool off? —Wknight94 (talk) 04:21, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
This has been an issue in the past, so when we have to inform him about issues regarding admin actions, we will get reverted. If you noticed, Ryan gave Mikka a chance to respond to this, but Ryan was rebuffed with a revert. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 04:23, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
You say "rebuffed". I say he read/acknowledged the note and didn't feel like it being there anymore. Common practice nowadays. —Wknight94 (talk) 04:32, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
It's not his admin actions I'm trying to bring up here - it's just the general inability to discuss things. It's his editing concerns he's not communicating about either, and simply rolling people back. It's not just been happening over a few hours/days - this goes back quite a long time. How long do we give him? Ryan Postlethwaite 04:25, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
We can't make him communicate. What we can do is make his continued participation here contingent on him conducting himself like a civilized editor. Sure, we could leave it alone- if we want to make it clear that we welcome childish sulking admins. Friday (talk) 04:23, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Ryan, but dont think that de-syoping him is going to change the way he communicates. Tiptoety talk 04:27, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Well the block of User_talk:Alex_Vogt is a good block since it was vandalism, but the lack of a template or notice to the user's page that he was blocked (and how to appeal it), is disturbing to me. MBisanz talk 04:26, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
For now I would take a cautious approach, we can't force him to communicate but if somebody disagress with his sysop actions then we have a problem, the last admin to ignore communication when asked about his use of the tools was taken to arbcom and temporally de-sysoped. - Caribbean~H.Q. 04:27, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Here's another one, an IP block for 2 week [67] without any comments to the user talk [68]. Again, the IP was vandalizing and should have been blocked, but a notice should have been left. MBisanz talk 04:31, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
(ec)I think this provides a clear example of his ability to communicate, when Ryan left him a message regarding this thread he reverted it, if he does not care to even leave a message here what does that say? Isn't this dealing with administrative issues (if that makes any sense :P), and still there he is silent. Tiptoety talk 04:33, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Deleting talk page messages and not leaving block messages for blocked users - both more common occurrences than you might think. —Wknight94 (talk) 04:35, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes, but that does not make them right. Users should still know their options for requesting unblock. Tiptoety talk 04:39, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Then there's a whole host of admins to bring here too. Why single out Mikkalai except that he's openly pissed off right now? —Wknight94 (talk) 04:41, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
This isn’t singling anyone out, how many admins do you know that have a “I will not communicate with anyone” notice on their talk page? Ryan Postlethwaite 04:45, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
The same number who have had their comments interpreted in a way that got them blocked within the last few days. —Wknight94 (talk) 11:50, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Well the block of User_talk:Alex_Vogt is a good block since it was vandalism, but the lack of a template or notice to the user's page that he was blocked (and how to appeal it), is disturbing to me. MBisanz talk 04:40, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
There's no need for block templates because we have MediaWiki:Blockedtext. John Reaves 04:43, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Opps, did not know that feature existed. MBisanz talk 04:49, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

It's important to distinguish his editing behavior from his administrative actions. If he refuses to discuss reverts and the like then he can be handled like we'd handle any other uncommunicative editor. Being uncommunicative can be a form of disruption depending on the circumstances. Refusal to discuss admin actions is far more serious, and in my view would be grounds for summary de-sysop. You just can't block people and so forth, then refuse to discuss the matter. (I hasten to add that disinclination to respond to pestering and badgering is of course within one's right as either an editor or admin, but that's not the issue here.) Raymond Arritt (talk) 04:40, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm with Wknight94. It serves neither the encyclopedia nor the community to continue hounding him when he's already pissed off. All it will do is confirm his low opinion that us. Meanwhile, if it really bothers you that these vandals didn't get their notices, go ahead and post them. Hesperian 04:48, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

WKnight, if there are others as well, & I agree that there are, all the more reason for us to get started doing something about them when they get noticed. Are we admitting its unacceptably wrong, and saying we should ignore it? DGG (talk) 04:57, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
What do you suggest we do DGG? Tiptoety talk 04:59, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

If Mikkalai wishes to not communicate via his talk page, then go ahead (I'm not condoning such behavior though). But Mikkalai should be warned that any of his actions, admin or not, can be overturned without his notification and consent. —Kurykh 05:46, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

