Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive601

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

Noticeboard archives



Resolved: Unblock declined twice, Talk page access revoked

Can someone take a look at the contribs of Doddsworth5 (talk · contribs). I reverted some edits and someone else tagged the page Rudy and the gays. He hasn't been warned, but to me it looks like the sort of BLP hoax/vandalism that goes beyond a simple warning. (I'll leave a notice of this disussion on his page.)--Cube lurker (talk) 19:23, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I've given them a final warning, I was tempted just to block them as a vandalism-only account. Fences&Windows 23:05, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
And now indefinitely blocked. They can always appeal, but I won't be unblocking. Fences&Windows 18:28, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
Unblock declined. We don't need editors like this. Rodhullandemu 18:33, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
I also took the liberty of blocking DoddsworthX, where X = 6, 9 after Doddsworth6 came knocking. All accounts were created within the same time span back in July 2007. Syrthiss (talk) 19:19, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
And I just took care of 10. —DoRD (?) (talk) 19:30, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
  • I thought I recognised the "Rudy and the gays" thing. It appears these are all sockpuppets of Cheeselor1 and his farm, and are all now blocked. Rodhullandemu 19:49, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Returning vandal[edit]

Resolved: {{anonblock}}'d for another six months. –xenotalk 20:13, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

IP editor User: returned from a 3 month block for vandalism and has made 3 edits, all vandalism. [1], [2], [3]. One is an article he previously vandalized. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:11, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Stuff like this is best handled at WP:AIV. –xenotalk 20:13, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
  • True, but it usually gets handled much faster here. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:15, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Block review of SkagitRiverQueen[edit]

I just blocked SkagitRiverQueen (talk · contribs) for one week for what I saw as her continuing harassment of Crohnie (talk · contribs). However, I'm not sure this is long enough -- it's part of a editing pattern I've been seeing for a while. Can I have some more opinions on whether the block was a) appropriate and b) the correct duration? Thanks. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:29, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

And once again, Sarek blocks me for what he sees as an infraction, but doesn't block the other editor (Crohnie). The inequity is glaring. In fact, I'm starting to see a pattern here - the same thing happened with my last block where even editors who aren't usually "friends" noticed the inequity in my block then. Also again, Sarek seems to be using his administrative powers to punish - which is not only *not* supposed to be the way admins operate, but something only bad admins do (at least that's what a very wise admin I am acquainted with believes). --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 05:00, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

  • I don't have a problem with the block qua block (it might be shorter for a first offense, since blocks are to be preventative rather than punitive), but I generally think we should do more to enforce WP:CIVIL. I do note that when an established editor did the same thing to me (right down to the insulting language), and I complained about it, I was blocked for complaining about it, so I'm a little frustrated with the double-standard. THF (talk) 03:36, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
I read through that talk page and didn't see anything that bad and certainly nothing worthy of a block. The diff you provided in the block comment may have been a little snarky, but to call it uncivil is a stretch. I don't think the real question is whether the block should be longer but whether the user should have been blocked to begin with. I vote no. PhoenixPhan (talk) 03:50, 1 March 2010 (UTC) This account has been blocked as a probable sockpuppet created specifically for the purpose of commenting on AN/I Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:59, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
Don't just read what's on the page, read the history, and see how many other pages she went to complaining -- including a rejected WP:AN3 report. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:59, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, please *do* read through the history. Please read through the history of me trying and trying and trying and trying to work with Crohnie and then read through her history of continued incilivity toward me, her personal attacks aimed at me, and he continuous false accusations lodged against me, and her repeated bad faith concerning me. And then, be sure to look at how no one does a thing about it. Oh, wait...yes, something was done. I was blocked for reacting out of frustration due to Crohnie's continued incivility, personal attacks, false accusations, and lack of good faith. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 05:00, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

If SkagitRiverQueen is going to have comments move here then I would like to request difs for her accusations of my supposed bad faith towards her. --CrohnieGalTalk 16:36, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
In isolation, I wouldn't have blocked the editor for that one edit. However given the history, it seems appropriate. Support block.Toddst1 (talk) 03:57, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Given the history, you might have a better understanding of why I never should have been blocked - or with my block, the other editor should have also been blocked. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 05:00, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

LPerhaps we should look into her conflicting claim that she is the one being harassed? If she was being harassed` first then that should be seen as a mitigating circumstance for some "uncivil" words she may have SAID. This is all IF, as I dont know all the details but have seen in the past Skag actually get harassed in the past by other editors and the frustration she went through and not many listened or helped (and some were down right rude and should be ashamed of what they said). If someone is harassing someone through ACTIONS and then someone defends themselves and says some "uncivil" words because of frustration then no a block is not at all right. I also vote no on the block per PhoenixPhan. Having people ignore your complaints isnt a sign of incivility, its a sign that around here people are simply rude to those they dont like. Wikipedia is middle school when it comes to this stuff.Camelbinky (talk) 04:02, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

A hearty amen, Camelbinky. You and I haven't always agreed on everything, but on this, you hit the nail smack-dab on the head (more than once). --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 05:00, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Well all of this went on after I left. The problems for me started with this second posting to me. I deleted the one above it because it was rude and I said so. She insisted on adding that in and to be honest I wouldn't have seen it, at least not immediately because Sarek had removed it. [4] I then got this one followed by [5] which I deleted after the complaint was closed. I went to Sarek to say thank you and ask for help [6]. She followed me there. I went to Lar who is aware of all the problems with SRQ. [7] The problem is SkagitRiverQueen. She has disputes where ever she goes. This can be seen by the history of her talk page. After I removed her comment she should have stopped. On my talk page titled Ted Bundy a new editor came by to talk to me about it. SRQ jumped in which the editor was apparently surprised about. I didn't even have a chance to respond to that editor before SRQ did. That editor is gone now as far as I know. SRQ bit him and I reminded her not to and pointed to the policy WP:Bite. Personally I think a week is too short because she was recently blocked for edit warring and then another day was added for a personal attack. She is not a victim here, I am. The post I made to her talk page she changed the title of to make it an attack on me. This was called 'For the record'. She accused me of following her to this article which is not true and I told her how I got there. You can see her response. That response is what I have to endure everytime we end up at the same article. I have tried to avoid her, ignore her and nothing works. She says she was at the Jeffrey R. MacDonald article first and that I followed her which is not true because I got to that article in Nov. '08 and her June '09. She is now on most of my watchlist so how am I supposed to handle all of this? Everything I do is being watched. So please look at the history of the different talkpages and articles. If you check the different boards like this one, Wikialert, edit warring and so on and put in her name you will see she brings editors to them a lot and most if not all of the time they are dismissed with no action needed. It's time to put a stop to this because I am not the only one having serious problems with this editor. Thanks for reading, --CrohnieGalTalk 12:00, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
FYI SRQ's responses are being copied here from her talk page by User:PhoenixPhan, who ought to be indicating as much when they get transferred. Beyond My Ken (talk) 12:10, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
And has now been blocked. Beyond My Ken (talk) 12:13, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
I would like to add some difs of attacks that I've had to endure prior to all of todays activities. [8], [9], [10] (this one she accuses editors of having an agenda and other things which is why I said above that there is more to this problem), [11], [12] (here she is being rude and arguing with another editor), [13] (here are two editors that are uninvolved who tried to help and got attacked for it.), [14]. If more difs are needed please just ask me. I think these show a pattern. Thank you, --CrohnieGalTalk 15:22, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
I support the block. I'm not sure about an extension. A week seems like a good escalation from the couple of days of her last block, or at least that would be the case for most users. I can't say I'm optimistic about it helping in SRQ's particular case. Crohnie is correct about SRQ being the problem here. I've watched her jump from epic rivalry to epic rivalry. She's always battling someone, and even if she starts avoiding Crohnie for fear of being blocked, I can't see this not starting up again with a new contender. Watch her closely when this expires, I guess is all I can say. Equazcion (talk) 02:20, 2 Mar 2010 (UTC)
I pretty much agree with Equazcion. I've responded on her talk page, and I encourage others to look there for her further comments on this board (which she is not allowed to address here). My main concern is SRQ's continuing disparagement of Wildhartlivie when she was instructed not to comment on her, "...I have been a vocal opponent of one of her Wiki-friends' continued bad behavior in WP (including socking and socking during her block due to socking)..." WHL has observed her own admonition not to engage SRQ, and has not commented on any of these recent issues; yet there is obvious persistence here from SRQ against WHL and her "friends" like Crohnie. I unfortunately share Equazcion's pessimism and acknowledgment of the clear evidence of consistent battling. If SRQ could only concentrate on fighting vandals (which she does well) and avoiding endless arguments on (usually) small matters, there should be no need for an extension right now. I do wish she would "own up" to her errors and stop blaming others, but I can't have any effect on that. I would like to see SRQ remain as a positive contributor to WP, but certain glaring behaviors simply must change in order to avoid the seemingly constant conflicts centered around her. There are simply too many blocks and not enough admission of inappropriate behavior for this pattern to continue as it has been recently. I don't really dislike or have anything against this editor, and we have edited several of the same articles for some time. But something has obviously got to change for the future of SRQ's editing habits, because two weeks is next, and so on, and so on... Doc9871 (talk) 03:29, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
You know, we have lots of editors who are slightly abrasive, and do good work. A lot of them have a lot of friends, and as such, it seems even civility warnings are like water off a duck's back. SRQ is occasionally abrasive, and does good work, but has fewer "friends". Every time she does anything that anyone perceives as even slightly "wrong", the sharks circle until she's pushed into a corner and blows up. Even those who she tries to not interact with will then drop over for a drive-by. All I have to do is read through her talkpage and I become frustrated, so I can only imagine how she feels. This sock accusation has to have just been a peachy end to the day, and the editor who placed it there refuses to explain their actions. Yeah, she's not a perfect interactor, but crikey, if half your day is defending your right to exist... (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:18, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
All things being equal, an uncollegial editor is bound to have fewer "friends" than a collegial one. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:15, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
Hi! You must be new here. There are several uncollegiate editors who have survived multiple ArbComs and ANI reports precisely because they have enough friends to clog up the system. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 14:23, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
I said "All things being equal", meaning that given two editors who are otherwise the same, except one being collegial and the other uncollegial, the former is likely to have more "friends" than the latter. The point being that bringing up SRQ's relative lack of "friends" as an argument for mitigation of her behavior doesn't really make much sense, since to some extent it's a natural result of her behavior. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:10, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
Maybe I'm just a pessimist, but things are never equal, so that argument doesn't hold. Lack of friends isn't a "mitigation," but it's a reason why she's getting called out while others get by with disruptive behavior. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 18:42, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
No argument from me that things are never "equal", or that some very uncollegial editors consistently get away with a lot of stuff, despite the furor they create. Regarding Bwilkins' comment above, if it was meant as merely an explanation of SRQ's behavior, I can accept the analysis as valid, however it appeared to me to be an argument meant to mitigate that behavior, and that I do not agree with -- to explain is not, after all, to excuse.

