Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive587

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

User: Philip Baird Shearer[edit]

I feel the conduct of this admin on the Terror Bombing and History of Terrorism has been inappropriate for an admin. On terror bombing he frequently deleted any additions that didn't fit his personal perspective despite overwhelm consensus for such edits on the talk page. On History of Terrorism he has recently presented himself as a neutral admin however he has previously supported the disputed version that he seeks to lock down, As such I feel he is not approaching the issue with clean hands. Similarly I find his attempt to block anonymous editors who have made substantial and useful contributions to the page also very dubious as it seems simply trying exclude those he disagrees with. I am extremely concerned by his conduct and would appreciate a more expert eye applied to it. Sherzo (talk) 11:08, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

PBS notified. Unomi (talk) 11:25, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
Sherzo, please provide diffs of what you see to be problematic behaviour. Unomi (talk) 11:27, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
I can't find the article Terror Bombing or anything like it on PBS's contribution list. Which article are you referring to? GedUK  11:37, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
It would seem to be Terror bombing which is now a redirect. Camw (talk) 11:41, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
I've created another redirect at Terror Bombing.   pablohablo. 11:44, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Sherzo, whatever happened to discussing the incident and trying to resolve it directly with the other editor first, whether or not they are an admin. The only recent post I see at Philip Baird Shearer from you is 5 minutes after submitting an ANI request. This is not the way things are done on Wikipedia, and you know that. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:07, 21 December 2009 (UTC)


The redirect Terror Bombing will not help much as to understand what Sherzo is commenting on is to look at Talk:Terror bombing and the history of Terror bombing. Nothing that I did in the article Terror bombing involved administrative powers.
The second page History of terrorism does involve the use of administrative powers. I have never edited the content of the page all the edits have been used to stop edit warring and uncivil behaviour. The core of the accusation here is "On History of Terrorism he has recently presented himself as a neutral admin however he has previously supported the disputed version that he seeks to lock down". This allegation is made without a history diff to show were I have expressed support for either version. What I have said is "Without getting into the pros and cons of the specific edit, deleting 11,000 bytes from this article is neither here not there as it is so badly written at the moment it is like re-arranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. --PBS (talk) 10:17, 4 September 2009 (UTC)"
I suggest that anyone interested reads the sections Three month edit block on new accounts and IP addresses and One month block 2009-12-12" on Talk:History of terrorism. Also consider that two other administrators have tried to sort this out over the last few months without success, and all I am trying to do is make the two main protagonists use the dispute resolution process so that the long running edit war stops.
That Sherzo (contributions) reverts History of terrorism, starts this thread and has not placed a comment on the talk page of the article or used Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2009-10-21/History of terrorism tells its own story. -- PBS (talk) 12:20, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
I have to agree, there seems a severe lack of talk page engagement on the part of Sherzo. There also seems to be a willingness to involve SPI and ANI. A summary of the environment as assessed by QuantPole as of 2009 July is here. Unomi (talk) 12:55, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
I'm involved in this dispute, only as much as I took interest in the previous mediation request (which I closed for lack of interest) and was recently asked to consider reopening it. Sherzo left a troubling comment on my page, where they stated that their only interest in Wikipedia was to "edit rarely nowadays and just generally revert haberstr vandalism to history of terrorism", because "haberstr action have been recognised as vandalism". Haberstr is the other editor with a primary involvement in the dispute that led to the mediation request. I'd like to note that Haberstr has a clean block log and no legitimate vandalism complaints (only one complaint from an anonymous editor who was in a content dispute with them). I'm concerned about Sherzo's declared lack of interest in improving Wikipedia. -- Atama 22:53, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

User:Bill the Cat 7[edit]

Bill the Cat 7 (talk · contribs) insists on calling Rosemary Radford Ruether "fringe, leftist" in the article Antisemitism in the New Testament, and a "nut job" on the article's Talk: page. When challenged for a source for the "fringe, leftist" claim, he has produced this footnote:

She is a member of Democratic Socialists of America (http://www.dsausa.org/about/structure.html), a self-described ecofeminist, and as a signatory to the 9/11 Truth Statement (http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20041026093059633), she is a conspiracy theorist."[1]

The "fringe, leftist" descriptor has been removed by another editor and me several times, and the description of her as a "nut job" on the article Talk: page has been removed by three editors, but he persists in restoring both.[2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10] I brought the mattter to WP:BLP/N yesterday, with no response, and I've warned him twice on his Talk: page with little apparent impact. Unless someone has a better idea, I plan to block him for 24 hours if he adds either description again. Comments? Jayjg (talk) 19:52, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm in the process of researching how to request mediation between me and Jayjg. This is the first time I've had to do this so it will most likely take a few days. At any rate, I firmly believe that my edits, with sources, justify the wording I used to describe Rosemary Ruether. The sources Jayjg posted above can be consulted, but he left out one which I guess got lost in this edit war. Here it is:
But I am always aware that I reappropriate Christianity from a markedly different basis than do traditional Christians. http://womenshistory.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?zi=1/XJ/Ya&sdn=womenshistory&cdn=education&tm=9&gps=130_296_1020_567&f=20&tt=14&bt=1&bts=1&zu=http://www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title%3D1753
This last source, in her own words, makes the use of the word "fringe" justifiable. The other sources listed above can be researched and can lead an honest person to conclude that she is indeed "leftist" (which is a fair, non-insulting word).
Also, regarding the phrase "nut job" - I was in the process of removing it but there was an edit conflict and Jayjg got to it first. Here is what I wrote right after:
--------
Ok, fair enough. I removed it (actually, you removed it; seems like we are editing this page at the same time). Note however, that my edits of the article itself are NOT personal opinions; they are well sourced. I also added another one, in her own words. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 20:11, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
Well, it looks like an edit war has just begun. I'll be restoring my well-sourced edits soon, but I think we are now at the point where we require arbitration/mediation by Wikipedia since you are deleting acceptable sources and then falsely claiming that I didn't source my edits. Are you willing to participate in a mediation Jayjg? Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 20:11, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
--------
Finally, my main point in editing this page from the very beginning was to show that the person being quoted (Rosemary Ruether) about so-called antisemitism in the New Testament (which she believes permeates the ENTIRE New Testament) is not in the mainstream of NT scholarship and has an agenda of her own. The way the article stands now, it is filled with POV and even the title itself (Antisemitism in the New Testament) is biased. It should be called "Perceived Antisemitism in the New Testament", or something like that, since that doesn't automatically assume any antisemitism.
Be that as it may, I am very willing to discuss this with Jayjg (and others) in detail, but since he only seems to want to threaten me and exhibits a "my way or the highway" attitude, I'm going to have to request a neutral moderator. Thank you for listening. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 21:08, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
Bill, I'm not an editor of the article, I'm an administrator there. As an administrator I'm charged with (among other things) enforcing WP:BLP. If I see persistent, continued violations, in that article or others, I will block the offenders. If you continue to insist that you will "be restoring my well-sourced edits soon", and in particular if you act on your threat, then you will experience that. I strongly urge you to carefully and slowly read WP:BLP, at least twice. Jayjg (talk) 21:31, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
I would further comment about the label of "leftist"; if review of the various positions taken by the subject tends the reader to consider them a "leftisit" then fine, but it is not something the article writer should place in the article - because then the writer is making the judgement and not the reader (and there is the problem of the implied authority of the writer and encyclopedia). Also, if a reliable source calls them leftist by either their own interpetation or reporting another source then that can be included, but in a neutral manner. This encyclopedia reports the sources, and leaves determination up to the reader. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:37, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
Just so. Personal characterizations -- especially ones intended as derogatory, such as these -- should be avoided unless they are completely well sourced (for example, saying "XXX is a discredited YYY" requires very strong and highly credible sources saying precisely "discredited"). This applies to article pages as well as talk pages; our policies are that items breaking WP:BLP must be immediately removed on sight, and are not subject to 3RR restrictions (they may be treated as vandalism.) --jpgordon::==( o ) 22:02, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
I assure everyone that I have read WP:BLP. If there is a certain part that I'm in violoation of, then please state so explicitly. Until that happens, I'm happy to discuss why I used the terms "leftist" and "fringe", which are NOT derogatory (see further comments below).
Regarding one of Jayjg's comments: shouldn't an administrator who claims someone is in violation of WP:BLP provide specifice evidence to that effect rather than falsely (in my opinion) accusing someone of it? I mean, I was very willing to discuss the issue with you (Jayjg) in the discussion section and even asked (more than once) to request a neutral moderator, but you declined every time. If I didn't follow the correct procedure, then fine; just tell me specifically where I erred. However, I don't appreciate your "my way or the highway" approach. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 04:03, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
For whatever it is worth, I've never heard anyone use the word 'leftist,' or seen the word ever used in writing, in any way other than a derogatory way. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:16, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
It's used as a neutral term all of the time. It is only used as an epithet amongst some conservative circles. Throwaway85 (talk) 23:09, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
The derogatory use of "leftist" is more common in countries whose politics skew right. That said, another problem with labelling someone as "leftist" is that the word does not have a generally agreed meaning. Wikipedia should not be in the business of deciding where the line between leftists and rightists lies: that's original research. Describe what groups the individual belongs to and let the reader decide. In the same way, editors should not call living persons "nut jobs" - there's no justification for that. It's libellous, it's very point-of-view, it's slangy and subject to misinterpretation, and it's completely inaccurate: "holding unpopular or unusual political views" is not a psychiatric condition found in the DSM-IV. --NellieBly (talk) 04:19, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
FisherQueen, I agree with T-85. There is even a wiki article on the term, leftist, which IMHO is NOT derogatory any more than rightist is, or any more than Democrat/Republican/Libertarian are. My intent in using that term is simply to show that Ruether is not "mainstream". Yet, if the term is still to be considered non-neutral, then I'm perfectly fine with another term - suggestions anyone? Be that as it may, the organization that she is a vice chair of can be accurately referred to as "leftist" (just look here for their perspecitve if you have any doubt - http://www.dsausa.org/about/where.html). Therefore, my description of her is accurate (and for those who don't like the word "leftist", once again, I'm open to suggestions). I'll explain my use of the term "fringe" in my response to the user Amerlioration below. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 04:03, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
  • If the source (Ruether) is widely considered in independent sources to hold an extremist or fringe viewpoint, it is appropriate to note that in a nonbiased way. Such a note would be in accordance with neutrality. Perhaps User:Bill the Cat 7 would consider clearly indicating what neutral source shows Ruether to hold a fringe view. —Amelioration 01:46, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
    • Hello, Amelioration. Let me preface my reason for the use of the word "fringe" with this analogy. If someone says to us, "I have an irrational fear of enclosed spaces" or "I have an irrational fear of spiders", then, IMO, it is perfectly acceptable, does not violate WP:BLP, and is NPOV to describe that person as "claustrophobic" or "arachnophobic", respectively. Now, let's see what Ruether says about herself:
But I am always aware that I reappropriate Christianity from a markedly [bold-italic emphasis added] different basis than do traditional Christians. (http://www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=1753)

