Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive474

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

QuackGuru and Kelly going at it[edit]

History abounds here so I'd like uninvolved admins to step in and separate these two. Thanks. Ronnotel (talk) 20:55, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Might I note this. Tiptoety talk 20:56, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
No, QuackGuru came along to push Kelly's buttons. He is revert-warring her sandbox, currently at 9RR (not a typo). All his edits are WP:POINT to a user's user space. Quack is there to incite Kelly, nothing more. --mboverload@ 21:00, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Agree. Quack is way overboard here. rootology (C)(T) 21:01, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
(e/c)Agree with Mboverload. It's a sandbox. Quackguru is repeatedly removing a link to a wikipedia mirror of a historical version of an existing article, citing BLP. The version is still in the page history, not deleted or oversighted. I'm too involved to block, don't need the drama. Keeper ǀ 76 21:02, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

The edit war is User:Kelly/sandbox 2 and [1]. It's over this link. rootology (C)(T) 21:01, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Note to editors: Kelly actually wrote the first iteration of that page, and did an AWESOME job at it. It was toned down but her contribution lives on. That webcite link is to show how much she worked on that page and is simply a memento IMO. --mboverload@ 21:05, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Wow, lamest edit-war of the month! Quack blocked for 100 hours for sheer nuttiness. Moreschi (talk) 21:07, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
See his block log. Wowzorz! --mboverload@ 21:09, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Good block. Ronnotel (talk) 21:11, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Great! Tiptoety talk 21:12, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
I had just final-warned QuackGuru, but I fully support this block. Even in a Utopian best-case scenario with regard to QuackGuru's motivation, this was unacceptable edit-warring in another editor's userspace. There is no BLP exemption to 3RR here, and QuackGuru's reverting is poor form on many levels. His block log speaks for itself. Good block. MastCell Talk 21:13, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Good block. Chillum 21:14, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Support block and duration. Keeper ǀ 76 21:15, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Sheesh, should this guy still have the admin tools based on that block log? Wizardman 21:15, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Um, Quack is not a admin. Tiptoety talk 21:17, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
  • facepalm* Well, I guess technically that's good @_@. Dunno why i thought he was. Wizardman 21:19, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Should that guy still have editing privileges based on that block log? Nonetheless, a well-earned vacation may do the self-proclaimed Guru some good. Good block. -- Levine2112 discuss 21:28, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Based on that block log, we should consider a multi month block for bad behavior.--Tznkai (talk) 22:46, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Yes, given Quack's history, I would support a longer block. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:49, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
He's about two blocks away from needing a second page to list them all. I look at such a lengthy series of blocks and realize how little I've accomplished. :) The odd thing is that QuackGuru was a vigorous defender of User:Pulsifer's BLP-questionable sandbox page trying to link Sarah Palin to an Alaskan secessionist movement. I guess the POV is only supposed to push one way, eh? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 23:27, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm leaning towards an indef if Quack comes back and starts up any shit, because this is simply unacceptable behavior out of any user. His block log is lengthy, and I hope that it is referenced upon the next block. seicer | talk | contribs 00:24, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

It should be noted that half the entries in his log are unblocks and adjustments. (hell one even has the summary "ömglol"). ViridaeTalk 00:47, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Too true. The log indeed is not pretty, but just counting the lines isn't as important as reading them - and finding out the reasons for it. I see a block withdrawn by the blocking admin as a mistake, a block on 1 September 2007 (5 lines), a block in December 2007 (2 lines), a block in February 2008 where it proved necessary to disable email (3 lines), a block in March, and the current block. Five blocks isn't great, but it isn't nearly as bad as the 14 lines that a quick glance shows. Reviewing the history, it looks like the December block was for edit warring around the usual Larry Sanger issue. So that makes 4 of the 5 blocks for edit warring, with the 5th for canvassing via email while simultaneously hypocritically complaining about someone else (who had on wiki given notices to editors on both sides of the issue, but QG chose to only mention the notices to one of the two sides in his hypocritical complaint). Additionally, in the 1 September incident he also got his talk page protected for {{unblock}} abuse and had an emailed unblock request declined subsequently.[2]. There was prior discussion of mentoring, should that idea be pursued? GRBerry 03:59, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Good block. However, I don't think imposing an indef block is going to necessarily be endorsed by ArbCom, if the action is appealed. A community sanction needs to be attempted first - probation, a revert limitation, or mentorship proposal would probably be appropriate. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:55, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
  • It's a long block log (and thanks to GRBerry for doing more than just counting the lines), but the block prior to this one was 6 months ago, so a look at the contributions history is needed. If there were six months of productive edits leading up to this block, then that would be a mitigating factor when considering further blocks. If, on the other hand, the summer was mostly spent on vacation, then the blocks would be "close", and that would be of concern. Overall, I agree with GRBerry - "Five blocks isn't great, but it isn't nearly as bad as the 14 lines that a quick glance shows.". Carcharoth (talk) 07:37, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Support 100 hour block, but not anything longer. If that doesn't work, consider indef then, but 100 hours should get the point across. Everyking (talk) 09:30, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Poetlister & Co page deletions[edit]

I notice that since the exposure of Poetlister and Cato as the same user, and while further investigation is going on, the user pages of all these have been deleted. The reason given in most cases is G6 ("Technical deletions & non-controversial maintenance"). I'm thinking this is 1/ unhelpful right now, and 2/ quite poor timing, given that these are still being referenced for case purposes. I would like to ask they be undeleted for the time being, at least until the dust settles.

FT2 (Talk | email) 22:24, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

 Done Tiptoety talk 22:49, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
You missed several: User:Bedivere/huggle.css, User:Bedivere/monobook.js, User talk:Taxwoman/articles, User:Taxwoman/articles, User talk:Newport/Archive1, User:Londoneye/contributions, and User:Londoneye/watch. --NE2 23:01, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Nah, Maxim is doing some fancy work, it will all be done here shortly. Tiptoety talk 23:04, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
I think we've got them all restored... although I may have gone through more fancywork than I should have (the undeletion script didn't seem to like the bluelinks, but I had a feeling not all of them were fully restored, so I redeleted everything to make sure, but I think in most cases Tiptoety had it right... {{trout}} deliverable to my talkpage if someone fits it necessary, and I also recommend User:AzaToth/twinklebatchundelete.js which makes mass-restores so much more easier.) Maxim () 23:10, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
  • I actually know one of the people who was affected by this. 63.46.33.196 (talk) 06:35, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

It'd be helpful if someone could recreate Alwyn Pritchard and webcitation it before redeleting.Proabivouac (talk) 09:39, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

It it possible to webcitation google cache? Because if so, google cache is your friend. Brilliantine (talk) 09:42, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Certainly, but the look of the cached article is horribly degraded. scratch that, it looks alright.[3] I was thinking of the mirrored copies.Proabivouac (talk) 09:45, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
(ec)In any case, I have cached the google cache with Coral CDN in case it goes away and the article stays gone away. Brilliantine (talk) 09:51, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Proab, if you still wish for a copy of the Alwyn Pritchard page (or any other pages), let me know and I can temporarily userfy them for you. A quick note that I deleted the various subpages reasoning that the deal was done and that further evidence gathering was effectively pointless; given PoetlisterTaxwomanYehudiCatoRuncornNewportLondoneyeGuy has left, anything else is just fishing for salacious gossip, and the only person who would benefit from these pages existing -mostly lists of Jewish people or poets, or copies of watchlists (to avoid having to log in to various accounts to see them?) - is the person behind the Horde. I still believe that, but no issues with these being undeleted. Neıl 10:24, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
It's only that we'd linked to the Pritchard article in note four, but the link has been changed to a redirect to some totally uninvolved person.Proabivouac (talk) 11:29, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Ultimate might need to be protected[edit]

In the last 5 days, a couple of editors and I have reverted at least half a dozen attempts to inappropriately change the lead image on the Ultimate article. An admin might want to semi protect the article for now if you guys think its a necessary move. Thanks! Noneforall (talk) 03:37, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

From what I see, Ultimate is a disambig page with 1 recent incident of vandalism, so no need to protect it. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 03:59, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Do you mean Ultimate (sport)? Nate (chatter) 04:03, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

That's the one. Some recent winner of some flying frisbee event is using the page to brag, in childish fashion, about their victory. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 06:29, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
One or two reverts on a single day does not merit full protection. I'll semi-protect for a day and a half. Bearian (talk) 13:20, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Guido den Broeder[edit]

Yes check.svg Resolved.