In any case, it seems to me that SRQ doesn't really have "friends" as such, instead she creates allies and enemies, a result of her continuing battlefield mentality, and she shifts people from one category to the other depending on how she perceives their willingness to support her without reservation. This kind of behavior is antithetical to what is supposed to be a collegial enterprise, and I'm afraid it appears to be basic to her character as expressed here, and not apt to change without some intervention more convincing than a short block. Certainly there is no indication in her current talk page comments that she realizes there is a need to try to change her behavior. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:21, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't like it either that crap like this is put up, or that her talk page is constantly assaulted by childish vandals. Having edited with SRQ for many months, I can surely tell you that I don't want her to be further "punished", ostracized or banned. She does good work, and none of us are perfect by any means, but we have to abide by some pretty imperfect rules as well... Doc9871 (talk) 10:47, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
Just as having friends shouldn't excuse incivility, a lack of friends should likewise not make us any more likely to excuse it. SRQ isn't just abrasive, though, and I'm not too crazy about the implication that complaints against her must be due to people not liking her for inconsequential reasons, like some mere lack of diplomacy. I've met users who were far more abrasive in their superficial treatment of others. This is not the problem. It's much more than that. SRQ is non-collaborative, not just in the way she talks to people but in her actions. She doesn't listen to anyone who doesn't side with her, including those who are neutral and seek to mediate one of her many disputes, and she is vindictive. As the offer has been extended to many individuals who were once neutral, uninvolved, fell for SRQ's often-convincing victim act, and doubted her being the cause of these disputes (this included myself up until roughly two months ago), I invite you to pay attention to the pages she edits and try collaborating with her in the future. If this person can be turned into an editor who collaborates well even through disagreements, I will be thankful to whoever facilitates this. Equazcion (talk) 11:31, 2 Mar 2010 (UTC)
Since there seems to still be doubt that SRQ has a problem with editors other than me here are some more difs to see. But first I want to bring this threat to everyone's attention that recently showed up "I would like to add in that all you have done is just antagonize another editor, and as such, decide to keep you under close watch. Ryou Hashimoto (talk) 12:36 pm, Today (UTC−5)" I do not know this editor at all and have no reason to understand why he felt the need to threaten me like this. Ok more difs, [15] , [16], [17], [18], [19], [20]. I also think SRQ copying over the conversations here to her talk page and attacking editors is uncalled for. She also made her own titles for them starting here, [21]. From this thread on down her page she has attacks on others with copies of this thread. She doesn't say she did anything, just that everyone else did. I am really tired of this and would appreciate it if someone would remove all of this on her talk page. There are accusations of bad faith but no difs are shown even when asked. Please, I beg you to stop all of this. Also the editor who said he was going to keep me under close watch is totally uncalled for. I am the one who has been antaganized and I show that in some of my difs. I am an editor in good standing who has all of this going on because of the friends I keep. Thank you again, --CrohnieGalTalk 18:27, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

This block seems reasonable, While I have never interacted with SRQ, I have observed her interactions with others, and she strikes me as a drama queen. That wouldn't be a problem if she could get along with others, but that does not seem to be the case. RadManCF (talk) 23:46, 3 March 2010 (UTC)


Sarek of Vulcan's purpose in bringing this block here was to determine if it was appropriate, and if the duration was correct. Clearly, from the comments made here, the collective opinion is that it was an appropriate block, but there's been less discussion of whether it was the right duration. Blocks are meant to be preventitive, not punitive, so it would be reasonable to look in the present demeanor of SkagitRiverQueen for some indication that once the block runs out she will not return to the same pattern of editing that Sarek spoke of – it's been several days now, enough time for SRQ to have calmed down from the immediate reaction to being blocked, and to have reflected on what brought about the block in the first place.

Unfortunately, the available evidence seems to indicate that SRQ has little insight into what she did to be blocked, and has no intention of changing her ways. In this latest comment on her talk page, for instance, she forcefully states that she did nothing wrong, that her comments were justified and fitting, and shows that she clearly intends to continue doing exactly what she's done before. "Being honest," she says, "(even if it might hurt at the time) is a kindness" which apparently, in her mind, justifies not following basic policies such as WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA.

Honesty is, of course, a laudable trait, but if it's wielded without the judgment to know when to be honest and to who, when to dissemble a bit to smooth things over, and when to just say nothing at all, it's counterproductive to the smooth running of a civil community. It doesn't seem to me that SRQ has that kind of judgment, and I think it would be a mistake to allow her to ride out her block and simply start up again. Perhaps a longer block would giver her more time to reflect and come to an understanding of how saying nothing, some "white lies", and a sense for when to stop can be the lubrication that makes collegiality possible, or, if folks are uneasy about extending the block, at the very least some sort of civility parole should be imposed, to help her reign in her (apparently) uncontrollable honesty. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:53, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

SRQ confirms her sense of self-righteousness and victimization previously expressed views in her deconstruction of the above comment, and continues to give no indication that she plans on changing the way she edits. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:32, 4 March 2010 (UTC) Taking my own advice and striking words which may have been poorly chosen or too blunt. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:45, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure that anyone outside the conflict has actually engaged SRQ as far as her future behavior goes. I wrote an essay on this once that didn't seem to catch on at the time, but here it is anyway, if you'd like to see my thoughts: WP:EHP. In summary it's not necessarily imperative that SRQ admit she did wrong, only that she agree to specific terms for the future. If someone who she hasn't been fighting with could work that out with her, that'd probably be best. Perhaps something written up at WP:Editing restrictions would help. Equazcion (talk) 08:39, 4 Mar 2010 (UTC)
Her statement that she "was never not calm about this block" strikes me as particularly worrisome.RadManCF (talk) 16:38, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

To answer the question presented by this thread, I would argue that the block was not long enough. Two weeks (at least) would have been better. RadManCF (talk) 16:40, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

interaction ban no longer in effect[edit]

As a note, I had asked Wildhartlivie and SRQ to stop interacting with each other on my own recognizance (originally on pain of bringing the matter to AN/I... well it's been to AN/I more than once since then anyway). Both of them have appeared from time to time at my talk page with various points of information. I think it's become clear that my informal separation hasn't worked so I've released WHL from the restriction. Nice idea, seemed worth a try, but it appears not to have worked. WHL has indicated she may have additional diffs that give information about SRQ's approach. She may or may not choose to share them here. ++Lar: t/c 19:58, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

When Enough is Enough[edit]

I have refrained from commenting here until now because I had a restriction from commenting on SkagitRiverQueen, which has now, in light of her continued comments on me on her talk page, been lifted, for which I want to thank Lar. The preponderance of comments that she has posted on her talk page regard how she did nothing wrong, despite clear evidence to the contrary. First, let's look at what she said that warranted her previous block for personal attacks, made to Jpgordon. In reviewing her unblock request, Jpgordon observed "Well, since the real issue is that you seem to have problems with the cooperative environment we hope for on Wikipedia, it does illuminate the nature of the problem pretty well." Her response, which brought an extension of that block was "Apparently you're learning impaired. That's okay, you have my sympathy and I can certainly make allowances for your affliction." That she struck the comment after having been blocked means little. If readers would peruse her talk page, she has steadfastly denied any culpability or wrongdoing in her actions.

As she has widely announced and is known to many, I served a one week block for sockpuppetry, which I denied at the time because a friend who frequently stayed with me was the one who did so from my computer. LaVidaLoca has since posted a mea culpa on her talk page and we have submitted personal identification to show that we are not the same person to Lar, which is being perused by people who worked with him for confirmation, as he noted here. I stand on those statements, as did LaVidaLoca. SRQ's talk pages shows her admonition from Lar to disengage from posting to me or commenting on me that was made here. Note that was on February 7, and at the time it was made on condition that if it were violated, it would be taken here for further action. Her response was ""I've said what I needed to say; the truth is obvious to those not in denial. Cut to me now walking away." In any case, I served my block and I am under the impression that once one has served a block, the event should not continue to be thrown up in the face of the person. However, that was certainly not the end of it from SkagitRiverQueen. Not by a long shot. The next day, she engaged in this conversation about me on User talk:Crohnie, where she compared her honesty with a comment on mine, and to Crohnie, whom she chastised for being my friend, actually over and over. A full 42 minutes after being admonished by Lar, SRQ posted this scathing comment about me, in which she called me a liar ("Since she's been exposed as a liar") and began her recitation of her perceived sins I committed, and just after that, went to the talk page of an IP in which I was in dispute to solicit email contact so she could send him "pertinent information you may be interested in regarding a current issue you are involved with." She had been already been receiving taunting posts by various registered accounts and IPs to her talk page, which she had semi-protected and added that "I strongly suspect it is actually a regular who is hiding behind anonymous IPs and socks." Did she mean me? She didn't say but coupled with her rants across talk pages about me, it seems likely. She took up her dispagement of me on her [ talk page] when she continued posting her little rant about what she thinks I did to her, and further insinuated that an account previously proven not to be me was speculated to be me. When I posted to Lar's talk page about this violation of her restriction at 6:31 pm, she then struck it out at 6:42 pm, so that when Lar posted to her about it at 7:43, she was able to say, 3 minutes later that she "realized" too so she struck it out. Note that was when she was blocked previously for the personal attack on Jpgordon. Once again, she took opportunity to spell out her complaints on Lar's page, directly in response to my comment about working on getting the identification proof to him, where she continues to recite her litany and asks why I know what was in an email she received, to which I replied }No great secret about the emails, LaVidaLoca sent them to me after I insisted. Wow, great mystery there. She screwed up, yes, but I didn't write them and as for denial, well, other people consistently deny they did anything to warrant blocks, now don't they?" Her attacks continued on February 27, when she posted this to Crohnie's talk page, in which she again repeated her litany of sins I've committed. While she is currently blocked, a newer editor came in to remove a category from Ted Bundy, something I had seen she opposed. I objected, based on SRQ's statements regarding it and said it needed to wait until she returned. When Doc brought that up to her, her response was to again repeat her litany and question the submission of identification, which Lar acknowledged above and again called me a bully, liar and harasser, put down my efforts to object to something she also objected to and disparaged me for it. In that post, she questioned the motives of Doc, as she has done to Equazcion and Crohnie and various administrators. There is no indication that SRQ will desist in personal attacks and harassment based on her behavior just since she has been blocked this time, since her comments on others continue. All of this has occurred since Lar restricted her from commenting on me, and in the face of this being made an issue on this page. There are three separate comments regarding this sock issue on her talk page since the current block began alone. And let's not list the 25 different articles upon which she had never previously edited until her first dispute with me occurred on the Ted Bundy article back in December, 10 of which resulted in disputes on the talk pages involving her. Thus my early complaints of her stalking my editing here. One of those was her "drop-in intervention" into a discussion I was having with another editor on Kate Winslet and regarding which Lar asked her to explain her sudden interest on an article on which I worked to bring a good article status just prior to that. That, among other various things, were discussed on User talk:Lar#SkagitRiverQueen, User talk:Lar#I'm confused..., User talk:Lar#Wildhartlivie and SkagitRiverQueen part deux and today's comments at User talk:Lar#Enough is enough. Her obsession with following me to articles, posting complaints on various administrator boards and posting her version of "Bash Wildhartlivie personal attacks" needs to stop. Not now, but weeks ago. And let's not overlook her dissertation, on the post made to User talk:LaVidaLoca taking responsibility for socking and her spiteful addition of commentary which again brings it around to being all about me and what she supposes I knew or did not know (please note her comments on her talk page about editors who pretend to be mindreaders and making unfounded speculation), which she notes "To be placed in a personal sandbox when my block is lifted", tends to suggest that I am connected to her continued harassment by proven unrelated accounts and IPs by connecting it to the comments on the sock issue, an action which is not acceptable for miscellaneous pages, and of which she has had such "personal injury lists" deleted before (see Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User talk:SkagitRiverQueen/Archive 1. The keeping of such pages is not within the guidelines for userspace pages, which she well knows. Nor do I suspect her current "archive", which consists of mostly refactored talk page posts garnered from other pages, as well as her current talk page, which consists of copy and paste content from this page, refactored with her own personal comments, meet the guidelines for talk pages.