Notice that she is NOT saying, "I differ slightly" or somewhat or in some cases. Rather she uses the word "markedly" to describe how she approaches Christianity. Therefore, if the word "fringe" is not the right word for that self-identification, then, once again, I'm open to suggestions.

Finally, she claims, according to the wiki article Antisemitism_in_the_New_Testament that the ENTIRE New Testament is antisemitic!! Now, I have no problem with the claim per se, but the typcial wiki reader may not realize how out of the mainstream such a claim is. This sounds to me to be a violation of the WP:Fringe policy, especially (but not necessarily exclusively) the "quotations" portion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Fringe#Quotations).

And speaking of the WP:Fringe policy, the entire wiki article (Antisemitism In the New Testament) is an exercise in the violation of that policy, but that's a different story. At any rate, that's my $0.02. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 04:03, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I would say that both the 'Truther' and Antisemitism portions should be in the article. You don't have to use descriptors in the intro of the biography, but you can put in subsections that describe the actions. Find reliable sources that cite the fact that she signed the 'Truther' petition and the descriptors they use. You can't link to the truther petition yourself and use your own descriptor, that's WP:OR. But if the NYT or another outlet point this out and they use the words 'fringe', then you can put in "Described as a fringe leftist by the NYT for both her signing of the 9-11 truth petition and her claim that the NT is antisemitic". Or something like that. DD2K (talk) 04:41, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
Bill the Cat 7, this is pretty simple. Do multiple, reliable sources described her as a "fringe, leftist" Christian theologian in relation to her view on Antisemitism in the New Testament? Not your own analysis of her views, but sources specifically describing her this way, in this context? If the answer is "no", then the article can't describe her that way either. That's all that matters here. Don't explain why you think she is a "fringe, leftist" theologian; instead find reliable sources that do, in the context of her statements on the topic of the article. No more arguing, just reliable sources. Jayjg (talk) 05:02, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
"Reliable Sources" here is particularly problematic. An organiztion such as Fox News would likely have no problem calling her a fringe leftist, whereas The New Yorker likely would. How do we determine what is or is not a reliable source given the circumstances, without introducing our own opinions as to what is a biased source and what is not? Throwaway85 (talk) 05:49, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
Despite your statement, it appears that "reliable sources" here are no more "problematic" than anywhere else, as there don't appear to be any reliable sources describing her as "fringe, leftist", much less using that descriptor in relation to her beliefs about the New Testament. Jayjg (talk) 02:51, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
I'd like to ask everyone a yes/no question. If someone says to us, "I have an irrational fear of enclosed spaces" or "I have an irrational fear of spiders", then does that mean we cannot use the descriptor "claustrophobic" or "arachnophobic", respectively, without violating WP:BLP? Thanks. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 06:14, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
Attempting to back people into a yes/no answer is seldom a good way of convincing them of the merits of your argument. You may think you have "won", but they will think you a fool, and an arrogant one at that. Throwaway85 (talk) 06:37, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
T-85, sorry if I gave you that impression, but that was certainly not my intention. Perhaps I'm wording the question wrong, but it is a sincere one. Also, I'm a loooong way off from "wining" anything. Besides, I'm not in this for a "win". I just want to know if using a single-word description is acceptable in the example I gave above (i.e., "claustrophobic" or "arachnophobic"). Yet again, I'm not emotionally committed to the inclusion of the words "leftist" and "fringe" (as some may be to their exclusion) if other words would be better alternatives - I mean, that is why I have repeatedly asked for single-word suggestions that would sum up Ruether's own self-description. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 07:09, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Not a problem, and I apologize for any offense my post may have caused. It's simply too often that people come on AN/I trying to "win" the argument through such childish rhetorical tools. As for your question, I glanced over the article you linked, but couldn't find a passage that seemed relevant to the case you are making. Could you provide a lazy editor with a more specific link? As for the (edit conflict), we would need a secondary reliable source, or her herself, to label her a 'leftist' for it to be includable. Throwaway85 (talk) 07:22, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
T-85, which link that I provided didn't seem relevant? Sorry if this sounds like a dumb question, but it's almost 2 in the morning right now and the only word that seems to be popping up in my mind is "pillow". Did you mean the one where Ruether says, "But I am always aware that I reappropriate Christianity from a markedly different basis than do traditional Christians"? Please let me know and I'll comply. Regarding the word "leftist", please see my response to Dayewalker below. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 08:02, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
I'm simply not seeing where she says she has "an irrational fear" of anythig, or anything else that might justify such a label in the absence of a reliable source outright saying it. Throwaway85 (talk) 08:32, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
He's not saying Radford Ruether has an irrational fear, he's saying the words she uses to describe lher position (from a markedly different basis than do traditional Christians) equates to Fringe as 'irrational fear of spiders' equates to arachnophobia.
"Arachnophobic" has no negative connotations, whereas "leftist" in this context is a personal opinion, based on interpretation of the subject's position. Dayewalker (talk) 07:20, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
When I use the word "leftist", I mean it in the context described by the wiki article leftist, and thus has no negative connotation and nor is not my personal opinion. Remember, she is the vice-chair of the Democratic Socialists of America. But if you would like to suggest another word that is a synonym for "leftist", yet lacks the perceived negative connotations, then I'm all ears. How about "progressive"? As a side note, I was reading one of Ruether's articles earlier and she very plainly states that she is a "religious socialist" and is on the "religious left". I can find it again and provide a link if anyone thinks it would be advance this discussion. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 08:02, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
I am going to write this very slowly but loudly; You cannot describe someone in an article as "leftist" to describe their viewpoint or political stance. You can quote someone else so describing them, provided it comes via reliable sources. It wouldn't matter if the entire editing faculty of WP agreed with your assesment, because the majority are aware that WP:OR does not allow us to place our own interpretations in article spacde. The end. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:50, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Surely the best bet is to utilize Radford Ruether's own statement, and avoid using singe word interpretations. "Radford Reuther herself has said that she approaches Christianity from a markedly different basis than do traditional Christians (cite). Then if Fox News refers to her as fringe, we can say "this has led to her being refered to as Fringe by sources such as Fox News (cite). You could contrast her view with those of others "this stance is not supported by any mainstream Christian denomination (cite). It's trying to cram people into pigeonholes in the first sentence that causes the problems. Let the text breathe a bit.Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:37, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

  • Leave her political orientation out of it entirely. Most of the opposition here is driven by your intent to add a political label upon her, when there is no source which explicitly cites it in context with her religious values. It really isn't relevant in this case, because I know people who share my religious values who are rampaging right-wingers, flaming lefties, and all points in between. Elen of the Roads has a good idea (the post immediately above mine), but I don't think it's necessary to identify her politics at all in this case. It *is* important to note that her religious views don't jibe with mainstream Christianity, but you've identified relevant references to cite that. Horologium (talk) 21:07, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
I agree. In regards to her religious views, use the quotes elen provided. As for her political views, we can't say anything without a reliable source explicitly saying it for us. She is a self-described "Liberal Cristian", so you may be able to include that quote, but anything else has to be straight from a secondary source. Throwaway85 (talk) 00:46, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
Exactly right, Horologium. Jayjg (talk)


FYI: I'm extremely busy for the next day or so. I'll comment again soon, and I think we are very close to a resolution. Jayjg and others have made excellent points, but I'm not able to repsond in depth right now. Once again, just FYI. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 06:09, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Another user admits sockpuppetry[edit]

I've blocked User:DRC1976 as a sock of User:Sithrathien based on DRC's creation of Sithrathien with the text of "A user name I previously had under my real data for www.wikipedia.org." Sith was indefinitely blocked by Jdelanoy over a year ago as a vandalism-only account. Per WP:EVADE, I'm confident that I've done the right thing, but I'd like to let others know in case this user protests. Nyttend (talk) 21:02, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, has DRC1976 done anything wrong in the intervening year? A reformed user who's been "clean" for over a year after starting off "on the bad foot" after a short spat of vandalism probably doesn't deserve a block. Is there more than this? --Jayron32 21:07, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
They've created 9 new articles in less than 30 minutes, 7 of which were speedily deleted. The remaining two were turned into redirects. It looks like they've evaded the original block to add nonsense to Wikipedia, which leads me to strongly support this block. -- Atama 23:03, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
I would note that the deleter of the 3 articles I reviewed was Nyttend, but have no argument on the basis of the deletions. Per Jayron32 I might have extended AGF a little in that I might have issued an "only" warning, but I don't think the block by Nyttend is inappropriate. My only slight concern is that in a years time a new account will start adding nonsense stubs without referencing a previous besmirched identity - but then they may do that without this account being blocked anyway. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:13, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
I don't think that we need to assume any good faith on the part of an indefinitely blocked user who is attempting to evade a block; if the user had filed an unblock request, or had created this username to do nothing except file an unblock request for the first username, I'd be more willing to look kindly on the question. In my mind, the big thing is block evasion — the person formerly known as Sithrathien has been prohibited from editing Wikipedia indefinitely, so — in the absence of consensus to the contrary — I think it best to ensure that this person is unable to edit Wikipedia. Thanks for the input. Nyttend (talk) 02:36, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