Guido den Broeder (talk · contribs) is requesting unblocking. He was most recently blocked by User:Prodego for "Disruption through repeated legal action." Guido had been previously blocked for legal threats; Prodego undid that block on August 1, apparently because the legal issues had been totally resolved. Then, on September 4, Guido posted a non-specific note [4] about his involvement in another legal dispute; according to the analysis of other admins this edit was the immediate reason behind the block. Guido now says that the legal action he referred to in this recent edit is already resolved, and wants to be unblocked. So what remains is the question of whether Guido ought to be indefinitely blocked for having taken legal action repeatedly. AFAIK, these two incidents are the only ones. Guido quite strenuously argued against being blocked the first time, as there was a question whether the legal threat took place on the Dutch (nl) Wikipedia or here. So I don't see a repeat abuse problem here, and furthermore, at the essence of WP:NLT are two points: (1) keep legal actions from interfering with Wikipedia, and (2) don't use threats of legal action to try to influence Wikipedia articles or editors. Neither one of these was a problem here. It would have been better for Guido to not mention the legal issue at all, but he certainly wasn't using Wikipedia as an inappropriate channel for communication. And the action was apparently based on off-wikipedia acts, not about Wikipedia editing. So I'd like to see an unblock here. Mangojuicetalk 19:51, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Let me note that I'm opposed to pressing Guido for details about what this legal issue was, per the spirit of both WP:AGF and WP:NLT (i.e. Guido mostly kept it off of Wikipedia, we should try to do the same). Mangojuicetalk 19:51, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Seems reasonable. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 20:09, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
I have some residual concerns, mainly related to the tone of m:Requests for comments/Dutch Wikipedia - unblock request. While projects are not related and we ban people other projects welcome, I still have questions as to why Guido didn't want this discussion brought to ANI. MBisanz talk 20:15, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
I think something that needs to be made very clear before I feel comfortable unblocking this user is the fact that this situation will not happen again, he will no longer make legal threats and even if he has engaged in legal action with another user it will not be mentioned here. Tiptoety talk 20:23, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
That seems more reasonable. It should go without saying - but it's better said than unsaid. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 20:58, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Users should not bring up legal action, period. Not as a definite threat, not as a pointy allusion. Based on what I've read to date I'd support an unblock with a caveat of "Don't ever mention legal threats again" and if he sincerely wants to avoid disrupting wikipedia because of a legal issue, use {{wikibreak}}. GDB tends to make and cause a lot of noise wherever he goes, intentionally or not, but hasn't quite reached the point of irrevocably breaking the community's patience. Regards Meta, what happens off wiki(.en in this case) stays off wiki. Unblock, but I'd have this as his final warning about invoking mentioning the legal system. WLU (talk) Wikipedia's rules(simplified) 21:07, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
That was brought up after the first situation I believe. Prodego talk 21:09, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Slightly better reaction this time, slightly less overt discussion. Shows a small amount of learning, which is better than nothing. WLU (talk) Wikipedia's rules(simplified) 21:10, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
It appears that Guido has agreed to no longer mention any legal action on-wiki. Tiptoety talk 21:33, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
  • I don't think Guido is evil or beyond being brought round. He is clearly very angry about the sabotage to his pet project. I suspect he will get over it in time; I am optimistic that the risk from a second chance is low in this case at this time. Guy (Help!) 22:02, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Neither did I when I unblocked him, and I was quite optimistic too. I do not have a problem with second chances, I routinely give them to anyone who has any indication at all of an intention of collaborating. Third chances don't work the same way. Prodego talk 00:50, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
So, I'm seeing thoughts running both ways, here. Per Tiptoety, Guido has agreed to no longer mention legal action on-wiki, and that seems to be the main request from the editors here. Is there consensus to unblock? UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 12:23, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm always for giving people a chance. Reblocking him if it restarts doesn't cost anything. Stifle (talk) 13:01, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
There seems to be substantial support for unblocking; Guido has been appropriately warned at this point against any future situations. So I've gone ahead with the unblock. Mangojuicetalk 20:09, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, Mangojuice. Note that the guideline WP:NLT is currently being discussed. Regards, Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 18:14, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Legal threat on Tim Boetsch[edit]

Resolved: User indef blocked per WP:NLT. User has contacted Foundation regarding legal action. — Satori Son

It's probably nothing, but I just discovered this legal threat on the Tim Boetsch article (an IP wisely removed it). I'm guessing the threat is in response to this act of vandalism by an another anonymous IP. The user that left the legal threat is named Tboetsch. The editor could be a fan or the subject defending himself in response to the vandalism. Either way, figured it wouldn't hurt to report it. I've also notified Tboetsch of this thread. Pinkadelica (talk) 05:38, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

blocked. SWATJester Son of the Defender 12:53, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
I was just in the process of advising him on why legal threats are not appropriate and what would be the best course of action if his article is vandalized again. Perhaps you could give him some advice on how he might get unblocked? Thanks. — Satori Son 13:00, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
FYI, I've just AfD'd the article (not in response to this thread; just one of those moments when everyone edits at cross-purposes collaborates at the same time). EyeSerenetalk 13:10, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Kind of crappy timing from a WP:BITE perspective, but I understand your rationale. — Satori Son 15:05, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Yes, it was. Like I say, I didn't get there from this thread (in fact, the thread caught my attention due to the name of the article I'd just been reading). It was a hugely unfortunate coincidence. However, I've now withdrawn the AfD nom, as notability seems to have been established. Hopefully no harm done :P EyeSerenetalk 16:21, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Indef blocking a new user seems harsh if no-one told them the rules first, especially if they just read something like that about themselves. --Nate1481 14:39, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
They need to be blocked until their identify can be confirmed, anyway, surely? --Tango (talk) 14:56, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure if we block for that while confirmation is pending, but either way Guy has posted a note on their talk with email contact info. — Satori Son 15:05, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

We block them indefinitely until the legal threats are rescinded. Considering that the user has since called the Foundation offices to continue the threats, I feel it well justified. SWATJester Son of the Defender 15:14, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I read the policy, and I can understand the reasoning, However a more empathetic comment on the talk page might have helped avoid the phone call. --Nate1481 16:21, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
I was never really objecting to the block, I just wanted to make sure the guy was politely told what was going on and what his options were. Obviously, it's a Foundation issue now and I'm restoring the "resolved" tag. — Satori Son 21:36, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Just a comment here. Some anon added a nasty uncited defamatory (i.e. false) factoid to the article, with the result that the subject was hurt and upset and tried to fix it. I've had those revisions oversighted now. Could I please ask that in future if people see someone who is obviously the article subject, obviously completely new to the project and obviously complaining about a gross violation of policy, that they take the time to remove the threats, explain nicely to the person why what they are doing is wrong, and then if they continue the threats they have at least been warned. we know about WP:NLT, defamed article subjects do not (in fact ,a lot of them know nothing at all about Wikipedia except that it allowed some idiot to write vile things about them). This is the front line of Wikipedia's PR - how we handle bad edits to articles about real people. The user was not the problem, the anon adding uncited defamatory material was the problem, the user was just reacting to it. That's not to condone legal threats, but the NLT policy exists to stop people threatening each other with legal action, not to give us a way to block angry article subjects on their first edit. If I had a dollar for every OTRS complaint that mentioned legal action then I would be rich, but the vast majority go away if not happy then at least mollified. Banninating people for saying "WTF?!?! I'll sue your ass!" when they see crap written about them in article space is not really in the spirit of NLT, I would say. Guy (Help!) 22:23, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Um, I did exactly that. Someone else blocked at the same time I was posting to his talk. And clarification to WP:NLT on situations like this would be welcome. — Satori Son 16:01, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Guy on this. I think it would be wise if the NLT policy could be clarified on these matters. The policy is a good policy, overall, but there is a very unfortunate sequence of events that happens far too often. A BLP attack victim sees something horrible in Wikipedia, and I think we can all acknowledge that they have no moral responsibility to become Wikipedians to fix it. Some of them react in ways that we, as Wikipedians who favor reasoned discourse over threats, find inappropriate. Sure, and why not? They are being unfairly attacked and they are hurt and angry and they have no idea what our rules are. That's not their fault. Banning them on the spot for a legal threat is not a very helpful response, usually. Now, some people like to show up as anons and issue legal threats just to cause trouble, and telling the difference between the two can be difficult. So I am not criticizing any particular action here. I just think that policy needs to reflect reality.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 22:45, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
FYI, We have an essay related to this type of scenario, see WP:DOLT. Maybe parts of that can be used to fix/update WP:NLT? Keeper ǀ 76 22:48, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Vandalism persists[5], I've requested semi-protection as this is on going & these changes may want oversight too. --Nate1481 07:43, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Semiprotected. See also the debate at WT:NLT. Guy (Help!) 08:50, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Trouble users[edit]

Resolved: No further action necessary. cauldron 18:29, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

What happens with unresolved cases of trouble users? I just read about a user blocked many times but he didn't changed his behaviour. What happens with trouble users? --Nice book I read (talk) 20:30, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

typically, the blocks get longer. But what is the specific problem you are having? DGG (talk) 20:40, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
I believe a glance at this user's contributions would be enlightening. I don't see a need for further action at this time. GRBerry 04:06, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Passing the baton[edit]

Resolved: for now. Blocked for 12 hours.
An admin passes the baton
The background

A few days ago, Prom3th3an (talk · contribs) struck part of my comment on a request for arbitration, calling it a "flamatory and WP:BAIT remark". Ryan Postlethwaite reverted, and I left a comment on Prom3th3an's talk page, telling him not to do it again. He then responded, accusing me of "blood lust" and being "on whichunt", and tossed an AGF warning template on my talkpage ({{Uw-agf2}} to be exact). After I responded, Prom3th3an removed my response with an extremely childish edit summary, struck my previous comments (as he did on the arbitration page), and added a talkback notice on my talk page. Of course there was no new message for me on his talk page, and this was just part of his childish game. The remaining discussion can be see on my talk page, here