In fact, dropping insinuations about other accounts being socks is a routine thing. She dropped this hint at the Charles Manson article talk page and was such that the editor did not return, she did this also on her talk page today when she said about Beyond My Ken "...oh, wait...Beyond My Ken *isn't* a veteran editor. No, in fact, while BMK talks and behaves like a veteran editor, according to his talk page history he has only been in WP since early December 2009. Can that be correct...? Hmmm...interesting (and somewhat suspicious, IMO)." Personally, it's hard for me to believe, if editors are watching her posts and behavior, that anyone would entertain lessening this block time, and have not considered extending it or worse. I did my time, there is nothing in Wikipedia policy or guidelines that grants SRQ carte blanche to post her spiel all over the encyclopedia with the vehement and vitriolic content hers does. That this has spread to other editors with whom I am friends or colleagues, such as Doc and Crohnie, is beyond defense. Wildhartlivie (talk) 22:51, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Congratulations. You just melted my brain. I think I need to go have a drink or something. -- Atama 02:51, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, I've lived it and that barely touches it. Have a drink for me. Wildhartlivie (talk) 03:02, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
This probably would've been better suited to (the seemingly impending) RFC/U, where extensiveness is valued rather than shunned. Equazcion (talk) 03:06, 5 Mar 2010 (UTC)
Be that as it may, it contains a lot of material worthy of review. I do agree that perhaps an RfC/U might be the better vehicle. ++Lar: t/c 13:51, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
That will come. I didn't want to open the WP:RfC/U while I was restricted from commenting on her or while this thread was still open. The following me to 25 different articles will be included in that. Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:32, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Block review of The Reformed Editor[edit]

Resolved: Accounts left blocked Burpelson AFB (talk) 02:15, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I have just blocked this second account of the indef-blocked Hiineedrequestforcomment (talk · contribs). This editor has not hidden the creation of the alternate account to resume editing, however, policy is that a clean start is not permitted if the indef block is still in place. This seems straightforward to me, but I would like some additional eyes anyway. Thanks — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 21:30, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

  • Makes sense to me. From the last edit the new account made, it looks like jumping into contentious areas mouth-first was likely to be an issue, and the edits under the previous account make me wonder why a block didn't occur a lot earlier. I'd take bets on further socks appearing, too. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:46, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
    • Far from making the clean start which he claimed to want, this editor immediately dove head-first into quarrelsome talk page messages [22], threatening other editors with blocks, etc. Thanks for spotting this; I'd be very much against this person returning under any circumstances to contribute anything at all. Accounting4Taste:talk 17:57, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
      • Check out his talkpage, he's trying to get feedback on if he can edit ever again. Eagles 24/7 (C) 00:02, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
        • I've changed his block settings so that he can make a last(?) appeal at User talk:Hiineedrequestforcomment. But I don't see any "reform" in his recent edits, nor much contribution to boast about, so I would personally !vote oppose to an unblock if it came to that. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 00:44, 5 March 2010 (UTC
It's a waste of time. I reviewed all his edits. From the "what was I doing wrong?" regarding the fake message templates on articles to his hounding of JPG: "be proud of me Josh, I made a mainspace gnome edit!" This is classic trolling. Honestly... The mayor of Trollopolis, Trollsylvania wants to give him an engraved plaque. Auntie E. (talk) 07:22, 5 March 2010 (UTC)


Resolved: IP blocked Burpelson AFB (talk) 02:20, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Could someone please take a look at (talk · contribs · WHOIS)? This appears to be a single-purpose account whose single purpose is to blank my user page. They show up regularly to do this one thing, but not frequently enough for me to feel it makes sense to take it to AIV or to request that my page be semi-ed. On the other hand, the evidence seems pretty clear that this account is not going to grow into one that contributes positively to the project. Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:08, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Interesting that it is the same IP each time, and their only edits are to blank your page. We could always block the IP, and any accounts that edit off that IP as it's likely someone you've had a run in with in the past. Blocking all accounts off the IP can be a good way of shaking the apple tree and seeing what falls out. Canterbury Tail talk 18:32, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I would guess that it is someone from the Something Awful group who had issues over Crucifixion, since it started at the height of that period. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:01, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
I've gone with Canterbury Tail's suggestion and hardblocked the IP for one month. Fences&Windows 23:00, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
Thank you very much! --Tryptofish (talk) 23:02, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Copyvio upload concerns[edit]

Resolved: Images currently all tagged, keep an eye on the account. Burpelson AFB (talk) 02:21, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I am concerned about the uploads of Sysrpl (talk · contribs). I happened upon the Roger Ebert article today and noticed that a new, recent image of him with his wife had been added to the infobox. However, while the tagline and image page itself claim the photo was taken at the BAFTA awards, the photo is clearly from the Directors Guild of America awards. The award Ebert is holding is the Honorary Life Member Award, as discussed in this article [23]. The image also has no metadata.

I nominated this for deletion based on my concerns. I also began looking at thie other uploads of this account and found at least one other blatant copyvio, which is now on commons (and I have nominated for deletion there). The editor uploaded this file [24] in 2006, claiming he took it, yet the same file is found via Google search on another website with a clear Copyright Watermark [25]. I also prodded this image [26] for having no legitimate source.

The account has existed here since 2005 but only makes about 20-30 edits each year since then, mostly to articles about Bill O'Reilly. However, given at least one blatant and willful copyvio that we've hosted for 4 years, one without a proper source and another likely copyvio, I'm now concerned that there may be other issues with this person's edits. I am notifying them of this discussion now. <>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk) 19:26, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Good catch on the copyright problems. The Ebert photograph (File:Ebert-and-wife.jpg) has proven to be a blatant copyright infringement of [27]. I've F9ed it. That the uploader claimed to be the photographer himself is clear copyright fraud, and I almost indeffed him just for that. He has a history of image copyright issues (though slim, like his contributions) going back to 2006. I gave him a clear block warning instead, but would not at all object if somebody else should decide he isn't worth the risk. People can upload copyrighted images under all kinds of misunderstandings, but claiming that you took a photograph yourself and even supplying fictitious dates for it shows a clear intent to violate policy. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:27, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

The Choctaw Nation of Florida[edit]

Resolved: Blocked Burpelson AFB (talk) 02:22, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

This is in regards to an IP[28] unhappy with the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Choctaw Nation of Florida on the article they are concerned with. They have been given numerous advisements on how to fix the article in question, but being a newcomer and possibly on top of that sufficient lack of WP:CLUE and some WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, they are now wreaking havoc on the article page again, changing the afd tags so they no longer link to its afd, and returning removed cites that have nothing to do with the subject of their article(the name of the author they cite isn't even correct, should be John R. Swanton not Swinton. I'm at my ropes end with this IP, and my explanations and suggestions have gotten me nowhere with them. Can someone have a look and maybe give them some friendly advice and fix the AFD tag? I'm trying to avoid contact with them as my input seems to fall on deaf ears/inflame them. Thanks and sorry. Heironymous Rowe (talk) 22:40, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

User notified of this thread. Heironymous Rowe (talk) 22:41, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
They have sionce removed the AFD tag[29] altogether and all citations needed tags. Heironymous Rowe (talk) 22:50, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
Since that was the second time they blanked the AfD tag, I just blocked for a week. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 23:08, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

John Patrick Bedell[edit]

Attention could be used here. Nothing too serious, but I don't necessarily think my fellow IP's are as steeped in what we do here as I. (talk) 19:20, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I gave a 3RR warning. Unless I am mistaken I have reverted once [DIFF] and too. have reverted TWICE, [DIFF] and [DIFF] + CONTRIBS nb. Bedel is the Pentagon Shooter if anyone doesn't know. -- (talk) 19:51, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
The editor who was warned above,, has now had his vandalism enshrined by user "goneawaynowandretired". My attempt to discuss this mistake with him, and subsequent voicing of frustration, can be found here:[30]. I'll note his page that he's been mentioned in the "dispatches". (talk) 20:00, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
Another IP has left a message on his talk page requesting a separate correction[31], this one regarding an entire section he removed as "vandalism". (talk) 20:24, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

The article has been semi-protected by admin Alison, here Xenophrenic (talk) 22:40, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Please review accusations of anti-semitism and close out Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Cush_(second_RFC)[edit]

The RFC has been open since 2-22 and has been stagnant for a week. It is rife with attacks calling a user an Anti-Semite without any proof / evidence given. A very good case can be made that this RFC was opened in bad faith as a result of a debate on Genesis creation myth. Nefariousski (talk) 23:21, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Seriously? No takers? Did I not make the phrase "Anti-Semite" big enough? Nefariousski (talk) 01:37, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Help remove child's name and picture from wikipedia[edit]

waste of space
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Resolved: This appears to be a non-issue and the topic starter is a very silly person. HalfShadow 01:31, 6 March 2010 (UTC) Qpwoeial (talk) 00:54, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