It's a bad idea... the only thing that now seperates him from the POV pushers is the mop. Will (talk) 09:12, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

That and unreasonable content editing. —Wknight94 (talk) 11:55, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

If this was a new problem, just waiting a few days would be sensible. As Ryan points out, this has gone on a long time. So we are faced with a question: do we tolerate admins behaving in unacceptable ways, or don't we? He needs to understand that his editing here depends on him behaving like a reasonable editor. The only way I can think of to communicate this message is a desysop and/or an indefinite block until such a time as he comes around. Yes, it's time for the clue-by-four; we've already seen that lesser measures do not work. And, for the record, no, I don't care what good things he's done in the past. Editors are only welcome here as long as they continue to do the right thing. Friday (talk) 14:38, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

This admin needs to be desysopped. No matter how good the admin actions, a refusal to discuss them automatically makes them bad - it is not possible to be a good but uncommunicative admin. We could do an RFC on his behaviour, but I think it's safe to say that he wouldn't participate. I have little experience with ArbComm; would they accept a case like this without an RFC? Would they accept it with an RFC? I know ArbComm's the last step in dispute resolution, but where somebody's admin bit is concerned, there aren't really any preliminary steps, especially given a refusal to discuss anything. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 17:12, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
One thing is for sure (in my mind anyway), if you can't find any sysop-related infractions, there's little chance of ArbCom even accepting a case against him. Why desysop someone who isn't misusing the sysop tools? I'm still waiting for someone to point out a sysop-related infraction... —Wknight94 (talk) 17:20, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
so your post here will most probably be reverted without reading is a very childish attitude for an admin to take and how are blocks etc suppose to be discussed with an admin who claims, he will not read his talkpage? --Fredrick day (talk) 17:20, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
I'd agree with Wknight that there needs to be a blatant infraction of an explicit rule before Arbcom would jump into it. But a user's participation in an RfC isn't required. And there is a special Admin-focused RfC procedure. MBisanz talk 17:59, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Precedence, ArbCom has already stated that admins, more than any other user, must communicate to the community. Just wanted to point that out. « Gonzo fan2007 talkcontribs 18:10, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
The problem here is that what he is not responding to is basically everyone saying, "Hey, why aren't you responding to me?!" I haven't heard anyone raise any other issue that he has subsequently shot down. —Wknight94 (talk) 18:34, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Arbcom has stated that admins must be available and willing to discuss their actions. He is not responding to more than just "why aren't you responding to me?" [69] [70] [71] He is refusing to speak about his own administrative actions. That is a problem. If he continues to refuse to discuss his administrative actions, he should be prevented from conducting them. Simple. RxS (talk) 19:28, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
The three diffs you provided are for Richbold, Count of Breisgau. While he didn't respond, he did actually restore the article as asked. Then, in your third diff, Friday (talk · contribs) says he's re-deleting it anyway and says Mikkalai is "being a jerk" about it. All this within a few days of being blocked. Gee, I can't imagine why he doesn't feel like talking to people. </sarcasm> —Wknight94 (talk) 19:55, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
All of them were in reference to admins actions and he responded to none of them. If he doesn't feel like talking he shouldn't be in a position that requires him to. RxS (talk) 20:09, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Sure he responded. He responded to one by restoring the article - that's a response - while another was an uncivil jab and didn't deserve a response. —Wknight94 (talk) 01:46, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
I would draw the communities attention to a request I made to Mikkalai back in January, to which I never received a response. This matter eventually wound up at ArbCom. I had previously requested comment in December, last year, from Mikkalai regarding his involvement in the initial area of dispute, again to no response. I recall I checked Mikka's contributions at the time to see if he was editing, and simply not responding - and it appeared he was. As I remember, I didn't bother chasing the matter as I was then compiling evidence for the ArbCom. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:11, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure of your point here. You were questioning Mikkalai about a three-week-old block that had already been undone (with his permission) - a block of a user who has since been banned in the very ArbCom case that you're referring to. I might have ignored you too. —Wknight94 (talk) 01:46, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Ah, well, Zeraeph wasn't banned when I made the first request - and it may have actually impacted on the subsequent ArbCom which resulted in the ban if I had had a response - and neither was she when I made the second; since I was clearly commenting about ongoing situations. Indeed, I was trying to gauge the basis by which he gave his permission. Now, unless it is your position that Mikka knew that Zeraeph was going to be banned and there was no point in responding to a polite request for information to assist in the administrative processes of the community, I would gently suggest that your responses appear to be simply imply that Mikka is outside of normal avenues of communication. I thought that that was the basis of bringing this discussion here in the first place, which is why I placed the comments I did.
Also, I will try to remember not to bother you with bringing up mundane questions regarding your actions in relation to editors and other such bothersome members of the community until after it has been decided that there was no case to answer, or that they were right, or something innocuous like that.LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:09, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Community desysop?[edit]