Today's fun

Sciurinæ (talk · contribs) commented on my talk page, pointing out that Prom3th3an had continued to alter the content of other users' comments, after I gave him a final/last warning. Since the last warning was in response to his editing of my comments, I opted to give him a second "final warning" as a block would have been inappropriate (diff was much earlier in the day; relatively minor; Tango clause). I told him to post here if he truly believed I was acting inappropriately, but he removed that suggestion with yet another childish edit summary (and again struck my previous comment). Much of this comes with the territory, but he's moved on to referring to other editors as a couple and lovers. Anybody with a clue stick handy? Also note he's offering to adopt other users, which I think is very misguided. An independent word of advice on Prom3th3an's talk page would be appreciated, so I'm passing the baton. Cheers, - auburnpilot talk 02:29, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Don't worry - I've been keeping an outside eye on this. Prom3th3an just doesn't seem to get it, and he's be warned sufficiently now about altering other peoples comments. I think you should stay away from blocking him (simply because from what I know about him, he'll call foul on any block you place on his account). Let me know if you encounter any other talk page changes he makes. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 02:35, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
(e/c) I'll keep a watch on his edits, and given his sufficient notices and warnings on this, a block would be in order if this sort of behavior continued on. It's entirely unacceptable. seicer | talk | contribs 02:38, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Just beware of the dreaded Whichhunt, my son - The jaws that bite, the claws that catch! Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 03:00, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
My two cents are above, cheerio   «l| Ψrom3th3ăn ™|l»  (talk) 03:51, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Removed. I believe this would be the nail in his coffin. Thanks for the comments, all. - auburnpilot talk 03:57, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Outsider's opinon: Time for a civility block, as he seems unlikely to stop the aggressive provoking. ThuranX (talk) 04:01, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Blocked for 12 hours. This needs to stopped. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 04:04, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
It looks like he's conducting an experiment of some sort, to see how long it would take to get blocked. He found out. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 04:05, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
He has made an unblock request, one claim he made is that WP:TE is an essay, not policy. It's been declined by Kurykh. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 04:28, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Kurykh is exactly right that although WP:TE is an essay, it is an essay about the reasons why TE is a form of Disruptive Editing, the prohibition of which IS policy. I thoroughly support his explanation of the decline. ThuranX (talk) 04:30, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Sarah_Palin_protection_wheel_war#Statement_by_User:Prom3th3an Note what his statement said at the same ArbCom case, which is an awful example of not assuming good faith. Tombomp (talk/contribs) 06:54, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm beginning to wonder if some further level of dispute resolution will not be required here. Prom3th3an originally began feuding with Deskana, than me when I intervened as an uninvolved admin, and now AuburnPilot. It seems like there is a definite pattern of disruption and incivility developing here. MBisanz talk 12:22, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Prom3th3an is a train wreck happening before us and its not hard to see what's going to happen shortly without some dramatic u-turn in his approach. Reading this, you have to wonder what went wrong. Moondyne 12:35, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
How often do we see this happen? The light that burns twice as bright.... CIreland (talk) 15:45, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
You'll find out soon enough, when his block expires. Although he has promised to be good. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 16:49, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Dont put words it my mouth please.   «l| Ψrom3th3ăn ™|l»  (talk) 17:25, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
I was executive-summarizing. Your actual words are: "ill give both parties the apology that they are due. I accept the block and that I was out of line, Im not contesting that" and "You have got reason to trust me, because I know that you'll just block me again and for longer if I dont agree to the above." Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 17:30, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Yes, both those unblock requests were denied, along with the terms of which they were requested.   «l| Ψrom3th3ăn ™|l»  (talk) 17:33, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
I apologize for suggesting that you might be willing to improve your approach to your activities here. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 17:45, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Okey, and I'm going to say this thread is done, nothing more to do atm. MBisanz talk 17:35, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:35, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

User:John Jacob Wilson Alueminous[edit]

Resolved: Socks and master blocked. Thatcher 15:31, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what to think here, but I'm assuming that this user is either a sock account, or something more. Either way, per the contributions(and the ones that stand out to me), I believe this should be looked into. Something fishy is going on.

First, this series of edits is the user copy/pasting past warnings and block messages from some anon account to his or her talk page: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5.

The user then creates their talk page with the {{rollbacker}} tag, as seen here.

The user then creates the monobook.js page, a page not usually found within 13 minutes of account creation, with the text importsript:'(vandalizeandscrewupuserpages)', as seen here.

The user's first actual contributions are three oppose votes to RfAs, with the first speaking of incivility, and the last two just the same copy, again speaking of incivility: 1, 2, 3.

This user then made several edits to different articles, all with the edit summery of references, while the edits themselves have nothing to do with references, and are in fact placing <--! --> markup to several different lines, hiding the text. Here are two instances of this: 1, 2.

Since the filing of this note, the user has continued to engage in such activities as listed above. Thank you all for your time in reading through this.— dαlus Contribs /Improve 06:18, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

None of these are worthy of blocking though. . . --John Jacob Wilson Alueminous (talk) 06:22, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Actually, they are, if you are found to be a sock of some other user, which I'm pretty sure you are.— dαlus Contribs /Improve 06:25, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
That's a big "If" --John Jacob Wilson Alueminous (talk) 06:31, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Right much suspicious. And didn't you used to be John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmidt? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 06:26, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Ye, back in the day :) --John Jacob Wilson Alueminous (talk) 06:32, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
I've been looking at his edits... almost all have been vandalism, incivil, or show a much higher degree of wikiknowledge than the average bear. I suspect it's a sock as well... he's done just enough that we can't call him a "true vandal only account" but just marginally so.---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 06:29, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
You seem to be doing all of this based on the inference that I'm a sock. High level of wikiknowledge, voting at rfa, or removing comments from my talk page is not considered vandalism. Cheerio --John Jacob Wilson Alueminous (talk) 06:33, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
You seem to think that a user can only be blocked for vandalism, not so, block evasion or illegal user account is another reason.— dαlus Contribs /Improve 06:37, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
"Block Evasion" - How can I evade a block if I haven't been blocked before, and what makes my user account 'illegal' --John Jacob Wilson Alueminous (talk) 06:39, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
A brand-new user jumping right into the things you've jumped into, as if already editing for a year, practically screams "Sock!" A red flag in a stocking shape. The admins here recognize the signs, and they weren't born yesterday. Well, some of them were, but most of them are grissled veterans. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 06:48, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Who cares if he's a sock or not? These edits 1 2 3 4, among others, are a variation on page blanking vandalism. Indefinite vandalism-only block and be done with it. --JaGatalk 06:51, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I honestly care, to see if there are any other puppets we don't know about that. Sometimes checkusers reveal sockpuppets that you thought weren't sockpuppets.— dαlus Contribs /Improve 06:54, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Good point. He should definitely be investigated. I was under the impression he wouldn't be blocked if he weren't proven to be a sock; seems to me he's done more than enough to earn that block regardless. Sorry if my comment came off wrong. --JaGatalk 07:01, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Indefblocked. Daniel (talk) 06:58, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
  •  Likely a sockpuppet of Fatal!ty (talk · contribs) whom I blocked yesterday for one week for vandalism and other shenanigans while logged out and using bad hand accounts. Compare edits to User talk:Gogo Dodo by John Jacob Wilson Alueminous and Fatal!ty's sockpuppet Thewikiqediarollbacker (talk · contribs). Thatcher 07:22, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
    • Also common opposition to Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Synergy. Thatcher 07:25, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
      • His parting comment, something about "Good luck with Thatcher". And probably not Margaret. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 07:27, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
        • Do his various "votes" tonight need to be weeded out, or does it matter? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 07:28, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
          • I think most if not all of the votes have already been weeded out. The comment RE Thatcher was to do with Daedalus's request on Thatcher's talk. He was clearly keeping an eye out. Which is pretty damning in itself. Brilliantine (talk) 07:32, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
            • Kudos. Obviously he was playing a game to see how long he could get away with this. Not exactly subtle. If it weren't for the AGF philosophy, he would have been blocked in about 5 minutes. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 07:34, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
              • I'll be glad when this is done and over with, but seeing as how the sockmaster was blocked, and a user account was created, I doubt this will, in regards to the idea that his ip may either be dynamic, or he is using multiple access points. I suspect a very long next few months.— dαlus Contribs /Improve 07:40, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Late to the party as always, but, given the concerns over socking, did anyone go to WP:RFCU? I can't see an entry there. --Dweller (talk) 15:16, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Thatcher is a Checkuser, why start a case there when he can just come along and give a pre-emptive result here? Brilliantine (talk) 15:28, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
My main interest here was what to do about my one week block of Fatal!ty, but since he has continued to make vandal accounts, I'm just going to up it to indefinite. Thatcher 15:31, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

User:67.165.69.84[edit]

Resolved: IP possibly reassigned. No vandalism within past two weeks. cauldron 18:27, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/67.165.69.84 has made seventeen edits, each and every one adding "Saucy McFoodlefist" in some way or another, mostly to obscure lists and articles and many of which weren't reverted until I just did them. Plainly this address is being used solely for vandalism.  RGTraynor  14:59, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Or it was, on August 14, 15 and 21. Nobody's used this address for 20 days, and the comment you left today refers to an edit made August 14! Exploding Boy (talk) 15:17, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Your point being? If it were a vandal acting within the last couple hours, I'd have taken it to AVI.  RGTraynor  15:28, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Well, there's every chance it's a dynamic IP and has been assigned to someone else by now. Brilliantine (talk) 15:51, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
My point being that there's absolutely no point in warning someone for vandalism nearly a month after the fact, and that no-one's used the account for almost a month now anyway, so there's really nothing to be done here. Plus, as pointed out above, it's an IP: anyone could be using it. If someone using that IP starts editing problematically again, we warn, then block, as usual. Exploding Boy (talk) 15:55, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Jeffrey Vernon Merkey alleged real-life stalking/harassment[edit]

After last year's Arbcom decision, I swore I'd stay out of all things related to Merkey. I'd still be doing that if he hadn't decided to harass me in the real world.

In the ArbCom case, Merkey claimed multiple times that I had criminally stalked him, see [7], [8], [9], and [10]. Arbcom decided that I had WP:HARASS'ed Merkey [11], and banned me for one year. After my one-year ban was up, I returned to Wikipedia and began editing on subjects in which I have an interest, keeping in mind my de facto topic ban relating to Merkey.

ArbCom also issued Merkey a one-year ban for other reasons, and this ban has been re-set twice [12] for evasion from different IP addresses that have been connected in some way to him:

  • 166.70.238.44 and 166.70.238.45 where a tracert ends at a host that includes 'jmerkey' in the name
  • 69.2.248.210, which resolves to Calculated Research & Technology, which lists a company named Omega8 as a partner, which is the exclusive distributor of Merkey's "Forensic Filesystem" according to materials on a site that Merkey controls.