What leads you to believe that user is a minor? Toddst1 (talk) 00:55, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I removed the photo and name per WP:CHILD and WP:MYSPACE Nefariousski (talk) 00:57, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't see any evidence that he's a "child". Equazcion (talk) 00:58, 6 Mar 2010 (UTC)
He says he's a high school student. We (apparently) have admins that are that age! I think the concern is for younger teens. -- Flyguy649 talk 01:01, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
There's no grey area about it. Unless he clearly states that although a highschool student he is 18 his full name and photo are in clear violation of WP:CHILD. Nefariousski (talk) 01:15, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
(ec) Me neither. The editor seems to have been around for long enough to know what they're doing, per their list of DYKs. What age does "high school" cover in the US (as a Brit I don't know)? Tonywalton Talk 01:02, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
Tonywalton, High school is usually grades 9 though 12 (or 9th-12th grade in the US), ages 14 to 17-18 or so. -- Flyguy649 talk 01:10, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
thanks Tonywalton Talk 01:14, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
Nefariousski should be reverted. They have no right to remove somebody's picture from their User space, unless they're going to remove everybody's picture from everybody's User space. WP:NOTMYSPACE does not apply, despite Nefariousski's claims. Note that Qpwoeial, a brand new User, only concerned themselves with Halvorsen brian's User space after that user reverted them for a BLP violation. Woogee (talk) 01:03, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
No BLP violation by me. I only put in a citation needed tag which brian removed. So what? I let him win. Qpwoeial (talk) 01:06, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
You added an unsourced claim on a BLP article, which I have reverted. Woogee (talk) 01:09, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
I have been bold and reverted. I will not edit war if anybody reverts me, but somebody needs to discuss it with Brian. Woogee (talk) 01:04, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
Woogee is being aggressive and disruptive. I don't care but admins should Qpwoeial (talk) 01:08, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
Considering recent pederasty / pedophilia concerns and arbcom rulings I err on the side of caution regarding WP:CHILD there is absolutely ZERO harm in removing his full name and photo and leaving a comment on his page explaining why. He logs in, sees comment, updates his talkpage saying he's 18 and reverts my handiwork. Arbcom errs on the side of caution when it comes to minors and we should follow suit. I'm not deleting his whole page, just information in violation of policy (assuming he is a minor). Nefariousski (talk) 01:10, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
FWIW (and let's not make a storm in a molehill) I support Woogee's reversion. Qpwoeial, please note that Wikipedia is not a battleground. "Letting someone win" is not an appropriate reaction and perhaps may call your motives into question. Tonywalton Talk 01:12, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
High school in the US is generally 14-18. It's not really clear that he's a "minor" but there's cause to think he might be, and he's got a link on his page that shows which school he goes to. I've left him a warning that he might want to consider removing the link and photo of his own volition. Policy doesn't really tell us what to do here, as far as I know. Equazcion (talk) 01:13, 6 Mar 2010 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) Enough. He's clearly not a kid, he's a young adult, almost certainly aware of, and capable of dealing with, online risks, and I don't think WP:CHILD was ever intended to meet this kind of nonsense. Behaviour of other editors are irrelevant here but may be raised elsewhere. Meanwhile, a good-faith contributor here has been patronised, and I wouldn't blame him if he left Wikipedia to find something better to do with his talents. Paranoia is destructive, and should not be encouraged here. Rodhullandemu 01:16, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
WP:CHILD doesn't help here, because it isn't clear what is meant by a "child". And the use of WP:NOTMYSPACE by Nefariousski to remove Brian's picture is clearly inappropriate, unless there is consensus to remove every User picture from every User page. Woogee (talk) 01:18, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
WP:CHILD is pretty clear. Removing his photo and full name are "reasonable measures" taken to protect his privacy. If he logs in and updates his page stating that he is 18 and reverts then no harm no foul. The policy specifically states Deletion and Oversight may be used. Nefariousski (talk) 01:21, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
We have legal definitions of child and adult that do a great job clearing up any ambiguity. I think it's foolish to assume that WP:CHILD doesn't follow the same 18 and up = adult 17 and below = child standard. Nefariousski (talk) 01:21, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
What policy are you referring to? Woogee (talk) 01:23, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
As far as WP:CHILD is concerned, COPPA pertains to private information regarding those children under age 13. My guess is that the user is at least a junior in high school (which would be 16 or 17). The person should be free per the CC-BY-SA license to post whatever he feels fit. There's also an element of common sense here in that he can probably be trusted. –MuZemike 01:22, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
Not to mention that when I made my comment on his talk page it was basically "sorry if this is all a big misunderstanding but ..." I'm not trying to be a dick about all of this, just trying to follow what policy dictates. I do agree that this was probably a bad faith ANI posting and do feel like a bit of a douche for trying to "protect" a guy that is probably a year or two away from going to college but I still feel compelled to make the case that WP:CHILD applies in this case and that my actions were justified. Nefariousski (talk) 01:24, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
  • At minimum, he is a junior in high school. He says he was sports editor in the 07-08 school year, then news in the 08-09 year and now we are in the 09-10. So we're talking about someone who is most likely soon to be 17, if not already past that. I wholeheartedly believe that this community should act in the best interest of children. I also believe this is a manufactured "crisis". The boy is old enough to drive a car down the road and if he isn't already, will soon be able to join the military. He's sufficiently old enough to decide whether or not to post a generic picture of himself. I think the worries of pedophilia are well intentioned but mislaid in this case. We're not talking about anything suggestive. The "danger" here is escaping me. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:25, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
I think we should leave his user page the way he wants it. SlimVirgin TALK contribs 01:26, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
Agreed with MuzeMike et al. I think Nefarious is referring to the max legal age of consent in the US, which there's no reason to say applies here. COPPA seems much more relevant. Equazcion (talk) 01:27, 6 Mar 2010 (UTC)
I'm also inclined to assume good faith that this user understands the concept of what information is worth concealing and what is worth sharing with the public. If his high school radio station's advisor has some trust in him, there's no reason we can't also. —C.Fred (talk) 01:29, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
Fair enough. In light of the COPAA info MuZemike brought up I'll gladly bow out and write an apology on Brian's talk page. Sorry for kicking over the anthill ;) Nefariousski (talk) 01:31, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Conflict of interest issues with user Lukeedwards1981.[edit]

Luke keeps re-adding unsourced content to Cradley Town F.C.. On top of that, he keeps saying he works there, which means he has a conflict of interest. I've directed him to WP:CONFLICT twice, and still, he ignores me and continues to add the content. I don't want to get into a major edit war, so I am backing off and coming here for help. Thanks! - Zhang He (talk) 01:20, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I've found a secondary source to confirm the change of manager and a website with the new manager, so the acute issue of verifiability is clear. I'll explain further what a COI is and why he has one. —C.Fred (talk) 01:54, 6 March 2010 (UTC)


Could someone take a look at the gibraltar page. There seems to be a long term attempt to impose a foreign POV on the article by means of long tendentious arguments about small points on the talk page, and to remove content describing significant events in the history of Gibraltar. There is also the potential for edit wars and general nastyness as a result of the above. It might be beneficial to lock the page for a few weeks to let tempers settle. Gibnews (talk) 22:19, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

We've looked. A lot. Trust me. It's probably better now than it has been for six months. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:41, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
Heh! Nice. Guy (Help!) 22:48, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
Just seen this thread, having already locked the article because every time it pops up on my watchlist it's a revert (not to single anyone out because there's fault on both sides, but the cognitive dissonance in this edit summary was the final straw). I think it's reached the stage where any editor who reverts at all can expect a block without further notice. EyeSerenetalk 08:32, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
Fully agree with the page lock on either version, however the 'Ayone reverting in future will be blocked' strikes me as problematic. With the definition of vandalism being so narrow, it means a great deal of changingcould be done before one stepped over that line with little ability to respond. Might I suggest the imposition of a 1RR instead? --Narson ~ Talk 10:24, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
I'd disagree that its better now than its been for months, it got quiet because so many decent editors have quit because of the constant villification you get there if you disagree with the most minor of points. The tag team reverting to impose a preferred version by a cabal of editors that occurred a month ago had people tearing their hair out in frustration and should have been dealt with then but wasn't. It has needed a firm admin hand to stop the disruption there and an even handed one at that. The article has suffered at the hands of a civil POV pusher that has tied the talk page up with tendentious argument for too long. Justin talk 10:54, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
  • I propose article probation, 1 month of full protection so all changes to be discussed on Talk and managed via {{editprotected}} then once people have got out of the habit of talking past each other go for a period of 0RR and all changes to be discussed first. Guy (Help!) 12:39, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
That would work for me; reading the talk page activity since I locked the article, I believe positions have become so entrenched that something more substantial than a short period of protection is necessary. With mediation apparently having failed, I wouldn't be surprised if this turns out to be the last opportunity for editors to resolve their own differences before things escalate to Arbcom. Feel free to amend my admin action if this proposal gains consensus. EyeSerenetalk 14:22, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
I don't have a problem with that suggestion, may I also suggest that comments are limited to content not editors. Any misconduct should be raised here. It was only through protection the last time that mediation got anywhere. Justin talk 16:01, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
Personally I'd suggest arbitration, with a mind toward Digwuren-style sanctions. Even on the briefest of acquaintance, WP:PLAGUE seems appropriate commentary on Gibraltar articles currently. I doubt forcing Talk page discussion would be useful, as much of the problem is, as Justin says, civil POV pushing disrupting Talk as well as article edits. What the article needs is freedom for outside editors - ones who aren't hot about whether Gibraltar gets to be Spanish or British - to work without the constant kvetching and disruption from nationalists on either side (though a topic ban on User:Gibnews would be the single most useful move forward). WP:MARTIANS. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 15:07, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
Don't see the need for a topic ban on User:Gibnews, he can be very reasonable if you approach him civilly but more stubborn than the stubbornest mule if you don't. There seems to be a definite lynch mob mentality around him at the moment, I've observed an attempt at outing that I wanted to bring up. I know Gibnews' real identity and it doesn't correspond to what is being claimed. See User talk:Justin A Kuntz#Gibnews and User talk:Atama#Advice, from my knowledge of Gibnews' identity none of that appears to be correct and I've tried to be diplomatic about it. Justin talk 15:25, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
That's absolutely not on. I replied to Ecemaml (talk · contribs) on Atama's talk page and removed some speculation, but then I noticed they've been posting elsewhere too after being warned to drop it. Attempted outing is serious; I've blocked Ecemaml for one week. Review welcome. EyeSerenetalk 17:51, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
I'm sure that if you ask Gibnews he'll not agree with that block I'm afraid. A warning not to persist from an independent party would probably be sufficient. May I suggest you ask him, his real life identity is lodged with Wikipedia anyway. He doesn't really make a secret of it, however, there has been a get Gibnews campaign for a while. Justin talk 18:07, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
Well, personally I think any form of harassment should be given very short shrift. An editor shouldn't need multiple warnings before they start taking them seriously. Although it's sometimes possible (and perhaps not even very difficult) to dig around, connect the dots, and deduce an editor's identity - which is what Ecemaml seemed to be trying to do - I believe that's very different to simply repeating something that's open knowledge. If Gibnews has voluntarily revealed their identity on the site I'll unblock Ecemaml and apologise to them, but I saw nothing explicit (for example, a disclosure on their userpage). EyeSerenetalk 18:27, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
Yeah well Gibnews has a thick skin and he isn't vindictive, I really do doubt he'd support a lengthy block. In answer to your question, no he hasn't openly declared his identity but a number of people who deal with him regularly know it. It was the "Get Gibnews" campaign I'm more concerned about. Justin talk 19:41, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
I think a short block is in order, because the comments on my user page were turning into a personal attack. For my part I've been trying to keep a low profile on wikipedia. Ecemaml is a good and productive editor but does have a blind spot about Gibraltar. I don't think I have been unreasonable on the topic, however as I live there and have first hand experience of things, its hard to put up with things I know to be untrue which others wish to include because it supports a foreign claim to my homeland totally rejected by its people.
I also find deleting what I consider important things which are referenced and have international interest, like the IRA shooting and its conclusion. Particularly as this part has had been discussed at length with the Irish republican element who hold different views to the Gibraltarians about this event.
What I do feel is that there has been a campaign to get me banned and aites with information about Gibraltar discredited in order to remove content that does not fit in with the Spanish view of Gibraltar. The personal attack is a continuance of that. I have at no time stated my name on wikipedia or sought any personal promotion and only reluctantly mentioned that I design websites.
I've also created and extended some articles about computer languages and contributed a number of images but Gibraltar has taken up a lot of time, however I think my contributions to that have been worthwhile, as when I started it was wholely untruthful and there was an attempt to get the whole of Gibraltar banned from editing ! --Gibnews (talk) 11:38, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
I declare my interest as a former regular editor of Gibraltar-related articles. Regardless of whether Ecemaml got the details right or not, attempted outing is harassment and must be taken very seriously. I've never seen Gibnews give his real identity on wiki, and in any case, Ecemaml was (as EyeSerene says) trying to dig around and connect the dots here. Even if Gibnews had declared his identity publicly, I think it's clear that what Ecemaml was doing is different from simply repeating it.
I appreciate what Justin says, but I don't believe we should unblock. I see clear evidence that this Ecemaml was not acting in good faith, and WP:OUTING is very clear. As such I consider this block to be entirely appropriate to prevent this harassment from continuing. Pfainuk talk 20:10, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
I half seriously suggested a topic ban for anyone with more than ten edits to any article on a British overseas territory and fewer than a thousand mainspace edits on articles not in any way related to them. But this has gone on for a very long time, and maybe it is time for arbitration or robustly enforced article probation. Toxic is a great word to describe that talk page. Guy (Help!) 22:43, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
Not really a helpful suggestion Guy, I edit on several BOT related articles. The Falklands for example could be poisonous but they're not because the editors there work together. Argentine and Brit editors collaborating to find sources and generate NPOV articles, you should drop by sometime and you might well be surprised at the editors you labelled as "POV Warriors". I'd agree with 0RR and insisting edits are agreed in talk, part of the reason for the toxic atmosphere is tag team edit warring to impose an edit. Funnily enough that was reported to AN/I at the time, as was the get Gibnews campaign. What I was disgusted with at the time, was how quickly it was possible to manipulate a lynch mob mentality to get Gibnews. Not AN/I's finest hour. Justin talk 23:18, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
No problem, just keep editing other articles as well. Read WP:PLAGUE to see why people who have broad editing interests are less likely to be a problem than those who edit only articles on places where there are nationalistic disputes. Guy (Help!) 23:23, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
Would love to but it doesn't help when people wade in not knowing the facts leaving more mess for the productive editors to clean up. Does it? Justin talk 23:52, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
But that's exactly the problem WP:PLAGUE addresses: when insiders get so problematical that it's better to use outsiders. The assumption that only insiders know the facts is part of the syndrome; they may well know less, but can cut to the chase because they aren't locked up in some Swiftian Big-enders vs Little-enders feud. Look at the verbiage expended here: 6000 words to dicusss the inclusion/exclusion of two words; do you think insiders are doing a good job? You want editors who are more concerned that the article is informative than what undisclosed regionalist angsts are invoked by mentioning some town. It's great that consensus is working at the Falklands article, but here it clearly isn't. Frankly, the whole existing editor base for Gibraltar topics needs shipping out in favour of completely fresh editors with no previous partisan involvement in the topic. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 00:41, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
No thats an essay and lumping all editors into the same pot ain't helpful. What about WP:CPUSH, another favourite of yours I believe. The question I would ask, is why an editor would devote so much effort trying to minimise the degree of self-government in Gibraltar to the absolute minimum, rather than working with other editors to explain it better? Did you think to pick up on that example, or select the evidence to fit the picture and conclusions you'd already jumped sat? Admin action to sort out the problem a long time ago would have been preferrable to allowing positions to become entrenched. But thats where we are and jumping to another solution, which isn't addressing the actual problem won't solve it either. Justin talk 01:04, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
I haven't read far enough back to see that particular discussion; but if I had, I hope I'd be looking at the portrayal of it neutrally, rather than getting hot under the collar at the thought of it not matching some worldview of how self-government in Gibraltar should be portrayed. If Gibraltar stays British till the coming of the Cocqcigrues / if Spain takes over tomorrow. They're both the same to me. This kind of regionalist topic needs editors who similarly don't care. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 01:59, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
Well there we violently disagree, it actually needs both. One has the knowledge to be informative, the other has the detachment to keep things cool and where editors from both sides can work constructively the project benefits. People who don't care or have no interest in a subject have no incentive to write quality articles. Where it falls apart is when someone with a narrow nationalist agenda works the wiki system and are disruptive but no admin is prepared to take the time and effort to deal with a WP:CPUSH problem. I actually think this is one of the really fundamental issues that wikipedia has not really cracked. A CPUSH editor will drive productive editors nuts trying to move the article forward, they'll provoke them into making rash comments that they would never normally do, then the productive editor is blocked for "incivility". Also simply quoting essays like WP:PLAGUE don't help and yes I appreciate the irony given I've referred to another essay. Address the issues. Justin talk 09:16, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
As it happens there was a link posted on AN yesterday which perfectly illustrates why your "violent" disagreement is a problem: You make a good argument for local knowledge in the compiling of primary and secondary sources and an equally good case for standing back when it comes to tertiary sources such as Wikipedia - it is almost impossible for someone who is involved with a topic like this to be truly objective. Guy (Help!) 09:40, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
Actually I found that pretty funny, was that the intention? Babies and bath water spring to mind immediately, as in flinging the baby out with the bath water because its too difficult to deal with problem editors. Just to provide some information, I'm actually half-Spanish, live in Glasgow and don't give a flying fuck about Gibraltar. Curious about what you assumed? Justin talk 10:02, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
One has the knowledge to be informative, the other has the detachment to keep things cool
That's fair enough. But it doesn't work when those people who assert the knowledge to be informative expect also to micromanage all discussion, and make outside editors have to put in ridiculous amounts of effort mediating instead of just writing articles. Wikipedia recognises that there's a point beyond which we don't have to deal with problem editors: that's what user RFCs, arbitration, community bans, etc are for. As I said, I think this subject area has reached arbitration stage.
People who don't care or have no interest in a subject have no incentive to write quality articles
I didn't say "no interest"; I said "don't care" = no emotional involvement in the regional issues. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 12:11, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
The flaw in your logic is that people who don't care, usually don't have any interest; interest and emotional involvement are synonymous. The problem your essay is missing is WP:CPUSH, editors who learn to game the system to get the nationalist edits they want but in doing so drive away the productive editors you actually want and need. Justin talk 12:36, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
Not at all. One can be intellectually fascinated, as a historical topic, in why (for instance) the Big-enders don't want any mention of the Little-enders being chased off to Wankleville. It just doesn't mean you have to side with the Big-enders or Little-enders to write about it, and the best editors to do so are those who are neither and think the whole thing is, well, WP:MARTIANS. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 00:24, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
Actually I've come to the conclusion what you need are an infinite number of monkeys, sitting at an infinite number of typewriters. Either that or editors who have reached the point of WP:DGAF. You have an email detailing why and when I get as stubborn as a very stubborn thing. Justin the Evil Scotman talk 15:22, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Here goes my opinion for whatever it may be worth (I haven't been for very long in WP as an editor: only 7 months and most of them -sadly- inside the "toxic cloud" of Gib articles so... here I am: not very experienced and an implicated part).