COI etc. at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kevin R. D. Shepherd[edit]

Resolved: AFD was closed as delete: "The result was delete. I'm deliberately closing this soon after a relist, as I see little hope of gaining a clearer consensus than already exists. The arguments for deletion are well grounded in that reliable coverage of either Shepherd or his work must have been the subject of independent, reliably published material. This has been clearly articulated, particularly by DGG, and the lack of such coverage has not been refuted. The extremely lengthy arguments to keep provide some interesting commentary, but no substantive argument that Shepherd passes any of the notability criteria. Kevin (talk) 02:38, 22 December 2009 (UTC)" --Coffee // have a cup // ark // 09:39, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I just tried to close the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kevin R. D. Shepherd, and ended up having to relist after spending an hour on it. I believe more uninvolved eyes are needed on this AfD and its participants (I don't mean Smartse, the nominator).

Kevin R.D. Shepherd is an apparently self-taught British scholar who writes self-published books on philosophy, including criticising certain groups, gurus and sects, e.g. Sathya Sai Baba. There seem to be issues with COI on both sides: some editors supporting deletion may be associated with the sects he criticises, and some editors opposing deletion may be closely associated with Shepherd or otherwise be opposed to this sect. Note that there has been arbitration in this area before: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sathya Sai Baba and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sathya Sai Baba 2.

If this was a simple judgement of the WP:GNG, WP:PROF, or WP:CREATIVE, Shepherd would undoubtedly fail. The only coverage I can find is in a book by Marianne Warren, excerpted here. His work has been cited a handful of times over the decades, certainly not enough to say he has had an impact on his field. But it is not that simple. Editors are supporting inclusion despite the apparent failure to meet notability guidelines. The arguments to keep are lengthy but weak: appeals to OTHERSTUFF, JUSTNOTABLE, IKNOWIT, GOOGLEHITS, COMMONSENSE etc. DGG's deletion argument is a good barometer - if he agrees with deletion, there's usually no hope for an article. And yet, I am wary of closing as delete and having this explode in my face. Maybe I should grow a pair, but here I am.

User:Dazedbythebell has linked to a blog that is critical of Shepherd, there appear to be two or three such attack blogs against Shepherd that chronicle the activities on Wikipedia to do with him, so I am concerned about off-wiki goings on. Just Google 'kevin shepherd wikipedia' to get an idea of the material out there. There seems to be a vendetta between Shepherd and someone called Gerald Joe Moreno.

User:Simon Kidd and User:Alex jamieson are new SPAs that wrote this bio, though Simon Kidd says they have previously used another account (which they say has been disclosed in ArbCom). Alex wrote it and Simon gave it a Good Article Review three days after his first edit. Both deny being the subject of the article. Alex jamieson took the photo of Shepherd, so must know him. Being suspicious, I note that there are behavioural similarities between these two accounts, in particular their lengthy style of writing, and I wonder whether checkuser should be used? There's at least some tag teaming going on with the GAR.

I was perplexed by the keep !votes from User:Ombudswiki and User:ProEdits, but ProEdits has frequently added criticism to Sathya Sai Baba, and that article was one of the first that Ombudswiki edited in 2006, so neither are neutral in this area.

Thoughts? Advice? Fences&Windows 02:19, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
p.s. Two related threads on the COI noticeboard:[11][12]

I had spent the past hour or so reading that lengthy screed also, but came to the conclusion that there was a strong guideline based consensus to delete. Regardless of the identities or motivations of the accounts you mention above, I felt that the keep arguments were extremely weak, and definitely outweighed by the delete arguments. Kevin (talk) 02:43, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
OK, I'm happy with that close. You've got my thoughts above to point to in support of that decision. Fences&Windows 02:50, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

User:Spiffyismetodeath[edit]

Resolved: He's dead, Jim. And I'm hungry. HalfShadow 02:49, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

This user is making Attack comments to editors who have flagged his article "Crafty culture." it have been deleted at least 3 times and has inseted the diatribe on at least one other page. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Icelandic_horse&diff=prev&oldid=333173455 In addition to his user main page. This is leading me to believe this is a vandalism only account. I apologize in advance for the improper formating. Avatar 06349 (talk) 02:34, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

UPDATE Kuru has blocked him indefinitly(sp)Avatar 06349 (talk) 02:47, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Banned user from ja.wiki[edit]

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

Resolved: Please discuss further at the SPI case. ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 07:29, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Remember when I brought up the "AZLUCKY" individual? Well, it appears that the user is indeed disrupting this project in the same fashion that he was disrupting the Japanese Wikipedia. For unknown reasons, he has abandoned the 姫宮玲子 (talk · contribs) account and moved onto ネコミ (talk · contribs) and on that account has created a bunch of esoteric categories (some on the old account). It also appears the user was in control of the 美奈 (talk · contribs) account (edits to include Western animation in Category:Anime spin-offs) and may have used the also abandoned Sailorsaurus (talk · contribs) account. I may have also found his IP: 210.237.109.10 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (which is blocked at ja.wiki as seen here). Ultragarrison (talk · contribs) is also a possible sock account. All have edits relating to creating superfluous/esoteric categories, the Ultra Series, and Godzilla.

Now, can we show this user the boot just as they have done at the Japanese Wikipedia? And yes, I have not bothered to contact the individual because he does not respond to talk page messages anyway and will simply move onto another account.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 06:57, 22 December 2009 (UTC)


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

Slow edit war at 1102[edit]

Resolved: Toroko was indef blocked by Ricky81682. Admins are welcome to unblock if Toroko "shows an interest in getting along here". --Coffee // have a cup // ark // 09:35, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Toroko (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) is apparently a self-designed defender of the Wiki from "Croatian falsification of history", and, among other things, he WP:OWNs the article 1102 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (that's right, the calendar year) where he defends the WP:TRUTH against all good faith participants. On the said year, Croatia lost its independence to Hungary by signing a forced treaty (Pacta conventa (Croatia)) whose terms are controversial. Rather than to participate in the Pacta conventa article, he choose to "defend" 1102, and this is his version of the article [13] (note 24 references for a single "paragraph" which smacks of WP:SYNTH and POV-pushing).

Myself and Joy (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) tried to reason with him at Talk:1102, attempting to find a brief compromise formulation, however he undermined all the attempts at dispute resolution, reverting all the attempts to mention the event, wanting his way or the highway, and producing toxic atmosphere all around. Please pay attention to his contributions, particularly edit summaries, which reveal battleground mentality, assumption of bad faith, and accusation of other users of nationalism and vandalism. Particularly, please check out this outburst [14].

I think that this went beyond normal means of dispute resolution, and I don't think that an article WP:RFC would be worth the effort, because Toroko has refused any good-faith attempt to resolve the issue, and resorted to aggressive name-calling and edit-warring. So, I request an administrative intervention, and possibly a topic ban for Toroko per WP:ARBMAC. Of course, my edits are open for scrutiny as well, though I don't have an axe to grind in this issue. No such user (talk) 07:43, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I've just blocked him indefinitely. I asked him in November, got a response and while I should have followed up, he's been plain disruptive for too long. Feel free to unblock if he shows an actual interest in getting along here. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:12, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
Note that he has been pushing that view of his since his first edits in December 2008. I really don't think he's a net gain to the project. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:18, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Kmweber blocked then unblocked[edit]

Resolved: Kmweber's ban has been formally restated. He is not allowed to edit the Wikipedia namespace or Wikipedia talk space. Any continued edits to the said areas will result in an immediate indef block. Kurt is encouraged to edit the article space, and help contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. He is also reminded that the only way to lift this ban is to formally request it be reviewed, or go to ArbCom. --Coffee // have a cup // ark // 21:55, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Kurt was blocked earlier by Hiberniantears with the following post to the talk page:

Kurt,

I have blocked you indefinitely for long term abuse. I recognize this will be debated. In light of that, if an ArbCom case is required to determine once and for all whether you should be allowed back with or without restrictions, the community should pursue this. If you feel that you can bring value to building an online encyclopedia, please explain this. However, if you are here to treat Wikipedia like a country in need of a libertarian centered human-rights struggle, you're missing the point. Any one of your actions can easily be viewed as merely annoying or immature. However, when taken in sum, your votes in various areas of the project and your numerous candidacies for every position under the sun lays out a clear pattern of contradicting actions intended solely to call attention to your "struggle", all of which plays out at the expense of well-intentioned users who are simply trying to build a collaborative encyclopedia.

I will not review your block, nor do I endorse the lifting of this block by any other admin without the approval of ArbCom. Hiberniantears (talk) 19:05, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I personally endorse this block, as I had a one hour discussion with Kurt about this on IRC. And from what I gained from that discussion, he doesn't plan on editing in the article space in the near future, because he doesn't feel like it at the moment (which is understandable). Yet he has only made 19 edits to the article space this year. I asked him to make an onwiki statement that declared that he would edit more in the article space, and he refused calling it a game. That shows to me that either he has an ego he doesn't want to hurt, or he doesn't plan on editing in the article space. Either way he shouldn't have been unblocked without more of a discussion.