I wouldn't bring any of this up if Merkey hadn't escalated things dramatically in the real world. When he began editing from 69.2.248.210, I was certain it was him based on the topics chosen and the fact that the IP address could be easily linked to him. Did I say a damn thing? NO. I let other people notice it and handle it, and this was the proper thing to do. I monitored the situation closely, but made no comments at all. The last thing I want is to have any dealings at all with Merkey, not on Wikipedia and certainly not in the real world. I also don't want certain people to start jumping on me and claiming that I'm an SPA against Merkey.

But this is really serious when you make phone calls and trying to mess with peoples' lives. What's he going to do next, show up at my house?

On 25 June 2008, Merkey called my employer and tried to get me fired. He asked to speak to HR, and told them who he was (including providing a phone number), and "you've got a problem employee on your hands." He then claimed to have checkuser results from Wikipedia indicating that some large percentage of my edits to Wikipedia were done from an IP address that resolved to my employer. He never asked directly to have me fired, but his choice of words made it clear he expected I would get fired as a result of his call.

In the ArbCom case, Merkey accused me of stalking him, but then almost a year later, he called my employer and tried to get me fired. Now I'll say this: if he had called them at the time that I was allegedly stalking him from my work, that's legitimate ("one of your employees used your computer systems yesterday to harass me in an internet forum"), but a year later? After I've left him alone completely in real life? That's way over the line. I want nothing to do with him, and almost one year after my last interaction with him on Wikipedia, he decides to move his battle from Wikipedia to the real world.

There's not a whole lot Wikipedia can do, other than make a very bold statement that this kind of behaviour cannot be tolerated. Considering at least two legal threats during his ban period (a direct legal threat [13] and a veiled threat [14]) in violation of his legal threat parole, and in light of his behaviour in stalking me (the very thing he unjustly accused me of during ArbCom), I ask the community to permanently ban Jeff Merkey from Wikipedia. Pfagerburg (talk) 21:40, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Several weeks ago, I contacted the checkuser ombudsman to determine if Merkey's claim that he had checkuser results was true. Obviously, he doesn't have access, but I wondered if he had managed to get someone else to divulge information to him. After some delay, the ombudsman replied that there is no information in the checkuser tool indicating that my IP addresses were accessed or disclosed. That seems like a good clarification to add, that checkuser was not actually involved. Pfagerburg (talk) 21:43, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Considering that Merkey has been indef'ed before and managed to get unbanned [15], this block should get a footnote that it is permanent and irrevocable. How many blatant violations of WP policy (NLT and BLOCK mostly) do you need? Coupled with real-world behaviour to bring his grudge from WP into my employment? Indefinite and irrevocable, please Pfagerburg (talk) 21:46, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
If the facts are what you say they are, I would support extending the ban on Merkey to indefinite and irrevocable. I suggest you email the arbitration committee (see the email addresses listed at WP:ARBCOM). Buki ben Yogli (talk) 22:43, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Without wanting to sail too close to the WP:NLT wind, surely that telephone call would be slanderous? Brilliantine (talk) 22:51, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
I doubt it's that simple. Merkey is a bit of an oddball but it's undeniably the case that he has also been royally trolled on and off Wikipedia. Guy (Help!) 22:52, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
No matter how badly other people have trolled him in the last year, there's no justification for messing with me in real life. Other than reporting his real-life harassment, I have pretty much left him alone this past year, especially here on WP. From my limited understand of the situation, messing with people in the real world is part of what got Daniel Brandt indef'ed. Pfagerburg (talk) 22:57, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Guy, you've been in contact with Merkey before. Can you get his version of events here? JoshuaZ (talk) 00:48, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Seconded - while this could be a serious situation, proceeding down the road with anything related to this based on one side's claims is a procedural and ethical mistake. Merkey's side of the story should be asked for and heard. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 05:21, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Thirded - he deserves his say, even if it will probably involve a lot of wikilawyering. Let him e-mail his comments to Guy or someone else of his choosing. Pfagerburg (talk) 13:09, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Support indefinite ban. Harassment is unacceptable, period. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:04, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Block has been implemented. — Werdna • talk 07:40, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

OK, I've noted it on the related arbitration page. -- ChrisO (talk) 11:45, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

No comment on the block but I have unsalted his talk page if he wishes to participate to this discussion via that channel. His userpage remains salted (now extended to indef). Kwsn (Ni!) 13:42, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

  • Pfagerburg, how did you verify it was Merkey that called (and not the GNAA)? --Duk 20:41, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
The person who called presented himself as Merkey, and provided a phone number which I presume is Merkey's. (No, I don't have the phone number; HR would have it.) He followed the pattern that I became accustomed to last year - claiming that I had stalked him, threatening to sue me, and asking that somebody (in this case, my employer, previously, admins or AbrCom) do something about it. Like the old way of spotting sock puppets prior to CheckUser, it fit too well to not be Merkey.
Something else I thought to mention: I'm not the only person who has had an apparent vendetta from Merkey spill over into the real world. I will not divulge the details publicly, but the gist of it is that someone who criticized Merkey off-wiki (and was never on WP) found out that copies of his message board postings were sent to someone who is in a position of authority over him. As in my situation, it happened several months after the alleged wrong. This person has communicated many more details to me privately, and I cannot offer those details to anyone here, unless/until I get his approval. Pfagerburg (talk) 02:18, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
I don't think Merkey has commented on this issue yet (if he is even aware of it), so there's no confirm or deny. He has denied other things in the past, such as posts made to LKML where the headers clearly indicate that the e-mail came from a machine under his control, and of course denying that he was behind the posts from the anonymous IP's noted above, despite what Occam's Razor (to quote Sir Fozzie) had to say about that. He's welcome to deny it, but that doesn't constitute proof that he didn't do it.
The person at my work who took the call is out of town for a week, but I will check with him to get more details when he is back. I have a few aces up my sleeve that can prove whether or not it was Merkey, if that becomes necessary.
If it turns out that someone impersonated Merkey (essentially a variant of a joe job), I will 1. offer my apologies to Merkey for this AN/I, 2. request that his ban be reset to the 1-year term that was previously in effect for block evasion (by SirFozzie as of 12 Aug 2008), and 3. provide any information I have (including the phone number if it is made available to me) to assist him in tracking down the responsible parties, if he so chooses.
Duk, I can't get the absolute confirmation from HR until next week. Some of the information will be of a confidential nature (such as the phone number which he provided, the name of the person he called, the company where I work), so posting it here doesn't seem like a very good idea. Pfagerburg (talk) 02:02, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Thank's Pfagerburg. So we don't really know if this was Merkey or someone impersonating him. I think we need to hear from Merkey. Did your HR person have caller ID?
As I pointed out above, Merkey has claimed impersonation before. Pfagerburg (talk) 23:26, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
To Werdna, let's not go hog wild on the infinite blocking based on well meaning hearsay that is based on well meaning hearsay. --Duk 11:20, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
The person I need to talk to is out of town until next week. Let the infinite block stay for now; it will be easy enough to back out later if it is proven that someone impersonated Merkey. If not for Werdna's block, Merkey would still be under 11 more months of block for ban evasion anyway. Pfagerburg (talk) 13:50, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

< See also message from Merkey. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 08:54, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Now on foundation-l too. MER-C 10:14, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
I would like nothing more than to leave Merkey alone, and receive the same in return. However, I cannot overlook Merkey (presumably, not conclusively proven yet) calling my employer and attempting to get me fired.
As I mentioned earlier in this thread, the person with whom I need to speak is out of the office until Monday, the 15th. When he returns, I will ask him for his notes, which included the phone number that the caller provided. I am confident that we can come to a conclusion as to the truth of the matter.
By the way, I saw the edits in early August before they disappeared. After an "I'm not Merkey, he doesn't work here" denial from the IP, a logged-in user posted an edit to the 69.2.248.210 page with the summary of "your company switchboard seems to think otherwise." The IP responded with an edit summary about stalking. And shortly thereafter, the edits disappeared, possibly oversighted. So Merkey does (or did) work there, contrary to the denials that he posted. Someone who can view deleted edits (does this work with oversight?) can verify that I was not that logged-in user.
What's the old legal adage "false in one, false in all"? Pfagerburg (talk) 13:42, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:00, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Harassment Continues, Evidence that it was Merkey in June, too[edit]

Merkey admitted to calling my workplace today, see [16]. I have spoken to the person who took his call. One of the first things Merkey said on the phone was that he had called to complain once before, in June.

As Jimbo said when Merkey's pay-for-BLP allegations surfaced earlier this year, "consider the source." I would add, "consider the trustworthiness of the source."

166.70.238.44 made a series of edits on botany. When accused of being Merkey, he adamantly denied it, despite the tracert logs that people posted. Today, Merkey admitted that it was him, saying "The last time I edited on Wikipedia was botany articles and was blocked." [17]. So his earlier denials, no matter how vehement, were in fact, quite false.

Now, I really hate to back a man into a corner, but I am sick of Merkey harassing my employer.

I have some MP3 files. One is the "Novell's coming after you" message that Merkey left on Al Petrofsky's answering machine (and later authenticated by threatening to sue Al for posting it) a few years ago. The other is the GNAA prank call that Merkey also said (on his now-deleted user talk page) was authentic. On Monday, my HR rep will listen and he will recognize the voice in those MP3 files as the same person who called in June.

Next, we will go to our phone system and get the caller ID logs. Merkey's number will be there, on the 25th of June. How will we know that's his number? He provided a phone number when he called today, and my employer returned his call at that number.

Please stop. Now. Pfagerburg (talk) 01:00, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Why the delay in bringing this up?[edit]

I feel like I ought to explain the delay in handling this. The best time to bring this up to Wikipedia would have been right after it happened, back in late June. However, I erroneously believed that I could not do so at the time, since my ArbCom-imposed block still had a month to go. Seeing that Merkey had his block re-set for editing from an IP address, I was not eager to re-set my own block by posting the incident here while still under a block.