I think that the main problem in the specific case of Gibraltar related articles is the very emotional implication from some usual editors and (possibly) the fact that they show a very strong rejection and lack of trust towards certain other outside editors. Please let me underline that I'm not blaming anyone. Probably everybody is acting in good faith, the emotional implication from those "usual" editors has probably helped them make a big effort contributing to Gib articles, and outside editors are sometimes hard core nationalists and POV pushers not to be trusted. The flip side is that this attitude can make them very mistrustful towards the occasional trustworthy outside editor (of course, myself I am one ;) ) and can push them to resisting changes in certain "sensitive" parts of the articles (like, for example, the ones that Spanish nationalists have used to attack Gibraltar). Usually those sensitive areas, as a result, are more tilted to one side than the other.

My own personal experience (if it has any value as an example): I have tried to change that tilt (mentioning some issues that were avoided in the article, giving some qualification to some statements in the lead of the article...) but I have to admit that I have raised a very strong opposition from the usual editors (who probably in good faith think I am a hard core Spanish nationalist trying to vilify Gibraltar - I wish I had some way to prove this is not the case...). From that point, any new suggestion from my side (or from people supporting my side) has been very difficult to implement: we have spent SEVEN months discussing just about THREE sentences.

As a consequence of the tension (although the offenders have already repented and apologised, so they cannot be blamed any more), some of the usual editors launched legal threats and used expressions like "you are advancing a fascist racist agenda" or "I see no difference between you and that fascist fuckwit" or "You have single mindedly set out to minimise the legitimacy of the Gibraltar Government and using wikipedia as a propaganda weapon for a Fascist irrdentist dream and wounded macho pride". I quote these not to blame anybody (I repeat they've already apologised) but to get an impression of where does this tension drive editors.

My recommendation:

  • I think that restricting the edits in the article until consensus is reached can be a good tool: it will stop edit wars and force us in the toxic cloud to reach consensus.
  • Mediation (from Martians, probably) is a very good tool too: the main problem (I think) is emotional attachment, misunderstandings that can give rise to strong confrontations, and deaf ears to other editors' arguments (probably caused by the heat of the discussion and mistrust). Mediation has given very good results helping us structure the discussion and making all of us pay attention to other editors' reasons: in fact the only progress in the last 7 months has come when a couple of mediators (User:Atama and User:Richard Keatinge) have mediated to lower the emotional tension.

I hope this verbose comment does not bore anybody and it can help. --Imalbornoz (talk) 10:12, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Further Outing Threat[edit]