However EVula did just unblock him:

Block overturned. Dubious grounds with zilch on the evidence front, and pushing it back on ArbCom is weak.

I'm not saying Kurt isn't a jackass at times (though, to cover my ass, I'll also point out that I'm not saying he is a jackass at times), I'm just saying that this block is incredibly poorly thought out. Kurt is not an insiginficant participant in the entire Wikipedia process; whatever your opinions about him may be, he does not deserve to be swept under the rug, which is the chief reason that I have no qualms about overturning this block. EVula // talk // ☯ // 08:58, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I think this needs a bit more from the community at any rate, as it seems that few people are aware of the block. --Coffee // have a cup // flagged revs now! // 10:32, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

<scratches head> Are we here to endlessly debate about community standards or build an encyclopedia? AniMate 10:39, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
Following the lengthy discussion last year, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Kmweber ban discussion, Kmweber was unblocked with a restriction that he could not edit in Wikipedia space. It's understandable that the restriction would be waived to allow his participation as an ArbCom candidate, but was it ever actually lifted? Maybe enforcing or reimposing it would address the problem.   Will Beback  talk  11:38, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
It was never lifted, and I'd argue that the ArbCom elections—or at least, standing in them—aren't exempt; if you're banned from Project-space, it's for a good reason. That said, it's a moot point. He escaped a ban a year ago by quitting Wikipedia. It's evident that Kurt is a master troll, gaming the rules so that he can escape sanctions that would befall other editors. The most obvious being, of course, his minority opinions, which make any attempt to get rid of them to be perceived as getting rid of dissenters. There's also the fact that he's known to harass editors on IRC and WR, saving most of it until his ArbCom run last year so that he couldn't be banned from the only people who can do so: the ArbCom themselves. Of course, any ban by the ArbCom is also "motivated by a desire to stamp out dissent". It's also evident that he has not outgrown this immature behaviour, and show be reblocked. Sceptre (talk) 11:51, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
For the record: [15]. Sceptre (talk) 11:58, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
I should think a re(in)statement of the conditions per the Kmweber ban discussion - not blocked while he does not edit in Wikipedia space - noted by Will Beback should suffice. I am not impressed by yet another admin acting unilaterally, even in evident good faith, in indef blocking an editor without reference to recent consensus or even discussion. However, in the interests of a quick return to the pre ACE09 status quo I would suggest that this matter is put to bed as quickly as possible. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:12, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
I don't think it'd work. When asked last year if there were any sanctions against him, he answered "none that I consider legitimate". Two months into his topic ban. We honestly need to treat Kmweber as having one absolute final chance. He fucks up once more, he's gone. Hell, I want him gone now, for, among other things, harassing female admins, but I'd be willing giving him a final chance as long as it's treated like that. Sceptre (talk) 12:23, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
Just told him I will enforce the WP space ban. ViridaeTalk 12:25, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
(Response to Sceptre) I was not including Kmw's viewpoint. I was simply saying we do not block him while he does not edit, per the result of the noted discussion, and we will - per Viridae's notice - sanction him if he does. Whether or not Kurt believes it legitimate is irrelevant. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:53, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

EVula, I respect you greatly, but the unblock was incorrect. KMweber is not a "participant in the entire Wikipedia process", he is simply a troll. There is no need for another final chance; either a strict topic ban, or an outright site ban, appears to be the only way to mitigate KMweber's disruption. — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:48, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

A strict topic ban was made back in 2008, that told him to not edit the Wikipedia space. Of course with the ArbCom election, he thought he could start it back up again. Viridae and I have reinstated that topic ban. I did leave a clause that he can discuss the election until January 15. --Coffee // have a cup // flagged revs now! // 13:22, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
Can I point out that Kurt has supported reasonable candidates at RfA? I personally agree that he's a troll, but I've seen him do very helpful things. He seems to be just a guy with a different opinion then everyone else - that may sound cheesy, but he's referenced it and it seems to be true. ceranthor 13:47, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
A guy with a different opinion, who harasses people to make sure they hear it. The latter part is why he should be gone, not the former. Sceptre (talk) 14:23, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
Wheel warring is bad - yes, I know the definition, but hasty unblocks without debate or consensus cause the same damage. They embolden the blocked editor to think they have been wronged and then vindicated, their behavior acceptable, and they make it nearly impossible for the community to enforce its standards in the face of problematic editors. Perhaps it's best that administrators not issue indefinite blocks without some prior discussion except in exceptionally clear cases, but administrators are entitled to enforce policies and standing sanctions without first conducting a poll. As we all know from this board, nearly all proposals to block editors begin to attract a lot of debate and opposition from all corners that does not necessarily reflect the will of the larger community. So whether the block is short or long, if it is not without basis, please hold off and discuss any proposed unblocks. The length and conditions can always be adjusted, but releasing the blocked editor to run amok on the encyclopedia is not a good way to go about things. The default should be to protect the editing environment and the integrity of the encyclopedia against disruption, not process quibbles about blocking policy. In my opinion every admin is entitled to take a stand now and again, but if the same admin regularly overturns the actions of others without discussion I think their performance ought to be further reviewed. I don't know which is the case here. - Wikidemon (talk) 14:35, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
I always thought it was standard practice and edicate for administrators to only issue an indefinite block to a long-term established user after some community discussion, not semi-arbitrarily. Now, if we're talking about blatant vandals, spammers and trolls (I use this term very strictly), then that's a different matter altogether. While I do not welcome yet an ANI thread about Kurt, that's probably what should have happened. Wisdom89 (T / C) 15:11, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
There was such a discussion, last year: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Kmweber ban discussion. Kurt left the project for some time, then returned recently and seems to have resumed the same disruptive behavior that led to the ban originally. — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:24, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
I am aware of the previous discussions, as I probably participated in most of them, however, the above link does not show a clear consensus one way or another. Is Ryan's archiving statement binding? Regardless, it's over a year later and it would have benefited from fresh discussion. Wisdom89 (T / C) 15:29, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
  • My own two cents: I think Kurt's interventions in project space are unhelpful, and designed to provoke rather than contribute productively. His intentions appear to be sincere, but he is a net impediment and not a net benefit, and I would not think a restriction away from project space would be excessive.

    That being said, his participation in ArbCom elections is a legitimate output for his philosophical and political positions and I think it is imperative that we do not prevent participation in our sole true political process to anyone who has something to say — even if it's marginal enough that they inevitably end up dead last every time. — Coren (talk) 15:51, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

    • While recognizing that Coren has much more experience in the WP community, I disagree with the statement that ArbCom elections are the "sole true political process." The Wikipedia community makes decisions through a variety of means, one of the most important being civil discussion. If a user cannot contribute productively in that milieu, I'd say that person has already flunked out of the "political process" of the 'pedia; participation in ArbCom being an adjunct to the everyday, run-of-the-mill decision making process. — ækTalk 20:14, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
(edit conflict)FWIW, when things get this complex on Wiki, there will never be consensus. "Consensus". The unblock by EVula - someone with some serious clout in these parts - was a de facto (or prima facie) recognition that, well, people are allowed to be this disruptive here. Check his contribs, it's not like we'd be losing one of our top content people, but someone will always be around to defend his use of this encyclopedia for his own personal agendas. It's the way it is, I guess - so it goes. Tan | 39 15:53, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
I'll see your de facto and raise you one counter-point: I see allowing a rather arbitrary "well, I'm tired of you, and without any true consensus from the overall community, I'm going to block you and say that only ArbCom can overturn it"-type of block as setting a much, much worse precedent. Do I care if Kurt is blocked? Honestly, no, I don't. I do care that any attempt to permanently boot someone out of Wikipedia has community support; a couple of "Endorse Block" tags on a user talk page do not community consensus represent. EVula // talk // // 18:14, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Saying I've "resumed the behavior that almost got me banned last year" is simply false, since I was repeatedly told--in no uncertain terms--that my participation in AfD and RfA was NOT why people were wanting to ban me--rather, it was because I was harassing people ("why do you hate Wikipedia?", "deletionists are an especially fucking retarded subclass of the rest", going after Seraphim and Krimpet for their behavior towards Bedford, etc.) and because the general quality of my discourse was starting to decline. I fully admit I was way over the line there, but I challenge anyone to point out any sort of behavior of that sort on my part since I returned. As far as I can tell, all I've done in project-space since then is, at worst, started some discussions that were carried out peacefully and calmly and ended with a simple "agree to disagree," and at best actually helped others understand me--and me understand others--better.

As for the ban from project space--it was for three months. It's been well more than three months, and since then I haven't resumed any of the behavior that people were (rightly) complaining about. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!: 14-0) 15:59, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Your on-wiki actions are essentially the same before you "vanished" last year. It shows you haven't grown up. And if you haven't grown up, there's no reason to believe you won't start harassing people again once this is all forgotten. And you never apologised to Seraphim or Krimpet, or me, or Majorly, either. Sceptre (talk) 17:05, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
What is that idiom? Something about when you point a finger at someone, three point back at you?--King Bedford I Seek his grace 22:15, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
What is that idiom? Something about you being a misogynist troll. Sceptre (talk) 01:15, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

And look--if it is in fact the actual substance of my RfA and AfD contributions, then why not start an RfC? Every time so far, I've been perfectly happy to refrain from the actions in question while the RfC was taking place, and only resumed when (as happened both times) the RfC pretty clearly concluded that I wasn't doing anything wrong. I think my track record is pretty strong on this. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!: 14-0) 16:03, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

[citation needed]. You violated your namespace ban to run for ArbCom, and even worse, you said you didn't consider the ban legitimate (when it was applied by the community). I don't believe you'll adhere to another community request, per my comments above. Sceptre (talk) 17:10, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Kmweber's on-wiki action also sometimes translates into off-wiki behavior, such as the rather upsetting messages he sent me on IRC. I had to place him on ignore because of it. I realize this is not actionable due to being off-wiki, but it was in response to my recent (failed) RfA that he found the reason to send me private messages on IRC. Basket of Puppies 18:19, 20 December 2009 (UTC)


I'm about as surprised that my unblock ended up being reported here as I am about a sunrise, but I still find it somewhat odd. The block was endorsed by a couple of people, yes, but it was also questioned by several others; John Vandenberg and MZMcBride both specifically stated that they were willing to unblock, citing the rather weak ground that the block was built upon. The entire thing smacked of "I'm tired of you and so you're gone now", which, I'm sorry, but I don't give a rat's ass what your opinion of Kurt is, that's just plain wrong.