Once my block expired, I began looking for the appropriate page to post a question to the CheckUsers and find out how Merkey got CU results. I found the proper page, but it listed an e-mail address (facepalm - so I could have e-mailed them immediately, block or not) and sent them an e-mail. The ombudsman committee replied that they would look into the matter, but it would take a little while. So I waited. A month later, I inquired again, and was told "sorry for the delay, no, nobody CU'ed you." And that was 1-2 days before I started this AN/I. I do wish we could have dealt with this when it was fresh in everyone's minds, but I hope you will understand why the delay. Pfagerburg (talk) 13:50, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Update[edit]

I have done some work on this case to try to get the bottom of the issue, as Mr. Merkey's rant on the FOUNDATION-L attempted to paint this as a he-said, he-said issue. I have spoken (via-email) with the CFO of the place where User:Pfagerburg works. He has confirmed to me that Pfagerburg's statements are correct. I am forwarding the information provided to the Arbitration Committee, so they may judge this evidence in any future requests by JVM to be unblocked. SirFozzie (talk) 20:57, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Firefly322's Perceived Process interference by User:Eldereft[edit]

I have tried to seek WP:3 mediation with user User:Hrafn, but in response User:Eldereft claims that tangential comments from other editors preclude it's two party guideline: [18] (Eldereft is not a contributor to WP:3, my request was removed apparently to aid Hrafn, whose activities have not been commented on favorably from two previous WP:3 in which I and he have been involved: Talk:Relationship between religion and science#Third Opinion and Talk:The Christian Virtuoso#Third opinion) He has also begun to tag informally approved and review articles in a way that I believe can be fairly categorized as a negative form of WP:OWNERSHIP and WP:TROLLing to make a WP:POINT. Examples are recent edits with User:Hrafn to [19] and [20]. The Issues in Science and Religion was reviewed positively as a stub in Talk:The Christian Virtuoso#Third opinion. The List of science and religion scholars was reviewed by [21] User:Rocksanddirt and I have sought Rocksanddirt's counsel before adding this list's link to other article's See also sections. [22]. User:Rocksanddirt responded here [23]. (The point is that these articles have had some review and oversight other than by me.) I would like User:Eldereft's recent tags to be removed since the actions are non-wikipedia hyper-verification standards done in order to make a WP:POINT and ask that he or she stop tagging my articles further. The issues are really with User:Hrafn, but User:Eldereft appears to be intentionally interfering to make a WP:POINT with the WP:3 process. --Firefly322 (talk) 18:18, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Firefly322, your whole rant is based on a failure to assume good faith. If articles lack reliable sources for notability or are based on a neologism which isn't in use, they're subject to review. As for others becoming involved in your mediation, you seem to have forgotten that you named several other editors but failed to provide diffs of the alleged problems you had with these users. Last I saw, the case was stalled awaiting information from you. . . dave souza, talk 19:30, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
As a Christian involved with a non-religious person (Hfran), the accusation that this is a failure on my part to assume good faith (WP:AGF) seems an ironic one. Moreover, The underlying issues have really between User:Hrafn and me and others have just recently join in and are tangentially going along with User:Hrafn. A clarification at WP:3 seems necessary, to me. For if you are refering to the WP:mediation cabal, then that process doesn't work here, because I am one editor with a dispute with potentially several (those who are going along with User:Hrafn). The resources required are potentially enormous and I believe beyond those of a single editor. That process seems really set up for a bi-lateral multi-party resolution. --Firefly322 (talk) 20:36, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Resolved: sorted out by a response to your belated post to Eldereft's talk page. Pity you didn't think of doing that before posting here.[24] . . dave souza, talk 20:55, 8 September 2008 (UTC) The question of keeping the item up for WP:3 is resolved, but evidently there are still questions of Firefly disputing tags. Hope all is now clarified, bedtime for me. . . dave souza, talk 21:10, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Mediation is not my strong suit, but I do periodically contribute Third opinions (both successfully and not so much), as Firefly322 may be aware. The first edit in question, removing Firefly322's request, was performed after checking into the situation; most relevantly, I found this section indicating a consensus to merge with another page. Since the post mentioned only "the existence of talk page's main-space article", I judged the matter to have been resolved. The subject area is something that interests me occasionally, so I then performed the indicated merge. As I am passingly familiar with both Hrafn and Firefly322 (and some of the other editors involved in the merge consensus), I would not have presumed to offer an independent third opinion, but I considered myself to be by that point operating outside the strictures of WP:3O. I am not sure what WP:POINT I am supposed to be making, but when I found Firefly322's re-addition I issued an apology. This was a full day after the event, but still prior to this present thread. The preceding diff also contains my notification to Firefly322 that I had prodded List of science and religion scholars.
Tags I have placed recently include aforementioned prod and a request for page numbers. Possibly this latter is the motivation for "hyper-verification standards"? That article contained 46 citations to the book that is its subject, but provided no indication of where in the book an interested reader might pursue the topic. This is manifestly not an indication of any suspicion on my part that the statements being supported are dubious; I find it perfectly credible that the book treats these topics.
Interested editors may note that there is currently Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-09-02 Relationship between religion and science. I am not at present a party to this case, but it concerns this family of articles. - Eldereft (cont.) 20:55, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Firefly322 - would you please expand on your views concerning a putative relationship between religiosity and willingness to assume good faith? - Eldereft (cont.) 21:27, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Sure. In order to correctly assume good faith, one must have developed a discernment as to what faith means. Anyone can claim that WP:AGF has been broken and anyone can claim that they are WP:AGF, but unless one has some sense of what faith is, what it is to truly believe in someone or something, then the word faith when spoken or heard is weakly meaningful if not meaningless. So I don't see how WP:AFG works where an editor is consistently crude towards me and has stated that he is of no faith. --Firefly322 (talk) 21:45, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
(interposting) dave souza comment about WP:AGF seems outside the bounds of wikipedia guidelines, because even per wikipedia guidelines assuming good faith is a two way street that depends upon certain mutual things. These things are partially outlined here: WP:No personal attacks#Consequences of personal attacks and WP:Civility#Apologizing. Hfran rarely apologizes a rare example, nor does he or she recipocate in words of kindness. (I tried a friendly word of kindness, Hrafn never responded.), and again see what Talk:Relationship between religion and science#Third Opinion mentions about someone's questionable civility on the page with which I have had to deal with Hrafn quite a bit. --Firefly322 (talk) 04:16, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps that saying about people in glass houses can apply here, since as far as i can tell you're fairly serious above about suggesting that atheists and agnostics can't assume good faith. I assure you that this is highly objectionable, and that such views make it likely that this project is not for you. 86.44.21.173 (talk) 11:27, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
(interposting) Just to address the comment posted by this IP-address, that seems to suggest that taking core policies like WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL seriously is bad, in particular my pointing out their two-way street requirements. I take faith in all forms very seriously. That is what motivated me to write the Young radicals article. Here a powerful form of faith was adopted by group of scholars that I feel is a metaphor for what I suspect is the majority of editors here on wikipedia. In fact, I was thinking that wikipedia WP:AGF is of the variety held by the Young radicals. Considering their accomplishements and influence and my respect for them (that's why I bothered to put the stub together), I think these efforts of mine strongly suggests that I am open to faith in all forms. Nevertheless, per wikipedia policy, faith is a two street, not a one way one. --Firefly322 (talk) 11:58, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Well, that's a rather complex response to rather a simple issue, but I note the clarification. Perhaps you might think about expressing these thoughts, if they are worth expressing, in the benign environment of a userspace essay, rather than when in a dispute, where they take on a personal nature. Very nice stub. 86.44.21.173 (talk) 13:03, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Just to second anon's conclusion: it is highly objectionable to suggest that non-religious people are incapable of sincerity, which is Wictionary's synonym for good faith. That is a grave insult to all such people. --Hordaland (talk) 03:04, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
If sincereity and faith are synonymous, then the phrase assume good sincerity would carry about the same amount of meaning as assume good faith. That, I suspect, is something no one at all would take seriously. So I think there is an error in your logic here. --Firefly322 (talk) 07:04, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
You are misquoting me. --Hordaland (talk) 18:43, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I removed the prod notice. The inclusion criteria for the list need attention, that is a content dispute, not a reason for deletion. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 00:24, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Given that Firefly322 has seen fit to draw me more centrally into this rambling complaint, I'd like to clarify a few matters that (s)he has raised:

  1. Firefly322 has absolutely no idea what my religious beliefs are. (S)he is merely speculating wildly.
  2. The statement Firefly322 made about my religion appears to be claiming a moral/ethical superiority based solely on his/her religion, relative to my own purported beliefs. I do not consider such claims to be conducive to WP:CIVIL discussion, and quite frankly find them to be offensive.
  3. As to WP:No personal attacks, Firefly322 has accused me of being a "troll" and repeatedly accused me of being "evil".
  4. Far from WP:Civility#Apologizing when (s)he erroneously stated I has introduced new material, and I pointed out that this was actually old material, erroneously deleted, Firefly322 proceeded to complain bitterly.
  5. The reason that I did not respond to this olive branch (referenced above) was that I could think of no way to respond that was neither discourteous or dishonest (given my low opinion of the quality of his/her edits) -- so I simply followed the rule of 'if you can't think of something nice to say, don't say anything.'