Resolved: WP:SNOW, no consensus to de-syop. Take to arbcom if you wish to continue. Tiptoety talk 19:29, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The community can do anything ArbCom can do, as long as we have the necessary consensus. Typically this is defined as "no admin objects". If the community feels that it is highly unacceptable for an administrator to refuse communication (for an extended period of time), then we can decide here and now to desysop, and then ask ArbCom to implement the decision. As observed above, an RFC will not work because the user refuses to participate. If any admin objects to desysopping, we can refer the matter to ArbCom and let them decide what to do. Jehochman Talk 17:22, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Strong oppose: No demonstration of sysop misuse. Plain and simple. —Wknight94 (talk) 17:23, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Oppose - He has the right to walk away for a short time or a Wikibreak. Block for a long period of time (1 month?) if necessary to avoid harm to WP. Bearian (talk) 17:28, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
But he hasn't walked away and is not on a break, he is just refusing to communicate but continues to wield the admin mop. Corvus cornixtalk 17:53, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Oppose - Not yet. Maybe in the future if things don't improve or the circumstances drastically change somewhat. Rudget | talk 17:30, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Oppose - While I don't agree (and that's putting it mildly) with how he/she behaved - If the admin is determined to take a respite for a short while, then there is no reason to desysop. If he/she returns and something similar is brought to ANI again, someone should consider reopening this discussion. Wisdom89 (T / C) 17:33, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

So this idea has no support. No need to continue. It seems that the admin can proceed with the current behavior until there is a disputed block. If and when that happens, they may end up in hot water, but we can cross that bridge when we get to it. Jehochman Talk 17:41, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