Was this wheel warring? No. Hiberniantears tried to lend false legitimacy to the block by somehow claiming only ArbCom could overturn it ("nor do I endorse the lifting of this block by any other admin without the approval of ArbCom"). As was pointed out at User talk:Kmweber#Blocked, that's not how ArbCom should be cited; it's an attempt to make the block "untouchable". Sorry, no, one person does not make consensus (myself included). Given Hiberniantears' unambiguous position on reviewing or lifting the block ("I will not review your block, nor do I endorse the lifting of this block by any other admin"), there was nothing to discuss. To fluff up this paragraph with lovely shortcuts, this was WP:CYCLE, not WP:WHEEL.

Look, I don't want anyone to look at this as some sort of defense of trollish editors. It isn't (chiefly because I'm not assigning "trollish" or "not trollish" qualifiers to Kurt's actions), and I'm pretty rabidly opposed to the concept of suffering a troll based solely on their contributions. The only thing I'm concerned with here is that an actual attempt at a community-derived decision is made. Hiberniantears' block didn't do that, and there was sufficient consensus that it should be overturned; hence, I did so. EVula // talk // // 18:44, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

The problem is, going to the community first will probably not get a consensus to block him, as editors will be convinced we'd be persecuting him for having minority opinions. Despite the fact he's stalked (at least) two female admins before which, is apparently, the cardinal sin against editors. His opinions effectively give him carte blanche to do whatever he wants. Sceptre (talk) 19:18, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
Taking a point by EVula a little further, those with a long memory will recall another instance where one admin made a determination in respect of an editor, blocked, and suggested that only a referral to ArbCom would be permitted to undo the block. That action resulted in a furore that echoes even today, and even if a similarly sanctioned account was known to the entire community as being an incorrigibly disruptive influence that is the precedent why we do not allow admins to make unilateral decisions in contentious areas; we ensure that admins are the vehicles of community consensus and not its arbiters. For this reason alone EVula's unblock was appropriate and proper. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:25, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Kurt wrote above: "As for the ban from project space--it was for three months." The topic ban was formalized by user:Ryan Postlethwaite.[16] He reminded Kurt of it a month later.[17] While Ryan wrote that it could be lifted in the future, I don't see any mention of a three month duration. Could Kurt or someone else please priovide a diff to support that assertion? Otherwise the topic ban is still in effect and may be enforced.   Will Beback  talk  21:38, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I am also curious why he thinks he isn't topic banned from Rfa. Since Rfa is in Wikipedia space which he is banned from. -DJSasso (talk) 01:33, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
Because he has a Minority Opinion. Sceptre (talk) 01:38, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
Well he's banned from there now. -Coffee // have a cup // flagged revs now! // 03:18, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
Just because I was curious, I looked up Kurt at Soxred93's RfA Vote Calculator. His record of 10-support and 163-oppose is most impressive. Not necessarily good for the community, but impressive in its consistency nonetheless. — Kralizec! (talk) 03:39, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

:::::He only got 10 supports for the RFA but when he ran for ArbCom, he got 102 support votes. I bring this up just because in Wikipedia article editing, you're not suppose to cherry pick statistics. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 19:48, 21 December 2009 (UTC)error

I believe the numbers mentioned above by Kralizec! refer to Kurt supporting 10 RFA's and opposing 163 RFA's. Not supports and opposes on his own request.--Cube lurker (talk) 20:07, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
His RFA game is moot. Its not disruptive because no one actually takes him seriously. He's basically made himself entirely impotent by being so annoying, so there's little point in using that as justification for any block. I'm not saying one way or another whether he should be blocked or not, but the whole RFA thing is pointless because he's made himself "the boy who cries wolf" there. Everyone knows he has nothing worthwhile to say, so he's self-eliminated himself from being taken seriously. --Jayron32 03:47, 21 December 2009 (UTC)


Hiberniantears weighs in, belatedly[edit]

Apologies for my late arrival to this thread. I'm a Christmas baby, and the family chose today to celebrate. I want to clear up a few things, lest my original block statement leads to additional confusion. I really only meant to imply that I won't review the block. I have no problem with Evula or anyone else overturning me. That said, I did believe my block of Kurt was in line with Kurt's ban discussion from last year. The ArbCom comment was a poorly explained attempt to say "I'm blocking this obviously disruptive user. I won't undo the block. If the community wants me to undo it, I want ArbCom to weigh in". I did not intent to say that other admins shouldn't act as they see fit within policy.

As for this ANI thread. It is exactly what Kurt wants. As far as I can tell he is still banned, but we were all too willing to ignore him for a few months as he was obviously returning to his poor form. I'm actually stunned he was allowed to stand for ArbCom, and then I witnessed him pop up over the past week and start harassing RfA candidates again. This was a no brainer as far as I'm concerned. We were simply collectively dropping the ball in dealing with him. Hiberniantears (talk) 03:15, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

In the interest of getting it right[edit]

So in reviewing the comments on my block of Kurt, it is clear to me that most of us feel that he is either violating an active ban, or managing to avoid a formal ban by gaming the system with a "retirement". I see him as a banned user who is still gaming the system. Putting my view of the situation aside, can we just have a discussion on what Kurt's actual status is?

Clearly, there is confusion, and I see no need to set us all against each other in arguing over what I now recognize is a highly ambiguous status quo surrounding Kurt. With that in mind, is Kurt banned or not? Hiberniantears (talk) 03:54, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Confirm indefinite ban from non-article space. As far as I am concerned, I think his original ban against all non-article edits stands, or at least, should stand from this moment forward. He can edit articles. That's it. --Jayron32 03:58, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
Confirm I agree. He is banned from all non-article edits. -DJSasso (talk) 04:21, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
Confirm ban, including the ArbCom election subspace. Now that voting has gone to the SecurePoll option, he can safely vote, while being unable to run. While this may not be popular, anyone who is currently banned from Wikipedia space, but runs for ArbCom regardless, is probably disrupting. Sceptre (talk) 04:30, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
Confirm ban - Already left a note on his talk page to this nature yesterday. --Coffee // have a cup // flagged revs now! // 04:48, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
Confirm. The project space ban was placed legitimately following extensive community input. There is no indication that it has expired. He is welcome to contribute to the article space in a non-disruptive manner.   Will Beback  talk  08:44, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
Sure. Hopefully we won't contract amnesia about this debate in a few months. I doubt it, though. Protonk (talk) 11:06, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Editing restrictions? "Final warnings" seems to be a new thing there. Rd232 talk 12:24, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
Final warnings aren't really new; we give people "final warnings" all the time. The problem is, that they never are. Sceptre (talk) 15:15, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
Not confirmed but... When a punishment is imposed, and this is punishment, it should be clear what it is for. There is a diff to 3 months provided by someone else http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AKmweber&action=historysubmit&diff=240123704&oldid=240119164 Let's wrap this up by saying that from 1 January 2010 to 31 January 2010, Kurt Weber has no restrictions and that he should behave in the way he thinks all Wikipedian should aspire to. That means not trying to push the limit. In return, others will not try to add restrictions on him. In the period between now and 1 January, everyone should be in a trial period, trying to act like what they will do in 2010. To avoid conflict, Kurt Weber should voluntarily refrain from Wikispace except for this ANI thread between now and 2010. Kurt Weber surprising got 102 supports for ArbCom which means there may be a consensus of 102 active editors in support of him but that those 102 people are afraid to say something, much like people in Iran are afraid to say anything lest they be killed like Ramin Pourandarjani. I do not support Mr. Weber but do support calm and responsibility. To me, this is a confusing mess that could benefit from a clean slate for January 2010. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 19:59, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
... but things could change in January 2010 so a confirm would be clearly indicated then See above comment of 19:59 21 December 2009 Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 20:44, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

What "poor form"? What "harassing RfA candidates"? It's not like I'm following people around and saying, "Ha-ha, you suck, ha-ha!" My RfA criteria are just one set of criteria out of many; I'm happy to explain it when I need to (always politely), and if not I'm happy to leave it at that. What, exactly, is the problem here? Kurt Weber (Go Colts!: 14-0) 16:04, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