Sorry but this is getting ridiculous, Red Hat is continuing with the threat of outing - diff [32]. I'm not calling for a block but a smack around the head with a trout would help. Justin talk 23:08, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I am not threatening anyone with anything. It is a serious conflict of interest if an editor is a member of a highly partisan group, he does not declare this to other editors, and he (a) adds information about that group to Wikipedia (b) operates a series of sites to which he links on Wikipedia but claims no editorial control over (c) is highly economical with the truth (I later discovered) when responding to editors' questions on his COIs. I have deliberately not provided any information which might reveal his real name, even though he has already effectively outed himself on Wikipedia. There is an ongoing discussion here about the matter [33]. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 00:18, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
Will you, Ecemaml, Imalbornoz, Justin, Pfain, JCRB and whoever else do a full register of interests? List all poitical affiliations, donations to any groups, registered properties and residences? I am reluctant to have us delve into that level of our life. Personally I self censor myself in which articles I edit to avoid COI but at the same time I don't really want to have to monitor the personal life of every editor who strolls along to articles to find out if they are COI Red Hat, I reject the concept of increased watchdoggery. If GibNews is wrong, then he is wrong whether he is GibNews, Jesus Christ, the King of Spain, Prince Philip or the head of the Basque Seperatist Movement. Deal with the contet rather than the editors and we needn't worry about such things. --Narson ~ Talk 00:56, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
I, like the vast majority of WP editors, am not using sites I operate outside of Wikipedia as sources, I'm not updating articles on organisations I am a member of, and I'm not updating an article space I have been actively engaged in the politics of in real life. In the list of examples of COIs [34] we have problems with self-promotion, citing oneself, close relationships and campaigning. That's a check against almost all the boxes. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 01:04, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
Case in point. Look at the information added to Wikipedia about the Voice of Gibraltar Group by the alleged member [35] which sat there for years, untouched. "The VOGG is a long running group which has the objective of defending the rights of Gibraltarians against external threats. It engages in public debate, and protest action where appropriate. As a non political group, its members represent a cross section of the community. It was particularly active in canvassing a 'NO' note in the 2002 referendum, when it toured the estates with a loudspeaker van and invited guests from all parties to address the residents, culminating with the Chief Minister after the result was announced." Not only is this self-promotion, but it's unsourced (who says its members represent a cross section of the community), and untrue (of course it's political). It gets worse when we find the Government of Gibraltar has been critical of this organisation's activities [36]. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 01:18, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
Sorry Red Hat but you seem determined to self-destruct with this vendetta against Gibnews, will you please just back off from trying to out Gibnew before you end up with a block. Ecemaml has already been blocked for it, despite trying to have him listen to reason and you seem bent on going down the same path. Justin talk 01:12, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
Blocked rather rashly, I feel, by someone who is not aware of the details, not to mention gleefully encouraged by you. I've requested a review of that block. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 01:24, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
Fine, in 2006 the spokesperson for the VOGG was Peter Tunbridge, as I've already pointed out to Ecemaml, when the edit you're so excited was made. I know Gibnews' real life identity and he is not Peter Tunbridge. Now will you please stop this before you end up blocked. This has all the hallmarks of a vendetta and harassment. Justin talk 01:24, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
I too know his real life identity - as does Ecemaml - we both uncovered it by accident, and I've been scrupulous in not posting anything which might reveal it even though the editor himself has done so on Wikipedia. In fact, in some off-Wiki emails with certain admins I've made my position on that extremely clear: I did not state it even in my emails to them, and I gave forewarning that by clicking on certain links in the email they may inadvertently discover it, so they had the choice as to whether to do so. NB: linking an editor with the VoGG which supposedly has members who "represent a cross section of the community" is not singling out any one individual, so I really fail to see what the outing issue is here. Suggesting that an editor who is editing the Labour Party article is also a member is not outing them. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 01:42, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
You could have just asked him, instead of trying to make an edit from 2006 into "evidence" of the Gibnews conspiracy. Clearly you're not rational about your detective work and drawing attention to material that can identify an editor is clearly outing. Will you just stop it. Justin talk 01:48, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
I did ask a series of questions [37]. The reason I am persisting in this is that evidence has been uncovered which suggests the answers were not completely truthful. However, it's a Catch 22 situation. Provide the full evidence, and you will out someone. Don't provide the evidence, and it's difficult for others to understand where the COI lies. Regardless, noone has revealed any personal information and noone has threatened to. So please stop coming here and deviously trying to get people blocked. There's enough abuse from you on my talk page to land yourself in a block. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 02:08, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
If you'd simply emailed an admin your concerns that would have been one thing but you and Ecemaml have been taunting him on his talk page and that is completely different. You've also been taunting him on article talk pages as well and you Red Hat were also quick to voice sockpuppet allegations that you knew had already been investigated and found to be false. Persist if you must but if you end up blocked, don't blame anyone but yourself. Justin talk 09:16, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, I was so gleeful I asked him to unblock. Fine, self-destruct if you must, I give up. Justin talk 01:26, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
My view at the moment is that Ecemaml was speculating about Gibnews's identity in a manner akin to fishing so warranted a block per WP:OUTING. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick is pointing out that based on information he has, Gibnews may have a COI, but I haven't seen him actually seeking to confirm his suspicions or name Gibnews on Wikipedia. The diff given by Justin is slightly concerning in that it could have indicated Red Hat was starting down a rocky path, but he's gone no further and hasn't in my opinion crossed any lines. For me the difference revolves around digging for, or releasing, personally-identifiable information. Evidence-based concerns that someone may be a member of an advocacy group obviously pertain to any investigation into their editing patterns (relevant examples include the Scientology Arbcom case and the current Transcendental Meditation case), but actually trying to pin a name to an individual who hasn't explicitly released that information is, I think, where the line is crossed. Of course there's some overlap, which makes this such a delicate balance to tread, so I'm open to reviewing Ecemaml's block. Based on Red Hat's post to my talk page I will be doing so later today when I have email access, although if in the meantime a consensus forms that Ecemaml should be unblocked I have no objections. EyeSerenetalk 11:13, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
I think a short block would be beneficial as I certainly feel abused and threatened by the comments on my user page. I also find the sustained personal campaign by RHPF rather tedious and shows a lack of good faith. His latest claim is that I have censored a press release from the Government of Gibraltar dated 2001 on, which started operation in 2005. I don't mind contribution content to wikipedia, or arguing about it being self-governing, but continually defending myself for creating websites with other people's content and against claims that I've spammed wikipedia about a long established pressure group can be described in one word used by Roger from Viz. I'm not into self-publicity keep a low profile and would like things to stay that way. --Gibnews (talk) 15:49, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) Dropping the COI stuff completely might be a good idea for now. The allegations have been noted, but since we have no way to establish their truth (or otherwise) without going into dangerous territory, continuing to press them may begin to look like a vendetta even if that's not really the case. I think if this does go to Arbcom they may need to be examined, but that can be done off camera to protect editors' identities which we can't really do at ANI. EyeSerenetalk 19:43, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi. While probably dropping the COI issue might be in order, I can't but point out that there is an editor currently blocked for attempted outing because of it. User Ecemaml's behavior has been directed either to out Gibnews or to try to unravel his alleged conflict of interest, but not both. Provided that the aforementioned user has not effectively outed any editor and that it is not possible to unintentionally attempt something, I think he should be unblocked. Just my thoughts. Cremallera (talk) 23:04, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
That the name Ecemaml apparently had in mind may have been incorrect doesn't excuse the policy breach (note that Wikipedia recommends editors neither confirm or deny the results of attempts to guess their identities, and Gibnews has followed this advice). Your argument is semantically correct - one can't attempt something one wasn't trying to achieve - but the terminology at WP:OUTING is fuzzy. Basically I think that in the course of pursuing the alleged COI, Ecemaml went too far - unintentionally perhaps, but they were warned about the direction they were heading in. I believe, semantics aside, that I've followed the spirit of the policy properly. Again though, if a consensus forms to unblock (especially in the next few hours because I'm off to bed now), please don't stand on ceremony; I won't object :) EyeSerenetalk 23:53, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
I've read this thread and the relevant talk pages and looked at contrb histories, etc and I think EyeSerene's block of Ecemaml is entirely correct. Several times they were warned that their behaviour was not acceptable, and still they carried on. They were explicitly warned that if they did not back off that they would be blocked, and even after this they continued as they were, so a block is more than appropriate. I don't believe that their behaviour was acceptable, but even if it were, when editors in good standing ask you to modify your behaviour them you should stop doing what it is they have commented about. If you do not agree with them that your actions are problematical then you should discuss it with them and, if necessary, others, and come to an agreement. The worst thing you can do is blithley ignore the complaints, as Ecemaml has done.
Previously I have commented that The Red Hat's behaviour was bordering on harrassment, and I'm sorry to note that they have not taken my advice to back off and are continuing to sail very close to the wind, and unless this changes there will come a point when they get blocked and that will hardly be without warning.
For the record, apart from a single request for a citation I've been entirely uninvolved with Gibraltar articles. I'm British and currently live in the European Parliament constituency that includes Gibraltar, but I don't have any opinions either way regarding it's status. I do have a Gibraltarian acquaintance who is a passionate supporter of Gibraltar remaining British, but to the best of my knowledge she edits Wikipedia only infrequently and only in the areas of contemporary popular music and renaissance-era sculpture. Thryduulf (talk) 00:40, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
I'm still frustrated that I've now approached a couple of admins, including you, who are all very quick to pontificate here, but who then say they're too busy to look into the details of my COI worries - which because of the risk of outing I have gone out of my way to keep the exact details off Wikipedia. Lest anyone be unaware, I only started researching these sites after he threatened me with legal action twice for suggesting they were not reliable sources (since retracted). One of the two sites was deemed by the community to be a reliable source on the basis of answers which I believe were incomplete and misleading and - this is the frustrating bit - I can't say why. Now, if someone uninvolved was willing to donate some of their time to look at the evidence rather than pontificate here, and then they tell me it's not an issue and I should back off, that's fine. But noone is willing to do that - including you. So please don't throw around harassment claims when you don't know all the details. (I do however admit my Mr VOGG comment which started this subthread [38] was a silly response to a post by Gibnews on my retirement from the Gibraltar article space that I should not have risen to). The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 02:26, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
I can only state that I have carefully read the various emails I've received and looked at the other available evidence (including the discussion which concluded that does not meet WP:RS and the discussion that concluded that does). Your's and Ecemaml's concerns are now widely known. If you want my personal opinion: is Gibnews editing with a pro-Gibraltar POV? Almost certainly, although I'm sure they'd argue that this serves to balance an opposing POV. Do they have a conflict of interest due to their off-Wikipedia activities? Perhaps, although this is unconfirmed speculation and the lengths we can go to on this board to investigate it are limited.
However, even if the COI suspicion is justified (and I believe elements of it may be), WP:COI doesn't actually prevent editors editing in those circumstances as long as they can recognise their bias and remain relatively neutral. For example, having looked at the evidence, I don't believe your objections to the use that's being made of are entirely justified unless you're also alleging that the site is hosting falsified documents; at some point you do have to accept consensus, even if you think it's wrong. I think the concern about potential WP:OR where primary sources are used is valid, but where secondary sources aren't available we have to do the best we can with what we've got.
In some ways I think the alleged COI itself is peripheral - while it might explain the cause of certain behaviour, as admins we can only really address the effects. As such, the article has been locked to prevent further edit warring; editors are reminded of the likely consequences of reverting each other when protection expires (possibly with a WP:0RR restriction as proposed above); WP:NPA will be enforced where necessary; and the importance of WP:OUTING has been underlined. Without community consensus to impose more sweeping restrictions (topic bans and the like) - which no-one has called for - that's about the limit of what we can do here.
Red Hat, as I understand it the issue you and Ecemaml want to see addressed is basically: Is Gibnews, perhaps due to a COI, pursuing an agenda on the Gibraltar article(s) with no regard for Wikipedia editorial policy? I believe this is beyond the scope of this board. It touches on both content and behavioural issues, I'm certainly no subject expert, and admins have no business adjudicating content anyway. I really am coming to the view that opening an Arbitration case to examine the behaviour of all editors may be the best way forward. EyeSerenetalk 10:48, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
Gibnews is very open and honest about his views, he doesn't sugar coat them, he displays his opinions openly, honestly and frankly. His personal bias is on display but it doesn't enter article space. If it did there are others, myself for example, who can edit to redress the balance. What I think makes the difference is he will listen to another's opinion and agree to compromise. I'd be disappointed if this goes to Arbitration as User:Atama has done an excellent job in the main of keeping things level headed. I just don't know, I rather suspect all the editors involved will not come out ofArbitration very well. I have suggsted in the past a temporary topic ban to allow external editors to sort out the article problems, perhaps now is the time to try that? I did suggest it on the talk page earlier. Justin the Evil Scotman talk 11:08, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
I'd like to agree with Justin that Gibnews is a useful editor. With a strong POV, but he's prepared to listen to encyclopedic argument. He has also done us a service by making primary documents available online, though of course we need to use these with appropriate caution. Whatever groups he may belong to seems to me irrelevant to an encyclopedia. Richard Keatinge (talk) 11:33, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

EyeSerene: thanks for the thoughtful response. You have summarized the concerns well and the Gibraltar page is so disfunctional that arbitration really is merited so that all involved parties' behaviour can be scrutinized (mine as well). Richard: the point is not whether he is a useful editor - he has done more than anyone to ensure Gibraltar has good coverage in WP. It's that he does hold a strong POV, he is not a "real life neutral party" in the matters he writes about on WP and we are all relying on him to self-police his own website off Wikipedia. I wouldn't have a problem with that if he had demonstrated he understood the RS and NOR policies but he has a consistent track record going back several years of not doing so, including his reaction to the initial blacklist proposal (instigated by an admin here, I should point out, not me). I also would not have had an issue had he come clean to the full extent of his ownership of both sites which he portrayed as being owned by companies and he is just the IT guy but that is totally and utterly false. He IS the man behind that company. Now, I shall say no more on the matter unless asked to substantiate that claim on my talk page and will be taking this page off my watch list so I'm not tempted to break that promise. Bye. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 12:28, 4 March 2010 (UTC) ps arbitration for Gibraltar yes please - with or without the COI issue.