HrafnTalkStalk 12:49, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Hrafn has revealed something about his religious beliefs [25]. Hrafn went through a period where he was in fact WP:TROLLing (Aydin Sayili comment was part of that period), following me onto an obviously unrelated project: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/McDonald's Menu Song, which is probably the easiest example to understand. A typical example of Hrafn's evil commentary (this here is the second time I've ever used the word on wikipedia) is where he says I violate WP:AGF and then goes on to use thank you feciously, bangs out the word "Bullshit", and tells me Put up or shut up. [26]. Other editors have been subjected to his put up or shut up comment: [27]. And Hrafn has used troll against other editors: [28]. Hrafn has even called other editors work intellecutal masterbations. --Firefly322 (talk) 18:02, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Since Firefly322 has dragged me into WP:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-09-02 Relationship between religion and science and the list prod is being discussed at the appropriate talkpage, can we mark this as closed? My anonymous friend from across the puddle notwithstanding, I am willing for the sake of drama-reduction to ignore the blind assertion that I am philosophically unequipped to assume good faith. Hrafn, you may of course pursue the matter here, but I would prefer that it be done in a new thread if not inconvenient (or possibly an RfC/U, based on the volume of conduct-related comments people have added to the MedCab). - Eldereft (cont.) 18:03, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
I don't understand how Eldereft can associate with Hfran after exposure of the volume of WP:UNCIVIL comments. Eldereft's comments seem naive in regards to Hrafn. And I do believe that Eldereft has shown a penchant for falling in with the wrong crowd. All the same, close this for now. --Firefly322 (talk) 18:14, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Pigsonthewing[edit]

Resolved

Nothing for admins to do, it is a content matter and should be discussed with the user either on their talk page or in the relevant place.

Please advise this editor to refrain from doing his probably well meant "conversions" which unfortunately destroy content ([29]). Previous reminders ([30]) have been unsuccessful, he leaves it to other to cleanup behind. It appears that he was blocked in the past. -- User:Docu

This is a complex dispute which can be seen mostly at WT:GEO#coord template one year on. My take is that Docu (talk · contribs) has demonstrated incivility and disruptive editing. —EncMstr (talk) 20:50, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Concur. --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:27, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
On my talk page, EncMstr quotes my requests to Pigsonthewing fix his erroneous edits/ his reversions of my repairs as samples. This is really strange. -- User:Docu
Thanks for this edit using {{coord}}. —EncMstr (talk) 22:56, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

This user has recently returned from a one year block as enforced by arbitration here. One of the reasons for this block was his refusal to remove this personal attack from his userpage, as presented here. Upon returning, the user has restored the abusive paragraph to his userpage. Given his history of confrontation, I do not wish to become involved in an edit war by attempting to remove it, so I pass the matter to the administrators for their consideration. 91.104.24.172 (talk) 21:47, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh dear. This is very disappointing. Bare minutes after User:Docu seeks to involve admins in work Andy Mabbett is doing, this comes up. Qui bono? --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:05, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
I am not Docu. Feel free to request a checkuser if you wish. I am the same user as above who reported this, however (dynamic IP). At the time I was unaware of Docu's section regarding Pigsonthewing, I assure you this is a coincidence. 91.106.50.21 (talk) 22:23, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
And what's your purpose? The controversial piece of text is seen by some as a personal attack, by others as a well referenced summation of Andy's thoughts on Leonig. Andy would not have been able to construct the paragraph has Leonig not tgiven him the ammunition. Leonig's shoulders are clearly broad enough to cope, given the to & fro between the pair over the years. Exactly why do you think that starting this whole anti-Andy cycle over again is for the good of wikipedia? Can't you just leave the poor bloke in peace, and let sleeping dogs lie? --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:13, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
When he leaves Leonig alone. He's already been made aware that continually adding that section of his user page will not be allowed (he's been blocked for it in the past). If he continues to readdit, he will be blocked again. SirFozzie (talk) 04:19, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
This being the Leonig who made comments like "you prick", "this prick" and "this" (read that last one yourself, I won't repeat it) towards Andy. Neıl 10:05, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Past history doesn't come into it, we assess edits on their merits. Andy's edits are fine in this instance. Orderinchaos 06:59, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
This is Docu carrying over a year-old grudge trying to get Andy blocked again. Neıl 10:05, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Agree. I was noting there's no grounds to block him - if ArbCom had have intended to block him indefinitely they would have done so, the fact he's come back after a one-year block suggests he's served his time and should be treated with the good faith any other user is so long as he behaves, which by and large he has been doing. Orderinchaos 20:08, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
The above IP posts have no relation to the problem I raised. Besides, I have not participated in "Pigsonthewing 1" and "Pigsonthewing 2". -- User:Docu

In addition to the samples above he hasn't fixed yet, his recent edits show similar hasty conversions which leaves out information ([31], [32]). It lacks "display=inline,title". It would be interesting to know why he selected these two articles for manual conversion. Are they done mainly for pages I added or for which a requested help to fix them? It would probably preferable his would would refrain from doing manual conversions on coordinates. I'm glad EncMstr has withdrawn part of the above comment also made on my talk page. -- User:Docu

Docu, if you have a technical issue with Andy's work on geometric coordinates, then the place to discuss it is not on the Administrators' noticeboard. The place to discuss it is on his talk page. I know you have already posted there, but in future you should consider explaining your concern fully, and carefully, as your previous message to Andy was obtuse and did not actually explain what your problem was. I am not surprised Andy was unable to respond appropriately. All your messages are along the lines of "please fix it" or "you broke it again" without explaining what he did wrong. You could also discuss this at WT:GEO. There is nothing here requiring administrative action. Also, please sign your posts with four tildes, like so: ~~~~. Neıl 13:59, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Comment: Docu is using 4 tildes (presumably); another editor and I have both requested him to change his signature because it doesn't provide a link to his user or talk page, and doesn't timestamp his posts (User_talk:Docu#Signature and related discussion on WPTalk:Signatures); he has so far refused. Exploding Boy (talk) 14:44, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Given that Pigsonthewing wrote part of {{coord}}'s documentation, he should know how the template work. Anyways, I gave him a detailed explanation on how to fix the coordinates. BTW can we discuss "Pigsonthewing 2" and signatures elsewhere? -- User:Docu

Anti-semitic remarks and edits[edit]

I feel this comment by user:Puttyschool was completely inappropriate: "it is WikipediA not JpediA" - after this editor wrongly assumed that the Jerusalem Post is "for Jews only."[33]

I'm very new to Wikipedia, and these comments are completely unacceptable and incomprehensible in an environment which prides itself on promoting civility. I am trying to be very civil, but I find these anti-semitic and ignorant statement to be completely repugnant, and I'm not sure how to handle it appropriately. I feel that this person should perhaps be warned and watched due to their anti-semitic slurs and multiple reverts along those same lines.

I have seen quite a bit of anti-semitic attacks on both my user page[34] and one of the main articles[35][36] in which I have been editing. It is my hope that Wikipedia will take a firm stand against this serious problem.--Einsteindonut (talk) 03:08, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

A message has been left for Puttyschool on his talk page. You might want to request that your user page be semi-protected if you feel it is a target for vandalism. All the best, Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 03:17, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Thank you, Erik, I will consider your advice and appreciate your action though I don't think I am able to see the message you left for him?--Einsteindonut (talk) 03:19, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
See User_talk:Puttyschool#JPedia. Corvus cornixtalk 03:40, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

A relevant question[edit]

I don't agree with the revert of course but what would I say if someone said "this is Wikipedia, not Islamopedia/Hindupedia/etc"? I've heard these many times onwiki but would I leave a warning (stating that the remark was offensive) at their talk page just for saying that?

So why is it considered anti-semitism? Why that was considered offensive? Could you guys explain further? -- fayssal / Wiki me up® 09:15, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

It's an anti-semitic statement since the "J" clearly stands for "Jew" - and because Putty made the statement that he believe the Jerusalem Post is "just for Jews." It's an assumption that "Jews are trying to take over Wikipedia" and put their "Jewish" POV into it. It's highly offensive and completely anti-semitic. I don't fling around that term lightly. I believe the majority of Jewish people would agree. And by "anti-semitic" I mean that it inherently expressing hatred and/or disdain toward Jews. I would never use the other terms you mention when dealing with an Muslim or Hindu editor because I would never judge any editor based upon their religion, as this comment CLEARLY does. I find it troubling that I'd would have to explain this to what appears to be an admin with the power to block people. Do you feel it is OK to make comments about editors and their work here based upon their religion? Or to assume that their religion is taking over Wikipedia to the point that stating "this is not Jewish Pedia" is acceptable? I find it extremely unsettling that you don't comprehend this and no one else (with the exception of Aharon) understands. If I said something to the effect of "this isn't "Palipedia" to some Palestinian trying to make an edit, my guess is that I would be blocked and banned for hate speech. The double standards here are appalling and extremely unsettling. Regarding a comment about the threat of a lawsuit below, it was a remark in general. I'm not threatening to sue anyone in particular. I was upset at the time for various reasons. I certainly think that some of the misinformation on Wikipedia with regard to people, situations, and organizations is certainly someone's responsibility. When things are highly inaccurate and possibly defamatory on such a notable site as Wikipedia, I would think that those entities might wish to consider legal action. That's all I was saying. Not against any editors in particular but against Wikipedia in general, perhaps. Again---not a threat. But what are people and organizations to do when Wikipedia completely gets stories wrong? What if the information on Wikipedia leads to damage a person or institution's reputation and/or earning potential? What if information on Wikipedia puts lives at risk? Is any of that explained to all these editors here? I'm not a legal expert and I'm not sure about legal recourse, but I'm just asking. I fail to see how such a small statement with regard to legal action should be considered should be taken as a "threat." I just think Wikipedia editors and admins should be far more responsible, especially when it comes to allegations of "Jews taking over Wikipedia" (ie. "Jpedia")--Einsteindonut (talk) 09:54, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
It is clearly an unacceptable thing to say of course. Puttyschool should stop immediately and refrain from using such remarks or he would get blocked. But believe me, not all people would call it "anti-semitism." Other people of different confessions may get offended if someone would use something like "hindupedia", "islamopedia", "hamaspedia", etc. That happens here and we just call that "incivility." It has been discussed several times here and unfortunately there has never been someting clear. I hope people would get to a resolution. My point is that we should be firm in dealing with all this BS (with no double standards of course). All we want is a better atmosphere. That is my point and that is why we have Wikipedia:WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration.
On the other hand, I'd like you try to wp:assume good faith. If I had to block your second account it is because leaving an account previously blocked and starting a new one can be seen as avoiding scrutiny. If everybody does so then it would be impossible to manage Wikipedia. And of course, you were not the only person I check-usered. In parallel, I'm finished here, since "faysal" blocked me is sad because first, we don't want people to leave just for the sake of leaving and second, because I never blocked you. I blocked your second account. You were pissed off and that I understand (and I didn't consider any of what you said as legal threat - it happens) but that doesn't mean you are correct and right (saying thanks you and fuck you). Really Einsteindonut, we try to avoid the words enemy and evil. pathetic. I had offered you my help but you chose to not assume good faith. You'd have already been blocked because of all that but admins have used their cool sense. I hope this is clear.
Again, I suggest that you better think about the message I left for you on your talk page. That has been sincere and I am not interested in wasting neither my time nor the time of others. -- fayssal / Wiki me up® 18:47, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
I find it very sad that I am the one getting reprimanded and told what I can and cannot say in this case. I would hope that you and others can pay attention to the CATALYST of all of this in which you have spent critiquing me upon and spend more time with regard to that problem as opposed to focusing the attention and onus of the responsibility on the person who complained about it. I hardly feel I'm wasting anyone's time here, especially when people continue to blame me for the response to the original problem, rather than the original problem itself. Everyone here seems very keen on focusing on the complainer and not the complaint. I find that to be extremely troublesome. Thanks for all the "advice" "Fayssal" - go ahead and block me if you wish. I don't really want to be a part of something in which people can get away with making anti-semitic comments and then people who react to them are the ones who get reprimanded and inconvenienced as a result. Thanks for your offer to "help" Fayssal, but I'll seek it elsewhere. --Einsteindonut (talk) 20:12, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