The problem in my opinion is that you don't seem to see the problem. -DJSasso (talk) 16:11, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
I stayed away from project space--indeed, from Wikipedia altogether--for well beyond the three month minimum required by my topic ban, and when I returned I resumed none of the behaviors that I was told were problematic: I didn't harass other people, I didn't throw insults around, I didn't go apeshit on people who attacked me--I have remained calm, polite, and collegial at all times. So my three-month topic ban expired and I resumed none of the behaviors for which it was imposed. Please tell me, where is the problem, because I honestly don't see it. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!: 14-0) 16:23, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
You keep saying after the 3 month time expired. Yet there is no record anywhere of it expiring after 3 months. As far as I can find and others, the topic ban was indefinite. -DJSasso (talk) 16:46, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
See below. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!: 14-0) 16:55, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
Except that is not what the link you provide says. It says no less than 3 months and that in 3 months you would be talked to about it. Show me the link to where you were talked to about it and where it was lifted. If you can't show a discussion where it was stated that it was lifted then it wasn't lifted. -DJSasso (talk) 17:00, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Also, time and time again, I was told that the problem wasn't with opposing self-noms for being self-noms, or voting keep on RfAs simply because the subject existed, was not a problem--that those were perfectly legitimate positions, and that I was entitled to participate in RfA and AfD along those lines, so long as I did so in a civil and collegial manner. The problem was that I was being considerably less than civil and collegial about it (which is true). Now, here are the terms I agreed to. Since those three months were up, I have not been anything but civil and collegial--so I can only conclude that what you're having a problem with isn't with the way I'm acting but with the ideas I hold themselves. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!: 14-0) 16:13, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Does anyone have diffs of any disruptive editing after his block was lifted? Sephiroth storm (talk) 16:34, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
There was never any long-term block; I simply returned after a several-month self-imposed absence. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!: 14-0) 16:39, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Since it was said that the ban would las no less than three months, then would be revisited, it is clear that the ban lasts until the second discussion determines otherwise. That never happened, so the ban is still in effect. In the interest of resolving this, let's have an unban discussion right now. The WordsmithCommunicate 17:48, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Coren's offer was made in September 22. The Ryan Postlethwaite's closure of the community ban was on September 23 and so it superseded Coren's offer. Further, Coren was acting as an individual admin, while Ryan was summarizing a community ban, which obviously has greater weight. The ban was violated on November 18 [18] Ryan reminded you of the ban on November 19. As stated above, the ban on editing Wikipedia space appears to still be in effect. If you'd like to ask the community or the Arbcom to lift it you may do so by placing an appeal on your user talk page, but further direct editing here will result in a block. 19:16, 21 December 2009 (UTC)  Will Beback  talk 
FYI, for those interested in final warnings, I've given one to Kmweber on his talk page saying that the topic ban is still in place and it will be enforced if he violates it again.[19]   Will Beback  talk  20:38, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
There are conflicting warnings and bans. Coffee put up a notice saying Mr. Weber is banned from everything, even articles. Will Beback says only Wikipedia space. Mr. Weber says only a 3 month period was in effect, now expired, and that he's stopped some annoying behavior. That's why a clarity period is needed. Everyone should be on their best behavior in January 2010 and should try to get accustomed to that in the 10 days before that. Then there will be a clear period to assess Mr. Weber. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 20:49, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
Please review your facts. I placed a formal Wikipedia/talk space ban, I said nothing about all articles. And it's too late for a 1,000th chance, he can either appeal the ban, or accept it and edit articles. There is no point in a "January 2010 test". --Coffee // have a cup // flagged revs now! // 20:52, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
I'm not aware of any ban on editing Wikipedia in general, just edits to the project-space, such as this page or RFAs. The community ban placed on Kmweber in September 2008 is unequivocal. The best thing would be for Kmweber to avoid further confrontation stick to writing articles.   Will Beback  talk  20:55, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Confirm the indefinite ban from the WP space as per the discussion Ryan Postlethwaite closed. ViridaeTalk 21:52, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Confirm indefinite ban from non-article space as above.  Sandstein  22:41, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I think mine was a newbie question - Wikidemon (talk) 08:29, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
  • Comment / question - Please forgive for butting in, and no opinion on the underlying matter, but does "non-article space" include: article talk space? category space? user / user talk space? media files? portals? This may or may not seem obvious, and I do not mean this as a comment about the editor in question, but many people who tend towards the disruptive on process, meta-matters, and civility do so on each others' talk pages, templates, projects / portals, and article talk pages. Others do not. Perhaps it would avoid future confusion to be very specific on this. - Wikidemon (talk) 22:48, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Answer - It's non "non-article space", but "Wikipedia space". Basically, any page that has "Wikipedia:" or "Wikipedia talk:" in the front of the name. None of the areas you inquired about above match that criteria, so that still leaves a large number of places to contribute. -- Atama 23:08, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Confirm WP-space ban. If Kurt is going to insist on arguing this, I'll add to the pile-on support for the restriction. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 00:51, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Confirming the ban. Kwmeber has been using the wikipedia space only to fight his ideological battles, he can do that at some other website. --Enric Naval (talk) 16:48, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Confirm. The community has spoken. Durova386

User:A Quest For Knowledge[edit]

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

Doesn't appear to require sysop intervention. Discussion on this can take place on user talk pages. Please be nice.


A Quest For Knowledge (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · logs · block log · arb · rfc · lta · SPI)

A Quest For Knowledge has deleted talk page commentary by User:ChrisO in two separate instances on Talk:Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident. The first time the user removed the material at 03:30, 22 December,[20] ChrisO objected and restored it at 08:42, 22 December.[21] I contacted A Quest For Knowledge at 09:22, 22 December,[22] and explained that ChrisO disputed the deletion, and politely asked A Quest For Knowledge to take this up with ChrisO on his talk page or on the appropriate noticeboards. The user ignored my request to discuss this with ChrisO or to file a report on a noticeboard for assistance, and once again, removed the material at 12:08, 22 December.[23] I don't know who is right or wrong here, but to avoid edit wars on the talk page, I feel that A Quest For Knowledge needs to open a line of communication with ChrisO or request outside assistance, and towards that end, I have contacted him for a second time.[24] Could someone uninvolved with either of these two users take a look at what is going on here? Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 12:33, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Per WP:BLP, I removed material where ChrisO was making accusations against living people. I only have an hour or two a day to devote to Wikipedia so I won't be able to participate in this discussion until tonight, or if I have time, on my lunch break. However, according to WP:BLP, editors who re-insert the material should be blocked. If ChrisO continues making unsourced accusations against living people, I suggest that he be blocked from editing the article. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:43, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
I suggest that Chris Owen could restore a version of his statement that omits the attack on Solomon. Chris's argument seems unexceptionable, it's just the extraneous material that seems to be causing the problem. --TS 12:56, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
I don't see an attack on Solomon, at most on "his gullible followers". That does not create a BLP situation - it's not the most polite phrase, but no more an attack on any particular person than "humans are destroying the Earth", "Europeans are snobs" or "Christians are stupid". --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:11, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
What's the controversial bit? " venom being aimed at him by Solomon, Ball and their gullible followers."? I'm still flabberghasted by Solomon's claim "How Wikipedia’s green doctor rewrote 5,428 climate articles" when at the time Solomon retrieved that figure it would have been the total number of articles WC had edited. I can think of a good word for this misrepresentation. Dougweller (talk) 13:14, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

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

User:Experting and East London Bus Group[edit]

Hi, sorry if this is in the wrong place. I have left it a bit since it happened, but it still needs sorting out.

User:Experting has decided that East London Bus Group needs a list of bus routes. For a start it is in the wrong place, putting it smack bang in the middle of the "Operations" section, and getting in the way. Background information is that East London Bus Group is the parent company of two (more recently three) bus companies, Selkent and East London (bus company). These both have articles themseleves, and the relevant articles give information about which routes they run. I feel that the article on the parent company doesn't need information about which routes they run, 1) because technically they don't run them, and 2) because it is duplicated information which is already covered in a better place. Also, it is just a mass of numbers with no explanation.

I first reverted User:Experting on 11 December, fully explaining in the edit summary my reasoning. Experting, though, just reverted. I reverted a couple more times the following days, again explaining my reasoning, but Experting again just reverted, either without an edit summary or with a useless one like "Yes there is".

I then went to look at Experting's contributions. It would seem that they are an aggressive editor, so I decided not to bring up the issue with them, as it wouldn't get me anywhere. Some evidence of the user's behaviour is:

  • Tagging the edits as a minor edit when reverting ( [25] )
  • Going straight in and issuing warnings at the highest level ([26], [27], [28])
  • Reverting without an edit summary ( [29] ) (not too bad but they know what they're doing)

The user's contributions show quite a lot of shouting, arguing and reverting. There seems to have been a rather heated discussion with User:Ianmacm. This includes:

  • Not signing what they say [30]
  • Pretenting they are an adminstrator, and saying that they have blocked Ianmacm [31]
  • Removing Ianmacm's replies [32]

I hope something can be done about this. I won't revert East London Bus Group again, as it will only start an edit war. Arriva436talk/contribs 15:52, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I've notified the user and wow, yeah, talk about completely inappropriate warnings and warning levels. --NeilN talk to me 16:10, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
I've encountered him before. He created the Candy King article as a blatant copyvio of the Candy King website, and insisted that the article be retained (to the point of removing speedy deletion templates) because "i need it for my school work and cannot access the candyking.com website in school because its apparant "Entertainment"." [33] He seems to take any criticism of his edits as personal attacks, and doesn't seem to understand the purpose of Wikipedia very well (i.e. Believing it is acceptable to mirror websites needed for schoolwork). —ShadowRanger (talk|stalk) 16:33, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
Is there an offence of impersonating an admin? I'd say that was worth a short block of its own. Mjroots (talk) 16:30, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
Experting (talk · contribs) has made a grand total of 119 edits, I'd say there's a good chance Experting doesn't understand how blocks work. A warning would not to impersonate admins and to engage in discussion rather than threaten people should suffice. If it persists, then a block would be warranted. Nev1 (talk) 16:36, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

User:DBaba[edit]