  • He knows he has a handful of rope; if he hangs himself, so be it, but until he abuses his power, there's really nothing to complain about. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 18:06, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
  • So then we do welcome childish sulking admins? Act as poorly as you want, just as long as you don't abuse the tools? --Kbdank71 18:20, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Well I don't necessarily respond to every message left on my page. And I've even disappeared for a few months. Does that mean I am subject to desysopping too? How about everyone just leave the guy alone and stop coming to WP:ANI for everything (this one has been a waste of time, honestly) and see if he does anything wrong. I'd rather he quietly did everything right than noisily did everything wrong. —Wknight94 (talk) 18:30, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
I'd prefer that too. Then again, if you're quietly doing everything right, there would be no reason to come to AN/I for anything. --Kbdank71 18:33, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Correct but we haven't been to ANI since his vow of silence ---- except to discuss his vow of silence (and a desysop discussion resulting from the silence). —Wknight94 (talk) 19:32, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I think the question is whether a pre-emptive refusal to communicate about anything constitutes abuse of the tools. Being an admin isn't just hitting the block, protect, and delete buttons or whiling away the hours in elevated discussion on IRC. An admin whose talk page states: "I hereby pledge to not engage in any communication in wikipedia whatsoever" (emphasis in original) is abusing his power - my sense was that ArbCom has affirmed that communication is a central part of administrative responsibilities (e.g. here). Add to this that he's not using deletion summaries as even a minimal form of communication about his admin actions. What if he deletes one of my articles, even justifiably, and then I go to his page and see a blanket refusal to discuss his actions or respond to my questions? Don't get me wrong - I've never crossed paths with Mikkalai, I'm biased in favor of grumpy rouge admins in general, and I'd favor giving him time to chill and regroup. Still, I don't think we need to wait for a bad block to call this behavior "abusive", and if he keeps using the tools even non-controversially while refusing all discussion, then that would seem to be a problem. MastCell Talk 18:40, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
  • How do we know if tool use is controversial? A user who is aggrieved may go to his talk page and be discouraged from inquiring by the hostile message. This creates a poisonous atmosphere and should not be allowed. Jehochman Talk 18:42, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
This could be rather controversial, or at least out of policy. Mikkalai deletes Marathon dancing as a copyvio [72] (which it was). He then restarts it as a stub, which is ok. But now he's deleted Special:Undelete/Talk:Marathon_dancing the talk page twice, without restoring it when he recreated and stubbifyed. There wasn't a copyvio on the talk page, just discussion. MBisanz talk 19:13, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Also, I'm not seeing any reason why Special:Undelete/Cut-and-paste_job should have been deleted. It was 2.5 years old and didn't have any deletion/questioning tags on it. MBisanz talk 19:19, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
I suppose he could have deleted Talk:Marathon dancing under G8 (talk page of a deleted page) and then forgot to restore it when he recreated the article, but I can't see any reason at all to delete Cut-and-paste job - it's an adequate stub, didn't meet any criterion for speedy deletion, and wasn't sent through prod or AfD. What's more, no deletion rationale was provided. Hut 8.5 20:00, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Cut-and-paste job is the first small red flag for me but it was completely unsourced. Articles like that get me inching towards the delete button too. So, if he doesn't want to talk about it, go to WP:DRV or raise the issue at WP:ANI, etc. If further questionable actions occur, try a WP:RFC and eventually WP:RFAR. But pre-emptive desysopping is silly, esp. when someone is clearly pissed off. —Wknight94 (talk) 20:37, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Even while MasterCell raises a good point, I do not think that there is a clear cut case where this has ever effected the way he used the tools. I would say differently if he was abusing the tools, or using they questionably and did not discuss it. But that just has not happened, how do we know that he will not engage in discussion when he must justify his admin actions? Tiptoety talk 19:53, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose, of course. Taking draconian action against people who get riled when relentlessly trolled is not a great way to reduce the amount of trolling that goes on. Guy (Help!) 20:06, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
  • But should a administrator get riled when trolled? If they are unable to re-main civil and keep a calm demeanor, then what good are they to the project. Maybe talking with those "trolls" may change their contributions to the project. (I still oppose de-syoping) Tiptoety talk 20:17, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
  • By definition, talking to trolls is unproductive. Hence WP:DNFT. Wknight94 (talk) 20:37, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Users DGG, Kim Dent-Brown and Friday are not trolls, thanks. And calling people trolls is hardly ever productive. RxS (talk) 22:49, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Huh? Straw man? How did we get from Guy talking about trolls to me calling DGG, Kim Dent-Brown and Friday trolls? —Wknight94 (talk) 01:50, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
You invoked WP:DNFT in response to Guy's claim that he was undergoing relentless trolling. At that point the last 3 editors that tried to talk to him were those 3 editors, and they got blown off. They were not trolling nor were they relentless. WP:DNFT absolutely positively does not apply. RxS (talk) 05:19, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment One of my biggest criteria at WP:RfA is evidence of communication - I think it vital for the position. Perhaps it is legit to not respond to "trolls" - but it appears that that sobriquet is being applied a little too liberally here. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:17, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment Before everyone forgets, Mikkai is a long-term member of Wikipedia, who can be expected to know what is good behavior & what is not. As at least one person pointed out above, he hasn't done anything that deserves desysopping. On the other hand, he's clearly a burn-out case. He's demonstrated a brittle & contrary attitude (to put it mildly) towards anyone else that crosses his path for some time now: one may wonder which is worse -- being blocked by him or receiving a message from him. :-)