(restored comment lost in earlier edit conflict)

I fade up from your method of twisting facts and my words, my comment was “it is WikipediA not JpediA” , “Jpedia” is completely not anti-semitic, is “JPOST” anti-semitic. Reserve your analysis to yourself, and speak only about yourself not about other editors« PuTTYSchOOL 11:39, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

(end of restored comment)

Puttyschool. Please refrain from doing that again. It could be that it is not considered as an anti-semitic remark but we all agree that it is totally unacceptable. Just don't do it again. Thanks. -- fayssal / Wiki me up® 18:47, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Einsteindonut, I never imagined that you will remove my comments and others from this admin board, how dare you Please check Why Einsteindonut removed my two comments« PuTTYSchOOL 12:16, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
It was actually a pure accident. After you brought it to my attention I tried to re-add it, but then the page was updated and I got confused and couldn't. I'm happy to discuss whatever it is you were trying to say. In fact, I went back to try to find it and couldn't! I'm having some difficult times editing on these admin boards. I'm fine with whatever people want to say here though. There's no good reason for me to delete anyone's comment. I looked at that edit and i was trying to make a minor edit of my own stuff and I think I accidentally deleted yours. My apologies. I'm being 100% honest here. I'm ready to respond to whatever it was you said. I think you claimed that the JPedia comment was not anti-semitic. I'd be inclined to believe that it wasn't, but combined with the fact that you also claimed that the JPost was "just for Jews," that is what sealed the deal for me. If "Jpost" is "just for Jews" then certainly "JPedia" (in your mind" would be too, right? I mean, that's what you were trying to say, right? That Wikipedia is not "Just for Jews?" Yes, that is true, but that point had nothing to do with my edit, other than the fact that we were working on an article about a Jewish organization, and that I am Jewish. --Einsteindonut (talk) 13:50, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
I fade up from your method of twisting facts and my words, my comment was “it is WikipediA not JpediA” , “Jpedia” is completely not anti-semitic, is “JPOST” anti-semitic. Reserve your analysis to yourself, and speak only about yourself not about me or other editors. you can focus only on my 3 words, dropping all other stories you have, like the GFDL license story. I think one of our arguments while reverting our edits was about your cutting and pasting from the JPOST article, then why you insist J mean Jewish, by the way is every “J” anti-semitic from your point of view or you select according to the circumstances, you can share your friends about your thoughts and ideas, but I’m not obligated to share your thoughts and ideas. About removing my comment, you removed two comments from two different places, is this "a pure accident", Wow, what a strange accident, which can’t happen in Wikipedia.« PuTTYSchOOL 14:20, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Putty, it was the context in which you said it which made it anti-semitic. No, the "J" in JPost (which stands for "Jerusalem") is not anti-semitic. You later explained that you thought the JPost was "for Jews only"[37], therefore, by saying saying "this isn't JPedia" what you were saying is that Wikipedia is "not for Jews only" - meaning that you have some problem with Jewish editors here, or stories about Jewish organizations. Of course Wikipedia is not for Jews only. That is clear to me and everyone involved. I wasn't making the point that it is for Jews only, yet you felt the need to express that as I was trying to protect whatever it was you were trying to do to the article in question. Speaking of which, all of this is backed up by the fact that you originally marked the article in question for "speedy deletion"[38] along with some twisted rationale for why you didn't want it here from the very beginning. Ever since then, each of your edits have been questionable. With the comment that "this is not Jpedia" I find it extremely difficult to AGF with regard to your editing of the JIDF article or editing anything with regard to Jews, Judaism, or Israel. I fully understand that there are some serious cultural differences at work here. You are from Egypt and the record of state-controlled media espousing anti-semitic viewpoints is clear. Perhaps you have allowed this to impact you.[39] Granted, I would never judge you on the fact that you are from Egypt alone. I have many good friends from Egypt actually. However, your comment makes me seriously wonder what you feel about the Jewish people and our presence here on Wikipedia, involved with articles about Jewish organizations, etc. I maintain that your anti-semitic slur was very wrong and I feel very strong and swift action should be taken against it, and ANY hate speech like it. Contrary to whether anyone understands this, I am not over-reacting here. This is completely unacceptable. What's worse, is that he and others don't even get it. Since when does the religion of an editor matter? Why did Putty feel the need to mention that Wikipedia is not for Jews only? Perhaps he doesn't want Jews here at all? He certainly didn't want the JIDF article and he certainly feels the need to assert the fact that this Wikipedia is not just for Jews (despite the fact that no one claimed otherwise.) If he gets away with this, perhaps I'll start figuring out the religious and/or ethnic background of every editor and each time I revert their edits I'll make sure that they know that people of their religious and/or ethnic background aren't the only ones here. (I won't do that, but hopefully you get my point?) --Einsteindonut (talk) 15:51, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
I don’t know exactly why you are talking about, you method makes me looses concentration, your statement about Egypt is completely wrong, I never heard it before, but I know most of your statements are based uponWP:OR .
I was reverting your edits as I documented in talk page for two reasons, i) unlicensed image with a very long unreasonable funny story ii)you added un-encyclopedic words as they appeared between quotes in the JPOST article, and what appear between quotes means that the words are not the JPOST point of view, about my assumption that JPOST is for Jews only, I’m not a reader for the JPOST newspaper, so my assumption was based on a few articles I read from the JPOST and this can be wrong, but this does not mean that JpediA is anti-semantic, especially my comment was not a general one as yours but was specific to you and your edit to the article. I don’t know too much about the history of the “J” but I took it from the” J”POST, and I was telling you that Wikipedia can’t use the same words as JPOST. Another point; please revise your contributions and tell me where is your NPOV from your first account till this one, and the next.....
So In order not to lose my main point I want to remind everyone I’m requesting blocking your account as you removed two subsequent comments I added in two different edits, and I want the history of this page to be checked I’m AGF but also it is one of my rights to know haw this was a mistake.« PuTTYSchOOL 20:36, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

The images licenses changed, as I mentioned. Also, apparently in your mind the "un-encylopedic" words are as follows:

"The JIDF claimed the group "actively promoted hatred, violence, murder and genocide." from: Jewish Internet Defense Force 'seizes control' of anti-Israel Facebook group

You tried to revert it, yet it still stands. I fully explained why I was placing it there in the talk section. Please stop acting like you don't know what you are doing and why you are doing it. You have made your opinion known in your request for "speedy deletion"[[40] upon this article's very first appearance, where you stated: They can help their country as they wish and by any mean...but outside Wikipedia pages So according to your "logic" a pro-Israel organization which is noted in reliable sources should not have any articles about them in Wikipedia. Who exactly did you mean by "they?" Why should "they" not be allowed in Wikipedia? --Einsteindonut (talk) 21:25, 7 September