DBaba (talk · contribs) in this edit on the talk page of Cave of the Patriarchs massacre is accusing me of being rascist/nationalistic, running a cabal, harassing, and being POV. And all of that after I worked it all out with another editor there, due to both of us being civil and sticking to the rules of Wikipedia, as that same section testifies. DBaba seems to have a serious bias here, as well as a problem with neutrally assessing my person. I have informed him of this discussion here. Debresser (talk) 23:12, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with these characterizations of what I've had to say. Debresser's activity continues to trouble me, and I find that this is just an alternative means of obstruction he has resorted to. DBaba (talk) 23:27, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
Your viscious and baseless attack compared to the discussion preceding it says it all. Debresser (talk) 23:33, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
Doesn't seem a seriously sticky attack. Is that all there is, or has he made other statements you find objectionable? --Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:51, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
That is all, mam. Frankly, I find that more than enough. Debresser (talk) 23:55, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
My previous post got removed somehow. It ran like this:
DBaba continues on Talk:Cave_of_the_Patriarchs_massacre#Mediation calling people by unacceptable names. Debresser (talk) 23:46, 15 December 2009 (UTC)


Here is DBaba's post in full:

"Debresser, I find that your contributions are consistently as ethnonationalist as you seem to think you can get away with. It troubles me that you would attack Zero0000's contributions as POV, when you have racist revisionists working over the page to suggest the massacre was justified as a preemptive strike; that you have nothing to say about that, and only harass serious and neutral editors, and the comments accompanying your edits have frequently been blatantly wrong or incoherent, and that you've been blanking text as "not important" despite its being cited when it doesn't suit you personally, all of these elements lead me to ask you to please stop interfering. I requested comment to get away from this sort of ethnonationalist activism, not to invite more. DBaba (talk) 20:45, 15 December 2009 (UTC)"

Hope this helps. DBaba, my experience is you're generally a pretty good guy, but there's a problem with calling other editors racist. Remember the fiasco on Nanking Massacre a while ago? I was just being stupid, but you and User:Flyingtiger were convinced I was a Japanese negationist. Try and assume good faith of Debresser. ALI nom nom 01:53, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

E.g. If I remove a sentence or paragraph, it is either unsourced, or irrelevant. And I am willing to defend any my decision to do so. If User:DBaba has any specific problems he could have raised them on the talk page, as another editor has done. In view of my edits, it seems unjust to assume I have a POV agenda. In fact, I have made edits and comments to this article and its talk page that are contrary to what I would have liked, based on the facts and a neutral way of representing them. Calling editing - "interfering", is plain ridiculous. Especially since I am not what you would call a "newbie" on Wikipedia, and have numerous edits to my name, including many on pages related to Judaism. In short, User:DBaba seems to have a bias here, both in regard with the article as with me personally, and he has a very unpleasant way of expressing it. I think a civility warning is the least he should receive. Debresser (talk) 10:23, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Here are six instances of Debresser using the Undo function to remove cited and neutral text, all from this same article, in the space of one week. [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] [39]
I do not peg him as actually participating in any FBI-designated terrorist group, as is apparently the case with some of my other foils in this area, but this hasn't stopped him from working fruitfully to the same end: blanking factual and cited information, with the claim that it is "not important". I am troubled by this and I am troubled that he still does not understand what he has done wrong; and I believe he is being manipulative when he suggests I am "calling people by unacceptable names", or that I have been vicious.
I also think he and I can work this out without any help from outside, and that his choice to come here to seek sanction against me is a stunt which further demonstrates political activism on his part. And I apologize for calling him an ethnonationalist, which only served to change the subject from how awful and POV his editing has been, as well as being needless and an inefficient method of bringing him into the light. DBaba (talk) 18:48, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Apology accepted. But you see, you are doing it again! Now you are accusing me of coming here as "a stunt". You just don't seem to know what Wikipedia:Assume good faith is about... As to my removals of "cited and neutral text", please see the talk page that at least part of it is considered POV by some, or is indeed plain irrelevant to this article. These are content issues that you should discuss on the talk page, not here. But your failure to apply WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA, now those have to be brought here. Debresser (talk) 20:58, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Actually, being that he calls experienced Wikipedia editors "participating in any FBI-designated terrorist group", perhaps it is wiser to just block this guy altogether? Debresser (talk) 17:37, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
Is your objection to the suggestion that they participate in the Jewish Defense League, or to calling the JDL an "FBI-designated terrorist group"? Sizzle Flambé (/) 19:52, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
Well, is anybody reading this? Debresser (talk) 19:26, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
When you start off Talk:Cave_of_the_Patriarchs_massacre#Mediation with (and I'll quote) "all edits by User:Zero are POV down to their minutest details", most admins are going to ignore both of you (or block both of you). You can decide which way I should go. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:22, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
Please notice that although I personally feel that was the truth, I factually admitted I should not have said so. And I did so in the best way possible: I undid my edits to the article and tweaked other things. I also admitted in this edit that I had previously been overly hasty in editing the article. DBaba to the contrary, seems to be steadfast in his opinions. Debresser (talk) 08:46, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I've collapsed the mediation section as it's just a poisoned well and nothing good can come from it. There's plenty of conduct that's not productive but I'm not interested in playing the who was the first to be uncivil game. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:29, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Do you seriously mean to say that you put saying that an editor has a POV on one level with saying that he is racist and participates in an FBI-designated terrorist group? Especially since he wrote this after the content issue was already resolved, and his edit could have no meaningfull purpose. Debresser (talk) 12:40, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
I don't want to encourage this unpleasantness any further, as it's been quite some time now, but I must say I strongly object to the way Debresser is distorting my words. I hope he can understand that the context in which I questioned his judgment had much to do with how creepy and horrible I find it that there is a guy promoting a "terrorist" group's Facebook page on Wikipedia; I was hoping that mentioning that would reorient his priorities, from maligning me to looking out for innocent people who may yet be murdered. I'm not going to do a list of the offenses I ascribe to Debresser, because we are now working positively, forwards, in a spirit of good faith. The bridge is valueless without the water under it. And I do wish you a beautiful holiday, bro. DBaba (talk) 21:14, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

User:98.237.250.200[edit]

User talk:98.237.250.200 is repeatedly disrupting Omerta, removing referenced material, a template and adding information that is already dealt with on Omerta (disambiguation). He is also attacking other editors, see here. - DonCalo (talk) 01:03, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, he has not edited since his most recent warning. Should we perhaps wait until he edits in violation of that warning? --Jayron32 01:19, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
Too late, I've blocked him for a week for making death threats; even with warnings, that is utterly unacceptable behaviour. There are times when blocks need to be imposed not as punishment but as preventative, not only of a particular editor, but of editors in general, since such behaviour is completely contrary to our principles and should be, and be seen to be, intolerable. Time to stop pussyfooting around here, I think. Rodhullandemu 01:24, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
My bad, I didn't check that diff. Absolutely, no warnings for that shit. Completely appropriate block. Fully endorse. --Jayron32 02:03, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
The threat is terrible, threat of bodily harm. Given the block duration of other editors, one week seems rather short. Even legal threats result in indefinite block. Consider a longer block, such as 30 days. Since it is an IP, allowing current account holders to edit after, say 31 hours or 7 days is acceptable. Anyone wish to reconsider? Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 15:35, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
FYI, my previous comments are here. Rodhullandemu 19:25, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Outing by 89.101.230.52[edit]

After removing an external link from the Athlone wikipedia article in line with wikipedias external links guidelines I recieved the following from tthe IP above.

Leave the Athlone Live link forum intact if you don't mind. It has 400+ registered members, all of whom have an interest in Athlone. The link has been there a lot longer than you have been on Wikipedia. In fact, several of the forum members wrote much of the entry for the town of Athlone itself on Wikipedia.

I moved this from my user page to my talk page and responded in a civila manner and was willing to discuss it but have had further edits to my page from this user. They have hunted online for my identity and posted my name publicly on my page and later threatened to "go down to xxxxxxxxxxx to make you stop" and finished by stating "Now, quit while you're ahead.".

I think you will agree that such behaviour is intolerable and I request that something be done to stop this (Mremeralddragon (talk) 16:09, 22 December 2009 (UTC))

Are you willing to provide the appropriate diffs to an admin (I'm not one), if so, then please be prepared to do so because this sounds like a simple case of outing and this user needs some time to sit in the corner and think about what they've done. This isn't possible though without an admin (or more likely someone with higher privileges who you trust with your personal info) actually seeing the issue. As much as sometimes we would like to, Admins can't just act on our word alone. Frmatt (talk) 16:18, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
No problem supplying info thats needed and the difs are obvious in my page history anyway as there has been little to no activity on it since joining wikipedia. I just want this nonsense to be done and dusted. (Mremeralddragon (talk) 16:20, 22 December 2009 (UTC))
Would you be okay with the diffs being posted here so that the poor overworked admins don't have to search through your page history? I ask because of the possibility of your actual identity being revealed... Frmatt (talk) 16:27, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
Here they are (all from 89.101.230.52 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)):
[40], [41] [42], [43], [44], [45], [46], [47], [48]
I have also changed this thread title to make it obvious that this is more than just incivility -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 16:34, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
Nobody has notified the IP user of this thread. Oh, and BTW, this isn't "threatened" outing, they've posted Mremeralddragon's supposed real name already. That's clear outing, not threatened. 99.166.95.142 (talk) 16:35, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
  • I have notified the IP user of this thread. I have also removed the "threatened" from this thread title -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 16:43, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
Thanks PhantomSteve and IP 99...I didn't want to do anything without Mremeralddragon's permission, including searching the diffs. I know that I wouldn't necessarily want my information available to just anyone, so figured it was safer to not do anything without permission. Now, all we need is an admin to look into this! Frmatt (talk) 16:49, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
I'm also going to send a message to the Oversighter list, asking them to look at this thread. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 16:55, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Incidently, I took the No problem supplying info thats needed and the difs are obvious in my page history anyway statement as meaning that the OP has no objections to them being here. I have mailed the OS list, hopefully one will pop over and look at these diffs. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 17:03, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
  • The user appears to have a dynamic IP but I have blocked the most recent IP for a week and semi-protected the page for a month. CIreland (talk) 17:01, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
    • Outing edits have been suppressed. -- Avi (talk) 17:25, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for everything guys. And no i didnt have any problems with the diffs being added. I was actually adding them myself and noticed via an edit conflict warning that they had already been posted. Its all good. Im just happy things have been sorted out now. Thanks guys. (Mremeralddragon (talk) 18:04, 22 December 2009 (UTC))