To repeat myself, he hasn't done anything deserving action -- yet. Refusing to respond to questions on his Talk page doesn't help him in the long run, although it might in the short term. Many cases of questionable behavior can be adequately dealt with by exchanging messages on a Talk page; take that option away & the options we have left are desysopping or blocking. Probably the best option is to let this slide, while keeping a careful, non-stalking watch over him in case he does cross the line & needs immediate handling. -- llywrch (talk) 22:33, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment How interesting. The rudeness and refusal to cooperate are troubling, and perhaps the project might be giving him stress. On the other hand, judging by the edits he's a productive administrator who does good work around here for which administrative privileges are important, and seems to have good judgment about staying on the right side of a dispute [73]. Maybe we should just agree to call him User:Dirty Harry and be done with it. It might shock people to hear me stick up for a problematic admin but I really think the way to go is through discussion, kindness, and understanding here, not arguments and threats of desysop. Wikidemo (talk) 04:02, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Oppose very strongly, this is one of our best editors and admins and deserves our full support against the harassment he is receiving, to desysop would be to side with his trolls. Thanks, SqueakBox 05:08, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Who has been harassing him? If we can stop them, perhaps he will cheer up? Jehochman Talk 05:09, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Check his talk page hsistory for details. I have been watching it for a long time myself. Thanks, SqueakBox 05:11, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose If anything, the community needs to help good users who are stressed or harassed, not stress and harass them further. Kicking somebody when they're down is certain to hurt the encyclopedia and the community in the long run. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:48, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

While I would oppose a too hasty desysop on AN/I, I'm equally uncomfortable with the idea that we should just wait until something goes wrong again and then press the point. This is the third time in ten days that Mikka's behaviour has been raised on AN/I (see here and here). There are obvious civility issues, along with the unresponsiveness. But all I see is a variety of bad options. A longish break seems best, but that's pointless unless he desires it. Marskell (talk) 12:49, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Oppose community desysop. Desysoping is not the job of a group of people chatted about it for a couple days then had a vote. This is a job for arbcom, who will examine the evidence and rebuttal in detail. If it continues then that is exactly where it will end up. I do however endorse the communities right to block disruptive users. I also condemn the unilateral unblock of this user as a violations of the blocking policy, a fact the unblocking admin couldn't care less about. I think this is an even greater violation of admin trust that what Mikkalia did. (1 == 2)Until 15:42, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

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


Obviously de-syoping is not the way to handle this, but something needs to be done. Why don't we try and discuss other methods of fixing/improving this issue. Tiptoety talk 19:31, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Comment This is outrageous conduct for an administrator. Does anyone imagine an RFA passing, where the candidate says "Once I become administrator, I plan to delete things and block people and I refuse to discuss it with anyone"? There is no way that this is anywhere within the realm of reasonable. There is a DRV currently under discussion, where the editor had to take the issue straight to drv because the admin refuses to accept any communication on wikipedia. If the deletion policy and the instructions at Deletion review say for editors to discuss the deletion with the closing or deciding admin, then this implies that the admin should discuss it with them. To refuse to do so id an abuse of the tools. What message does this send out about administrators in general, and our collabarative consensual community? This can not stand. Desysopping would be the appropriate measure to take, so how do we get that done? Someone said arbcom? Is that right? Lets take it there... who knows how?... lead the way. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 03:30, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
    • A clear weakness in the system. If this came to rfa, how would it turn out. Yet since this occurs after the rfa clears the only word is "live with it."--Cube lurker (talk) 03:40, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
      • Yep, it needs to be taken to arbcom, though i do not feel comfortable doing it. I do not think desyoping is the appropriate measure to take. Tiptoety talk 04:29, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I guess I wasn't clear a week ago when the last Mikkalai post was started when I said "per his pledge of muteness and per his previous actions, the next step should be arbitration". Now a week has past since that pledge of sorts and there is continuing problems arising. Again, my recommendation is arbitration. — Save_Us 05:46, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

So let me get this straight.. there's no actual problem (as in, no one is currently talking to him about admin issues), but there might be a problem, but no one is sure if it even exists? Don't you people have articles to write? -- Ned Scott 06:17, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Ned. Is there a specific admin move that people are concerned with? I see some concerns with Mikkalai about the lack of warnings or posting for blocks (it can be a problem if blocked users don't know how to contest their blocks). If so, someone here complaining about that should just ask him. If he doesn't respond to that, you have something to go to Arbcom with. Otherwise, this is just pointless. --