I share FayssalF's analysis.
If this remark was uncivil and so, unappropriated, because it is contrary to wp:agf; it is not anti-semite. By comparison, I have been told several times, and I think with reason, that it was not wp:fr here...
More, I think the suspicion of anti-semitism made by Einsteindonut is also against wp:agf. And from my personnal point of view, the accusation of antisemitism here, is even worst, it is against WP:NPA.
In the particular context of Einsteindonut, who doesn't masterize yet all wikipedia policies, we should not give him the feeling "anti-semitism suspicion" is a good way out to solve the "content issues" he has with other editors.
Ceedjee (talk) 09:35, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
In fact, my point was addressed to the experienced admins (though no admin has commented yet on this thread) and Malik Shabazz who left the soft warning at Puttyschool's talk page. It was not addressed to Einsteindonut as he is a new Wikipedian.
On another note, I've just now run a CU on the vandal 75.3.147.166 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) who left the swastika and the Islamic Jihadist flag at Einsteindonut's page. That lead us to here. I am not convinced of the response gotten out there and would ask some other admins to review though admin Luna Santin has already blocked the IP.
And Einsteindonut, I know you are new but please do not use sockpuppets. I am leaving Einsteindonut (talk · contribs) as your main account and blocking Wikifixer911 (talk · contribs) (which was already blocked once) and PeterBergson (talk · contribs) (the original one but with only a few edits) per wp:SOCK. I've not taken any action concerning Einsteindonut since this is your first time. As for the IP, I believe you used it accidentally three times or four, so please refrain from using multiple accounts. Puttyschool (talk · contribs) was also check-usered but came clean. -- fayssal / Wiki me up® 12:04, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Looking at the contribs for the userids, it seems that they were used sequentially and not in parallel. I.e. it took a certain amount of time for him to settle on one id to use repeatedly and it wan't necessarilly deliberate sockpuppetry. Might it have been better simpy to ask him to settle on one and drop the rest?--Peter cohen (talk) 16:22, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Sockpuppetry is only deliberate use of mulitple accounts to create disruption. You could hardly call Edonut's other accounts "abusive". Hopefully he learns, but for now it's probably best to assume good faith. Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 16:54, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
The account should be blocked for legal threats anyways. Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 16:59, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Nothing is abusive here and I made sure I didn't use that term when I blocked. And, he's left with the one with the most edits and the non-blocked one. It is like if he got no official history of sockpuppetry at all except this thread but this will be archived and we'll forget about it. I thought about it the way you did guys. -- fayssal / Wiki me up® 17:03, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Re legal threats. Someone needs to explain to him that stuff. He's so pissed especially that he got a warning for a pic he had uploaded. It is a bad day for him and I believe he can reconsider. No big deals. -- fayssal / Wiki me up® 17:06, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Fayssal, Thanks so much for handling this in a calm and equitable manner. I wonder is it possible for you to contact Eisensteindonut and explain to him what you did and why? I am also a newbie and I got blocked very quickly initially because of my bullheadedness but also because no one took the time to "state the obvious" the obvious of course being things that I had no idea about or of which I had different (and incorrect) interpretations. In other words, lets all go give Einsteindounut some free Wp support, to make up for the block.. Before the block I had offered to do some editing with Einsteindounut on a non controversial article together.Maybe you more experienced editors could do the same? Lastly, Fayssal, are you really interested in knowing why saying "Jpedia" is absolutely rude and possibly anti-semitic? Im not sure of the proper forum to discuss it but I spend four years as a Campus Director of a national Jewish organization and also headed others. I would be happy to provide further explanations, on your talk page or in email. I would do this for others too of course. aharon42 (talk) 21:37, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks Aharon and welcome on board. I'll be using Einsteindonut's and your talk pages for the purposes you are stating. -- fayssal / Wiki me up® 04:21, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
aharon42, "Jpedia" may be rude according to some editors POV, but sure it is not anti-semitic« PuTTYSchOOL 11:44, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Take it from an Egyptian who knows. What is this, Egyptpedia? I assume I can get away with this, since no one wants to get on Putty's case for his remarks and since he is unwilling to even recognize what he did was wrong---thanks in large part to everyone focusing on ME rather than the catalyst to the problem. In any event, what can I really expect from people who are not Jewish? Do you see now why there are organization like the JIDF and ADL, etc? People don't even have a clue as to what anti-semitism is, and when it is there, no one even wants to do anything about it except "blame the Jew" for complaining about it. Thank you Wikipedia for proving something I already knew. Never mind. Case closed.--Einsteindonut (talk) 20:24, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
I don’t know, is this another kind of drama? Can I say that your word is Anti-Egyptians, or you are also referring to Jews from Egypt and your word is Anti-Egyptians/Anti-Semantic as well? I don’t know how much time you need in order to learn, it is easy “judge the contents not the contributors”« PuTTYSchOOL 21:03, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Both of you could do with a healthy dose of WP:AGF. Certainly the remark could be considered rude, but there's no need for this ridiculous argument -- just be the bigger person and step back a notch. If this sort of destructive bickering continues, there's a pretty good chance one or both of you will wind up banned from the article. Calm down and play nice. – Luna Santin (talk) 21:04, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Problem[edit]

About the block mentionned here above. It seems that Einsteindonut has a fixed IP. So when FayssalF blocked the IP, he also blocked the account... Einsteindonut didn't appreciate [41] but I think he doesn't understand. Ceedjee (talk) 13:38, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

That's being autoblocked. "#1127998" unblocked. Please leave him alone as it may not be helpful. Thanks. -- fayssal / Wiki me up® 14:18, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Hey... It is you who blocked him and that is the block that upset him...
Ceedjee (talk) 16:07, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
I know Ceedjee. I was just hopping to diffuse the situation. The message you left him may have not been considered as helpful because of the timing. That's all the matter. -- fayssal / Wiki me up® 04:21, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Ok. :-) Ceedjee (talk) 07:19, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

So the drama[edit]

This all relates to Jewish Internet Defense Force. As I mentioned previously, this seems to be spillover from a yearlong flame war on Facebook.[42]. There's excessive drama associated with this article. Some of the editors involved are affiliated with the organization. The organization comments on its web site about edits on Wikipedia, which seems to motivate their supporters and stir up their opponents. Despite that, the article is in reasonably decent shape. As an editing dispute, it's minor. The sides aren't that far apart. It bears watching, for civility and conflict of interest issues, but it's a tempest in a teapot. --John Nagle (talk) 06:01, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Nagle, as I have pointed out over and over and over again, the JIDF had nothing to do with that flame war in question. They stated their reasons for their action and it had they never once expressed anything to indicate that anything in that article you keep citing had anything to do with their actions. Furthermore, being a fan and a reader of the JIDF site hardly makes one "affiliated" with the JIDF. However, it is helpful in that I can say that the truth of the matter is that they targeted the group in question because of its content, not because of some flame war in which they never took part. RS have expressed that their reason for their Facebook presense in the first place was because a group went up to celebrate a murderer of students. Anyway, your assumptions continue to be wrong on both accounts. I have explained this to you in JIDF talk and now you are trying to raise the same moot points here. No RS prove that anything the JIDF did had anything to do with a "flame war." This apparently is your wrong/off track assessment of the situation. From my understanding, the JIDF had no idea about the information in the article you continue to cite. I'm not sure why you're trying to raise the same moot points again. --Einsteindonut (talk) 09:37, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
I believe Nagle is right on the money, actually. It's become clear that one or more editors at the article is a prominent member of the JIDF. – Luna Santin (talk) 21:05, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
More drama. The JIDF is displeased with me ("Wikipedia editors snooping email, invading privacy, making threats, etc.) for mentioning on a talk page the list of their officers [43] published on their Facebook page.[44]. They've since removed their list of officers. Some of what the JIDF has written could be construed as an off-wiki threat, but I'd prefer to view it as WP:TROLL and suggest ignoring them. --John Nagle (talk) 22:09, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Please block Einsteindonut Account forever[edit]

Please check why Einsteindonut removed my comments from admin noticeboard, he removed two comments from two different places, it is not an editing mistake, so I suggest to block his account forever« PuTTYSchOOL 12:48, 7 September 2008 (

It's best not to badger administrators with pleas as to what they should or should not do. Note whatever worries you, and leave it to their great experience and discretion to determine what, if anything, should be done. Nishidani (talk) 13:54, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
No Sir/Madam, I'm requesting to block the account for ever for the above reason« PuTTYSchOOL 14:28, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
actually, I accidentally deleted one comment that I know of. If i deleted another one on this board, than that was an accident too. I'm happy to debate/discuss with you or anyone here, there, or anywhere. There is no good reason (other than a pure accident) that I would delete any of your comments in talk areas. Feel free to bring this onto my talk page if you wish, or re-submit them here. I really have had a difficult time editing on these boards and it is not my intention to delete anyone's remarks. My apologies if it appears that way, but it is true. --Einsteindonut (talk) 13:54, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Einsteindonut. Your edit has apparently caused a huge problem by messing up a page that now requires several people's work to fix. See below, the section, 'Board messed up SOME SECTIONS CORRUPTED so please can an admin notice this and help?' If it was an edit conflict consequence, you are not wholly responsible for that mess, provided you did not know what to do when there is an edit conflict. The least you should do if lower your sights, and start learning how to edit, without damaging this project.Nishidani
It was an accident which is easily caused by editors following the instructions given at edit conflicts. These instructions have now been changed in an attempt to reduce the occurrence of this problem. DuncanHill (talk) 20:26, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
It was an accident and it has been addressed in other areas and I have apologized for it. Again, none of this has to do with the original complaint. Very interesting how all of this because about ME, and not the fact that someone made a very discriminatory remark with regard to religion on Wikipedia. Call it what you want here, in my hood, it's called ANTISEMITISM and I feel it's very important to call it for what it is, and I will continue to do so, when I spot it here, or anywhere for that matter, ESPECIALLY when nothing is done about it, but to reprimand ME for complaining about it.
Putty needs to know what he did was 100% wrong and why. He also needs to apologize as that remark is completely unacceptable, or else I should be fine making comments after each of his edits saying "what is this, Egyptpedia?" Or something to that effect and not face any sanctions whatsoever for doing so. THEN maybe people will get onto Putty's case (as they are doing here with me for some reason.) LAME LAME LAME. --Einsteindonut (talk) 20:18, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Just a word of advice - having "Wikipedia = worse than Goebbels" on your userpage may make some editors less likely to listen to any genuine complaints you may have. DuncanHill (talk) 20:26, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Soapboxing is bad, mm'kay? HalfShadow 21:15, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
It would be dandy if the both of you two would just calm down and have some tea. – Luna Santin (talk) 21:08, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Einsteindonut, You know the only good point you bring is that one Egyptian, makes the Great WikipediA an EgyptpediA, wow how much Egyptians are great from 7500 year till now. Other points are not related to this section which is blocking your account.« PuTTYSchOOL 21:20, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
No worries, I know all about ancient Egypt. There was a reason I left. I hope you remember who built your pyramids and I'm sure you remember 1967, hence your disdain for me, the article in question, the JPOST, etc. --Einsteindonut (talk) 21:40, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
It is not a claims, or some thing to remember, it is