All Mr IP has done is made things harder on themselves. If anything, now the page is going to be watched even more closely. I believe the operative term is Plaxico? HalfShadow 19:42, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

StevenMario[edit]

StevenMario (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) is a 14-year old self-proclaimed "cartoon expert" who keep introducing inaccurate or unsourced information into multiple cartoon-related articles. He has been warned by multiple users (see [49], [50], [51], [52]), and while his edits are not strictly vandalism (although some have come close), this editor is determined to force his opinions only onto these pages (even without sources, as seen here), and has some serious problems with civility (seen here and here) when his actions are questioned. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 19:20, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

You were required to notify him - see the top of this page. I've done that now. Dougweller (talk) 19:35, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, thanks - forgot to do that... TheRealFennShysa (talk) 19:36, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
Maybe he is Mascot Guy? Just a thought, Mascot Guy loves to edit children's Cartoons. --Rockstonetalk to me! 19:37, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
I don't think so - most of this kid's IP ranges (usually beginning in "68." or "208." seem to be originating in Georgia, not San Diego, as Mascot Guy appeared to have. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 19:44, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
I would like to add that StevenMario keeps ignoring the consensus at Mario & Sonic at the Olympic Winter Games. The consensus is to say that the review scores have been mostly positive, but Steven has changed it to say mixed reviews on multiple occasions. TJ Spyke 19:41, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

From what I have read up on MascotGuy, this is definitely not him. His mother has stated that he is a twenty-two year old who is obsessed with fonts and bridges. His mother made no mention of cartoons, and Steven does not seem to have any overlapping interests with Derek, the origin of the whole MascotGuy fiasco. Since Mario also has been around for a few months while editing cartoon-related articles, it is unlikely that his mother would've missed this cue. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 22:15, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

"I'm probably not the best person to be moderating Wikipedia" [53][edit]

(not that I try) Can some neutral adminstrators please take a look at the diffs below and explain either to User:Raylopez99 that they are indeed unacceptable, or to me why they are ok? Thanks! [54], [55], [56], [57]. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:20, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

If you argue with him, you get to keep him. --TS 20:51, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Whilst I don't like the style used, which I think is ineffective, I think you have to accept that different people have different styles. He has not really said anything bad. So I don't think the diffs you provided are unacceptable.

This suggests that the problem is as much you as it is him. Stop being upset that some people disagree with your belief. Global warming is not a religion; don't treat it like one. There is no need to burn heretics at the stake.

If you don't like what he says, you can always ignore him.--Toddy1 (talk) 20:58, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I beg your pardon? "your objectivity is exposed as bankrupt ... You must be like Caesar's wife, not an intellectual prostitute ... but the dagger is in your stomach and twisting around" - you find that acceptable? Sure, I could ignore them, since they are not directed at me (yet). But I would also ignore WP:CIVIL in the grossest way.--Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:18, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
He seems to be trying to get you to snap. He also seems to be a conspiracist when it comes to what goes on here. Just ignore him, but if it escalates, come back and they will deal with it. Also, feel free to let him know that people are usually watched to see if they are famous, so there are very few COIs here. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 21:32, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Ktrl101's diagnosis matches my own. Ignore him and he'll either go away or escalate in obnoxiousness to the point where something will be done. Hopefully not the latter, because people who get that obsessed usually stuck around. --TS 21:47, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm actually going to go with Steve here. That kind of behaviour is grossly uncivil, and merits a 48 hour block for incivility and personal attacks. If he doesn't smarten up from there, increase the blocks. I agree with Ktr101 and TS about disengagement, and would counsel you to address only his behaviour and not the content of his arguments in the future. It would be best to do this in a cool, calm, dispassionate manner. If he finds he can't get a rise out of you, he's likely to mosey on elsewhere. Still, we can't send the message that this kind of behaviour is appropriate, and a small block is justified. Throwaway85 (talk) 22:38, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Blocked for 48 hours for personal attacks, harassment and trolling. Vsmith (talk) 01:14, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps you need to make that block a little longer, possibly permanently. --Calton | Talk 02:31, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

User:68.42.168.117[edit]

vandalizims check his edits William the Braveheart (talk) 21:51, 22 December 2009 (UTC) Revision history of Mario Party just look —Preceding unsigned comment added by William the Braveheart (talkcontribs) 21:53, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

He only blanked the page once, per [58]. A warning will suffice, which I will hand out. Otherwise, there is nothing worrisome with this user. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 21:57, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
Fastily won. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 21:57, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
:D -FASTILY (TALK) 00:43, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
Is the first edit of an account usually a report to ANI? Fences&Windows 22:54, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
Was thinking to shout Plaxico, but I'll let it be. SirFozzie (talk) 22:58, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Legal threats by Zensurfer (talk · contribs)[edit]

Resolved: User blocked indefinitely WP:NLT -FASTILY (TALK) 23:24, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Subject user has made legal threats [59] [60] [61] on User_talk:SolidSnake1884, the talk page of a user currently blocked for vandalism/BLP violations, as well as this comment on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Dickinson. I wholeheartedly agree that the "libellous" edits by SolidSnake1884 (talk · contribs) were vandalism, but Zensurfer's contribution history shows no attempt to resolve the issue using dispute resolution, as recommended in WP:NLT. —KuyaBriBriTalk 23:02, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Let's not lose sight of the big picture. A quick look at the history of the article in question shows that almost all of the edits have been by Zensurfer, Zensurfer2 or Zensurfer3 - probably not too much of a stretch to say that they are related. Zensurfer may be close to the subject of the article, and thus aware of the real impact of SolidSnake1884's vandalism. Given Zensurfer's limited exposure across Wikipedia, I suspect that he/she isn't aware of WP:NLT. A gentle reminder on the editor's talk page should be enough, and I'll go do that now. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 23:28, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
Too late :( Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 23:31, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Incivility by User:TJ Spyke[edit]

Resolved: Complaint has been withdrawn after support for TJ was shown to be too strong !! Justa Punk !! 03:10, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I had a discussion on mine and his talk page about an earlier good faith edit which I undid (See here: [62]), early in the discussion he did hint towards some incivility [63] and I did discuss what I thought the main element of the conversation was before and after his incivility and then he blatantly violated WP:CALM while I was still trying to keep it civil [64] and then he called me an "ASS" before he cracked a Sarah Palin joke which I believe it to have an uncivil meaning, he's had numerous warnings about uncivil behaviour, as well as edit warring which he was recently blocked for if you check his block log [65], I believe this to be just another case involving some of his immature antics and he obviously hasn't learned from his unblock on September 1, 2007 which reads "User agrees to conditions set out on his talk page and on Wikipedia:Community sanction noticeboard. Further disruption to result in an indefinite block", I believe its time for an indefinite block as he's clearly caused more disruption and anymore disruption was supposed to result in an indefinite block. Afro Talkie Talk - Afkatk 03:32, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

  • Endorse indef block - Final civility/edit warring warning was given last month after this ANI thread. He was just blocked for edit warring a few days ago. Enough already. iMatthew talk at 03:44, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
    • I agree as well sadly. I've had numerous discussions with him about his failure to accept changes, I feel he is just causing a disruption now. I once looked up to him, but now noticing all the problems that have resulted from him, I see he'll never change. I'm not saying I am perfect, but sometimes I even know when to let things go. He obviously goes by his own rules, and most times they just cause more problems than needed.--WillC 04:03, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
      • Will, I think you are doing this simply because you don't agree with me on many things. TJ Spyke 00:47, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Endorse/support as well given the block log (17 blocks, including a couple indefs and one block from just a few days ago) and warnings. Such additional comments as "expect by people too lazy to check the capitalization" from today come off as needlessly hostile if not baiting (notice the others oppose there without making the suggestion that those who support are somehow "lazy"). Plus in such recent discussions as this, berating everyone who dares argue to keep with repeated WP:ITSCRUFT (not even policy/guideline based) comments seems a bit too antagonistic as well. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 04:09, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
    • The YouTube comment wasn't aimed at anybody on Wikipedia, I was referring to people in the media since often they don't bother to get capitalization for tech stuff right before they print articles (it's annoying reading a article and see the writer constantly write "Ipod", for example). All of my replies in the AFD have been civil, so I don't see what you are trying to do with those. TJ Spyke 00:47, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Unsubstantiated - Sept 1, 2007 was more than two years ago. The current discussion is heated, but barely passes the noticable level under WP:CIVIL or WP:NPA. It is certainly not disruption. If you have evidence of further personal attacks or disruption or gross incivility please provide diffs of those. We need much much more evidence to justify indef blocking someone who's a longtime contributor. Please don't bring cases unless you have sufficient evidence ready to go... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 05:49, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
Further this - the block log is numerous prior to the Sept 2007 indef and then parole. However, since then, he's only had two - 3RR blocks in June and a few days ago in December. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 05:56, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose indef block Per GWH above. I don't see where this rises to the level of indefinite blockage. Yeah, this stuff is a bit incivil, but I don't see where we should hold a 2-year old block against TJ Spyke here. Other than 2 editwar blocks, he seems to have avoided any trouble in the past two years. --Jayron32 05:58, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
    • Well, there was the incivility final warning from last month, but he's behaved since then other than these two. Even if this is a violation of that final warning, if that's all that has happened since the final warning then he's really only in line for a 24h block (beginning of the block escalation chain) as he hasn't been blocked for this recently. And it's not clear to me that this is justification for a block at all, even with a final warning a month ago.