For whatever reasons RHPF has been attempting to discredit me since he showed up on the Gibraltar pages, where his activities there have been limited to removing content and complaining about my actions. He has falsly accused me of sockpuppetry on a number of occasions and attempted to get me banned by claiming I am user:gibraltarian. He has been active in forum shopping to try and discredit and which are sites I have built, but which the content referenced on wikipedia is generated by various credible organisations and reproduced there with permission.
I note his recent edit summaries on the politics of Gibraltar regarding the Voice of Gibraltar Group where he has removed the link to Claiming this was 'self-promotion' for the record I have not registered that domain, designed its website or hosted it ever his claims are totally unfounded and dishonest, as is his labelling me 'Mr VOGG' on the talk:Gibraltar page malicious. He has also removed content about the 2002 referendum campaign. which was a major pivotal point in Gibraltar history and attempted to remove similar significant content on the Gibraltar page.
This is all very negative. --Gibnews (talk) 00:14, 5 March 2010 (UTC) being added back despite community decision[edit]

No admin action needed; section collapsed for readability. EyeSerenetalk 17:43, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

There were various discussions re relating to its reliaility. As it is maintained by an editor here (Gibnews) it was decided at the spam blacklist page that this site is not reliable [39]. It is now, however, being added back [40] by a user who appears to be letting personal issues override our policies. I'm not going to get into an edit war over this with him, but the community decision was unanimous on this so something needs to be done. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 14:14, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

This is enough to make a saint swear, honestly :) I've locked that article too (on the wrong version, naturally), and have asked Dirk Beestra to review the situation with that link in the light of I'd blacklist it myself, but I think the more admin eyes we have on this the better. EyeSerenetalk 15:03, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
See my reply to Red Hat [41], if there is a community black list I was unaware of it having taken an extended wikibreak for the last month. A reply made at 14:06, some 8 minutes before it was posted here. It would have been helpful to have referred me to it, not immediately go with the nuclear option at AN/I. On the face of it, faced with removing a cite to replace it with a citation needed would seem odd to most wikipedians. You can unlock it as I definitely won't be edit warring over it, if there is a community black list fine but I would urge Red Hat not to be pointy about removing cites and replace them with another cite rather than just removing them. Jesus, this is just getting ridiculous, not only enought to make a saint swear but also enough to turn them to drink. Justin talk 15:17, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
There was no consensus to blacklist links to although some editors were uneasy about it, there waqs a consensusit was NOT spamming. RHPF took it upon himself to remove links. I restored one, as did others - RH then assumed bad faith and accused me of being an IP editor. He has repeatedly accused me of sockpuppetry without any basis in fact. I'm getting fed up with his continual harassment, time wasting and forum shopping. --Gibnews (talk) 15:59, 3 March 2010 (UTC)


Damn edit conflict.

I just checked and the request to blacklist that site was quickly denied and a quick read shows the issue was Gibnews adding the cites but not other users. Now before adding it back I did actually review those cites. Could someone actually tell me what the problem is, because now I'm just confused. Justin talk 16:03, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

To be fair, the main reason why the blacklist was denied was because Gibnews was really the only person adding it. If multiple editors add it, I wouldn't object to a blacklist and I doubt that others would have either. The relevant discussion about its use, by the way, would not be the blacklist discussion but would be the discussion at the reliable sources noticeboard. I don't expect that Justin would have been aware of that and other discussions in his recent break from Wikipedia so I hope that nobody holds his recent contributions against him. -- Atama 17:52, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
Fair enough - this all seems to have been a misunderstanding. The reverting was unfortunate, but I can appreciate that Red Hat believed he was enforcing a consensus and Justin that he was restoring sourced material. Maybe it's best if we overlook it, though I think keeping the lock on the History of Gibraltar article might be prudent for now. I will however amend my post to Dirk. EyeSerenetalk 18:28, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Next steps[edit]

Apologies for the new section, but I think it might help to draw a line under some of the above. Firstly, I've now unblocked Ecemaml based on their unblock request and an email exchange where they acknowledged the seriousness of WP:OUTING and undertook to avoid making similar mistakes in the future. Secondly, we have a number of suggestions for remedies above that are worth considering, ranging from article probation through a limited topic ban to arbitration. My personal feeling is that ANI is a blunt and haphazard instrument for tackling this kind of deep-rooted dispute, and the repeated threads here are a reflection of that. To a certain extent we can manage the article, but we've been unable to find any long-term solution and each time a new thread appears it seems as though we're applying sticking plasters to a gaping wound. I think perhaps it's time to refer it to a more formal venue where the dispute will get undivided attention and private issues can be examined privately. However, I agree with Justin that arbitration should be a last resort and that Atama has been doing a fine job of consensus-building on the article, so maybe something else is worth trying first. Thoughts? EyeSerenetalk 20:59, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Well I have observed that it only seems to stay stable whilst the article is protected. When it isn't "solutions" are imposed by WP:TAG. Secondly there is a real problem with WP:CPUSH on the article. Thirdly there appears to be a vendetta by two editors against another, which I think some admins have picked up on. So:
  1. Article stays protected for now, edits only to be added by an admin once agreement is achieved in talk. Though I'm not sure it will go anywhere unless there is an enforced break to allow tempers to cool.
  2. As suggested by Gordon, there needs to be an effort by the uninvolved to resolve the issues, without being lobbied by the involved. Say a month, a topic ban in the intervening time. I would be happy to leave it down to Willdow for now, as he listens and gives due weight to all views.
  3. It needs to be monitored by a neutral admin. User:Atama has achieved the confidence of all concerned. But it is a lot to ask of him. WP:CPUSH is a difficult problem to deal with, it is acknowledged that arbitration finds it difficult to deal with.
  4. Further acts of harassment need to be stopped in their tracks with an immediate block and an escalating scale of blocks. This includes the frivolous complaints about editors, I believe that there has been an attempt to manipulate AN/I to block certain editors.
  5. I'm not convinced that 1RR will work, there is evidence that some of the editors have co-ordinated their activities by email. Interested to see how this problem can be dealt with. Justin the Evil Scotman talk 21:26, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
EyeSerene - there are far more deep-rooted and long-running problems at that article than the present content dispute. What would be beneficial, I believe, would be a review by editors with the ability to enforce blocks/topic bans (is that ArbCom? never done anything like this before) where anyone who has a concern or bugbear gets to list it and ask for it to be reviewed. (Justin might put as one of his items "I think Red Hat harasses Gibnews" and "Imalbarnoz is a tendentious editor" and provides some supporting diffs; I might, will hold my tongue). As well as reviewing these "complaints" to see whether they are legitimate, the editors also look over the talk page history etc to get a general sense of who has been doing and saying what. Then everyone gets behavioural feedback (important because some people can't see what they are doing wrong, me too sometimes) and instructions to stop/start/continue certain behaviours, which if not followed will result in a topic ban. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 23:39, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
I think that "a review by editors with the ability to enforce blocks/topic bans" is a pretty dead-on definition of what arbitration does. My concern is an echo of Justin above, however, that arbitration will probably end poorly for a number of people. We can still try it and trust in the process, it can and does help for people. I'm more inclined toward a community-based article probation if we can do it. I know that it was attempted before, by Justin (see here) but didn't get attention at the time. -- Atama 00:38, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
It's difficult to say this without sounding like I'm trying to score points, but that link you provided, the first time I'd seen it (I had been on a several month self-imposed exile from the Gib article at the time) just illustrates the problem, as do the suggestions from J above. An editor proposes a series of suggestions which are perfectly reasonable, then proceeds to break virtually every single one of them, and then proposes it all over again. One gets the feeling he thinks everyone else is the problem. I'm not trying to get him into trouble here for that, I'm just saying feedback on behaviour is seriously needed and the threat of a topic bans may just be enough. If I've deemed to have done something topic- or WP-blockable (I don't think I have) I'll accept the consequences with good grace and work on the feedback provided. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 01:03, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
Even if you were right, and Justin did break all of his own suggestions, what does that matter? If those restrictions were in place, Justin would be subject to the same penalties as anyone else for breaking them. It would still have the same effect. If those restrictions were in place then the cycle you describe would be broken because violating those restrictions can lead to blocks. I'd like to say, too, that if probation is given for Gibraltar topics I don't have a lot of interest in playing "cop" on those articles. I do feel that I'm rather uninvolved with those articles, as I've done no editing to them (that I can remember), haven't taken sides in any disputes between editors, or given opinions on any of the article talk pages about what content I'd prefer in the articles. I've only acted as a mediator of sorts, and I've advised most of the regular editors about different issues they've had (and I think I once removed article protection when a dispute ended). I don't feel a need to recuse myself, and I would enforce probationary sanctions if I felt it absolutely necessary, but I feel like the first time I block someone at those articles I'm no longer on the sidelines in those disputes. -- Atama 02:26, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
I could post a few diffs but no I don't think my own behaviour is above reproach and have said so. I think you'll find that I am in fact one of the few to have apologised for crossing the line and if you look, more than once the bad behaviour was out of frustration but also in response to some pretty serious bullying going on in that article. Red Hat forgets that in our own disputes, who was the bigger man and made the first move to putting the past behind us. I could post the diff but you'll find I've tried to do it with all of the others involved with Gibraltar as well. I could also point fingers and say that it was all down to Red Hat, baiting Gibnews and harassing Gibnews, for which I think you can make a compelling case and if investigated at Arbitration would lead to a rather lengthy block from editing wikipedia. If one were so inclined you could also make a case blaming AN/I for not intervening before it got so bad, it has been raised here often enough. There is a lot of finger pointing all round and not enough reflection on some pretty bad behavious by all parties. But was is the point of apportioning blame? Wikipedia doesn't have a blame culture and raking over the past and bringing up issues long forgotten and in many cases apologised for is not going to address fundamentally the atmosphere has gotten so toxic that there will be no progress with the current protagonists involved. There needs to be a clean break and repeated pleas for a voluntary break are falling on deaf ears at the moment, just as they have in the past.
I really don't want to see this going to arbitration, a number of very good editors have been sucked into what became a very bitter dispute and the project would be the one to suffer. My personal view is that the whole article has been held hostage by an editor with a nationalist agenda that fits perfectly with the profile of a WP:CPUSH. So for a while it needs very close admin attention to put an end to that disruption. To allow the article to move forward it needs fresh eyes. I'm also of the opinion, this is just about the last chance to avoid arbitration and the loss to the project of some productive editors.
I would also say that I think User:Atama does himself a disservice when he says that the first time he blocks someone he will be no longer on the sidelines. I have been very impressed with the even handed way he has mediated in a very charged atmosphere. It would be nigh on impossible to claim he had taken sides. If that became an issue where he was accused of taking sides, not for one second that I believe he would, then I would hope that other admins at AN/I would give him their full backing. The project really does need more admins like him. Oh and to put that into perspective getting praise out of a Scotsman is marginally more difficult than to get him to part with cash. Justin the Evil Scotman talk 09:32, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
Justin - may I politely ask you to step aside for a moment please? You've made your suggestion for the next steps now please let me make the case for mine.
Atama - unfortunately I don't think you are the right person for this and nor is your approach the right one. You see this all as a content dispute that admin intervention and blocks can handle, but as I said, the problem is more subtle and deeper rooted. For what it's worth, I'm half Spanish and half British, living in neither country, I'm with the 99.99% of Gibraltarians who think Gibraltar should be British but I'm always finding myself on the side of the Spanish editors in these arguments against Justin and Gibnews in these POV matters because there are always a multitude of reliable sources which agree with the edits the Spanish editors want to make. That alone should ring alarm bells - that we have editors blocking edits on the basis of their political views and not what the sources say. Latest case in point: [42]. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 12:06, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
(Mostly) outside comment: as I suggested it, I'd better expand. Arbitration is complicated and stressful: but on balance I still think it's the way to go as other options haven't worked. The Digwuren arbitration decision is a model for how it might work.
As The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick says, I think there are deeper problems. The current, and proposed admin/blocks, setup doesn't really address the problem that we shouldn't have an article solely guided by what's mutually acceptable to two hostile factions. It means, for instance, that what's a sore point to both - e.g. San Roque - will end up with vague anodyne coverage that's more about appeasing these factions than informing the uninvolved reader.
Getting editors to talk nicely doesn't alter problems of strong bias - often affecting opinion on topics in unstated ways - that really needs attention at editing level ("neutral point of view, no original research and verifiability" as the Digwuren summary says) rather than just discussion level. Having skimmed the discussions, I'd have to conclude that "pro-Gibraltar" bias is far more of a problem here than pro-Spanish.
I think there are also a number of other unresolved issues around the Gibraltar articles: unresolved conflict of interest; and sourcing (general current focus on primary sources and/or not terribly reliable ones, rather than reliable secondary sources such as mainstream newspapers and books). I don't know whether anyone here remembers the discussion; this concerned a site hosting historical documents (each reliable in itself) about 19th century vaccination issues - but the documents archived were selectively anti-vaccination, and the site itself framed the material with an anti-vaccination slant. So it was decided an unreliable source. This seems very pertinent to one of the sourcing issues here.
As I've said, a creative solution would be to ban any editor with a stake in the regional issue; I think there are some regionalist editors whose bias is so deep-rooted that I don't have any faith in their ability to work in a way compatible wth the aims of Wikipedia (see WP:PLAGUE). But failing that, arbitration. This needs knocking on the head. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 14:04, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
No Red Hat I will not step aside and allow you to villify me yet again, I am utterly fed up with being villified for having the temerity to disagree with you and refusing to be bludgeoned into agreement by tendentious and circular argument. You're misrepresenting my opposition to certain edits as POV, when I had very different objections to Gibnews. My suggestion that information peripheral for an overview of Gibraltar is not included is a very reasonable position to take. Your own user page makes the same point Removal of "true" or "sourced" material from Wikipedia is not unconstructive/vandalistic: one of the purposes of Editing is to ensure that the text being edited is of appropriate length. This may mean removing irrelevant information or a level of detail that is not required.
But having made that suggestion I was villified as "suppressing" any mention of San Roque and of "censoring" the article. What rings alarm bells for me is when an editor is harangued for a suggestion, instead of it being calmly and rationally discussed, and the labelling of POV is used to justify ignoring reasonable argument. Alarm bells ring like crazy when an established article is labelled as POV, when what they really mean is that it doesn't favour the POV they prefer. Equally those so bent on including certain information are so bent on it, for entirely POV reasons, equally fixed in their position by POV concerns as Gibnews. The difference being Gibnews states his objection openly but they conceal theirs and to me that makes them the greater danger to the project. See WP:CPUSH
You portray it as myself and Gibnews against the world, when that is far from the case. There were a number of other editors who this mess has driven away from the article. In they main, they agreed that I put forward a reasoned argument but one by one were driven away by relentless circular and tendentious argument. I note that a completely fresh pair of eyes this week acknowledges that there is merit in what I had to say. And for what its worth, I'm half-Spanish as well, an inconvenient fact for those that accused me of racism as another excuse to ignore reasoned argument.
You are persisting with trying to imply that only two editors are the problem, when there is a great deal of problematic behaviour that has resulted from a basic failure to assume good faith. You're just as guilty as anyone else but the fact is you just can't see the problems in your own behaviour and that for me is worrisome. Justin the Evil Scotman talk 13:27, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Based on much of the above and some hard thinking overnight, I've now filed a Request for Arbitration. I fully understand that this won't be welcomed by everyone, and I'm quite prepared to be castigated for doing so, but I feel Arbcom rulings in other contentious areas (the Balkans, the Middle East, Ireland etc) have proved helpful in resolving such deep-rooted disputes. I also don't want to give the impression that I've short-ciruited other dispute resolution; Atama has clearly earned - and deserves - the respect of everyone involved, and one of the reasons I made this decision was their perfectly understandable wish not to have to police the article if community sanctions were tried. I think finding other admins that want to step into the firing line will be difficult (I have no desire to do so myself either), and because this thread has had limited participation I believe that interest in voluntarily dealing with this perennial issue, after so many unsuccessful attempts, is low. In short, I don't think I'm wrong in saying that most of us are fed up with it and just want it settled - including most of the article editors, I suspect. EyeSerenetalk 14:15, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Thankyou EyeSerene. And thankyou Atama too. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 14:20, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
Sorry but I have to disagree and say that you've been premature in this action. Not that I'm suggesting you be castigated for it. You say there has been no success in dealing with this by AN/I, well I counter by saying that is hasn't been tried yet. Great to get it settled but not this way, its a sledge hammer to crack a walnut. Justin the Evil Scotman talk 15:00, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
That's fair enough, and of course I respect your position. I believe there are issues here that can't be settled by ANI though - it's proved a pretty tough walnut :) EyeSerenetalk 15:22, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
'Evening. I tend to agree with EyeSerene and Red Hat on this. After a lengthy mediation attempt, a proposed moratorium, 2 (or 3 already?) requests for comment and several AN/I threads we've achieved little. It may be true that arbitration is a last resort, but at this point we are in dire need of a last resort. Finally, may I suggest informing Guy about the existence of the request for arbitration? If I recall correctly, he is an administrator who was drawn to this whole Gibraltar dispute a month ago via AN/I thread, and filed an RfC. He was pretty active on the talk pages for some time. His input may be useful to the process we are about to initiate. Cremallera (talk) 17:24, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
I don't have any strong objection to arbitration (not that it would change anything if I did). I think that multiple dispute resolution steps have been attempted without any lasting success, and what's needed is something along the lines of discretionary sanctions or probation. Doing something like that requires either community consensus or arbitration. Either ArbCom or the community has such a power, and I suppose it doesn't matter who does it. If EyeSerence is going to take the initiative and bring this to arbitration, then I say go for it. Hopefully some lasting fix can come from this now. -- Atama 17:54, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
I've notified Guy as suggested - thanks Cremallera. EyeSerenetalk 18:18, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
I agree with this action, maybe it will finally settle all of the nonsense on this article that seeems to bring a thread to ANI on such a regular basis, nothing else has or even seem to have come close. Heironymous Rowe (talk) 04:58, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

More vandalism from User: Jonbobsmith[edit]

Resolved: User given final warning. Burpelson AFB (talk) 02:24, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

This editor, who was last blocked for vandalism in 2007, is now back and repeatedly vandalizing the Hall High School (Connecticut) article. Can someone check into this? Thanks -- Danieldis47 (talk) 01:32, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

The user has no block on his record and no current warnings on his talk page. His edits are a bit childish but exactly what do you want us to do? Maybe you could offer to help him. JodyB talk 02:46, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
Help him what, vandalize articles? Jonbobsmith has such helpful edits in his history as [43], [44], and [45]. I have left a warning on his talk page for the vandalism to the High School article. Being a child does not excuse vandalism. Burpelson AFB (talk) 03:50, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I see that he was not blocked in 2007 - just warned. Hopefully, the new warning now on his Talk page, plus this mention here, will be enough. Thanks. Danieldis47 (talk) 03:51, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I've elevated his warning based on his history from a 2 to a 3. Given the fact that this user has been warned in the past, he/she should know better. Interesting situation here, though. Does anyone share the thought that may be a possible compromised/shared account? Connormah (talk | contribs) 05:05, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
Pretty standard AIV. The elevated warnings will be visible to Hugglers now too, so this issue should be handled for now. Shadowjams (talk) 05:08, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks to all for their fine work on this! Danieldis47 (talk) 08:57, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[edit]

That IP above ^ received warnings on his talk page for vandalism, but has repeadatly removed them. [1] [2] [3] [4]

Should this be on edit warring? I don't know. But anyway, I'd like something done, like temporary protection, or something, since he doesn't seem to be doing anything now except blanking his talk page.

Jimbo Wales NEKAMI!!! (Talk to her) 00:02, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Removing warnings from one's own talk page actually isn't against the rules. It's permitted (though's bogus edit summaries aren't a good sign). It's usually taken to mean that they've read the messages. (Altering the messages is another matter.) -- Why Not A Duck 00:09, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
If you come across a user that's repeatedly removing warnings, just act as if the warnings are still on the page with respect to any future warnings. I recently came across a vandal that had removed a recent level-3 warning from its talk page right before vandalizing again. I didn't bother caring about the deleted warning, and simply issued a level-4. A level-4 warning is a level-4 warning, regardless if the user has left the other 3 on the page or not. Like Why Not A Duck said, removing warnings basically shows that the user has read them. WP:DRC and WP:CAIN offer other arguments. LedgendGamer 10:10, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Legal Threats[edit]

Resolved: User was blocked by User:Materialscientist for "Making legal threats". - NeutralHomerTalk • 08:51, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Aetempleton (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

The above user, a new editor, posted a LARGE amount of uncited and frankly incorrect information to radio station page WVAB. I notified the user about the rules of citing your sources and that papers and knowledge in your head wasn't a reliable third-party source. With no response and almost instant revisions, I began to mark for vandalism, something I didn't wish to do. After issuing two warnings, I received this on my user page (not my talk page). Amongst the spelling errors are accusations that I am "libelous" and the user needed "contact information for legal disputes". This sounds like a clear legal threat or one that is proceeding into one. Could an admin take a look at this? Thanks. - NeutralHomerTalk • 07:51, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

After further vandalism to my userpage by the user, I received this post with "Pleae remove the inaccurate info or this will become a legal matter."...clearly a legal threat. - NeutralHomerTalk • 08:23, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
Blocked. Materialscientist (talk) 08:50, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

List of empires[edit]

Resolved: user stopped after being warned; nothing to do unless problematic behavior restarts--Jayron32 06:45, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Mackay 86 (talk · contribs) repeatedly removes citation tags while not responding in article and user talk pages. Please interfere. - Altenmann >t 02:34, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Diffs? Woogee (talk) 02:36, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
FYI Mackay86 appears to be starting similar behaviour at British Empire - initial edit - he gets reverted with the edit comment "why?" - Mackay then puts it back with no talk page discussion or edit comment . The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 02:46, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
And, this is not usually a good sign - a warning I placed on their talk page has just got immediately removed. [46] The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 02:54, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
I have reviewed his contributions since he was warned. He has (as yet) not returned to the problematic behavior. So apparently the warning worked. --Jayron32 06:45, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Other Problem with Mackay 86[edit]

He marks many of his edits as WP:MINOR which are not [47]. I asked him not to do this [48], again immediately removed, and he continued to make three more non-minor edits marked as minor. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 11:53, 6 March 2010 (UTC)


Resolved: Megistias and Athenean blocked by Tiptoety. Appeals should go on the appropriate user talk page. NW (Talk) 11:30, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

User Sulmues has been warned on add/removing non-RS material and references in the article. But he has done so more than 4 times of this particular one. diff , diff diff, diff, Megistias (talk) 09:42, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Is this the right page for this? Doc9871 (talk) 09:50, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
Its not about the rate of readding them, its about ignoring RS & talk and just doing itMegistias (talk) 10:05, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
"...more than 4 times..." (your words) was not about the "rate" of re-adding them? Is this an edit-warring/3RR report or not, please? Doc9871 (talk) 10:13, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
taking it thereMegistias (talk) 10:19, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
Good man :> Doc9871 (talk) 10:24, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Racism accusation[edit]

Undefeatedcooler, a pure single purpose account (see user contributions), who has been stubbornly reverting the Bruce Lee article for the past two weeks has directed a racist tirade against me and some other users who were guilty of disagreeing with him:

Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)#Categorization of Bruce Lee as "Chinese":

  • "His/Her comments approached Wikipedia:No personal attacks, Wikipedia:Etiquette. I insisted that he/she was a racist (anti-Chinese) editor." Undefeatedcooler (talk) 13:2