Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive620

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

Possible disruption at Peter Schiff[edit]

Resolved: No admin intervention necessary. —DoRD (talk) 13:32, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

All mention that Peter Schiff advocates for minority viewpoints outside of mainstream thinking keeps being removed from the article.

There is some back and forth between editors because some continue to characterize the text as somehow not relevant to the article subject, yet there have been NO objections against the assertion that Schiff does advocate for these minority views. The information has citations which have received no challenge at all --- and, in fact, one of the citations is Schiff himself explaining that the views come from outside of the mainstream. Generally, among those who are familiar with the field, it is pretty well-known that the views being advocated by the article subject fall outside of the mainstream.

Despite being sourced, edits like this one continue to occur, deleting cited information that is relevant to an understanding of the article subject and which is presented neutrally.

If this deletion is considered disruptive (as suggested by policy guidance), what can be done? (Not necessary looking for sanctions against any particular editors.) BigK HeX (talk) 01:38, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I see that you have not notified any of the other editors alluded to as you are required. In any case, this is a content dispute which should be dealt with on the article talkpage. If that doesn't work, please consider taking further steps. Bear in mind, though, that all edits to the article must comply with the BLP policy. —DoRD (talk) 13:32, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Assistance needed at WP:SHIPS[edit]

Resolved

Would an admin familiar with the spam blacklist please look at WT:SHIPS#Spam: Admin help needed and render the necessary assistance? Mjroots (talk) 11:59, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Request dealt with by MER-C. Mjroots (talk) 13:51, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Review my reblock and revoke of talk page access, please?[edit]

Resolved: Thanks for the feedback, folks, although I don't think OS is needed here. BencherliteTalk 10:18, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

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

This user was blocked indef by Tedder for disruptive editing in January, specifically "not communicating on census numbers changes despite repeated efforts from many editors". Thereafter Rossdegenstein seems to have rather missed the point about (a) why he was blocked and (b) what he could use Wikipedia for. His unblock requests in May were declined. He continued to use his user page (while logged out from various IPs) and later his talk page for keeping track of how many Facebook friends he has. I first spot this at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Rossdegenstein, which I close with a speedy deletion and a "belt and braces" semi-protection of the user page; as the same pointless activity then transferred to the talk page, I reblocked with talk page access revoked, reverted to the last declined unblock template, semi-protected the talk page to stop him carrying in the same way with IPs and left a message about appealing his block via email. As I've been involved at the MfD as well as the reblock, another pair of eyes on what I've done wouldn't go amiss, to make sure I'm not misbehaving. BencherliteTalk 02:20, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Not an admin, but I think this is a good talk page block. User was misusing his talk page. I would recommend seeing an oversight to get rid of some of those IPs just to be on the safe side. - NeutralHomerTalk • 02:41, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Always unfortunate, but I see no sign that they understood what Wikipedia was for and could edit towards that goal. Wikipedia isn't therapy, etc. If they don't get it after that much effort, they probably won't. Regrettable but probably necessary now. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:42, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
(e/c) I've reviewed this briefly and to me, Bencherlite's actions sound "about right". This seems to be a single minded editor whose grasp of English is poor, but who nevertheless ought to be able to use Wikipedia as an encyclopaedia - or not at all. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 17:03, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Request for outside review by admins...[edit]

Since Slimvirgin is an administrator, i'm requesting an independent review of the following situation:

I've been doing a lot of research in IPCC papers on the Indur M. Goklany article, basically trying to verify statements independently (sections Talk:Indur_M._Goklany#Representative_... and Talk:Indur_M._Goklany#What_is_the_.22Resource_Use_and_Management_Subgroup_report.22.3F)

I've just removed a claim on the article, that i cannot verify. And get reverted with this comment ("back to Short Brigade; Kim, please leave this article alone") - i raised this on SlimVirgin's talk here User_talk:SlimVirgin#Say_what.3F, and am rather bemused about the answers and the claims made.

Could someone give me a hint as to the appropriateness of SlimVirgin's comments? (and what i take as an implicit threat (perhaps i'm oversensitve :-) ) - normally this should have gone to the special enforcement board, but that seems to be defunct during Arbcom. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 06:06, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I also have to say that i'm rather shocked about this move[1], since i was of the impression that such has no place in article talkspace. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 06:11, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Looks as if you have been asked to stay away from BLPs and haven't. I personally think Slim's criticism is justified and to be honest, as polite as she could be. I would take her and other admins advice and steer clear of BLPs. There are 3 million+ articles on en.Wiki, I think you could find something to edit that isn't BLP. - NeutralHomerTalk • 10:13, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Forgot to mention this: I have notified Slim of this thread. - NeutralHomerTalk • 10:56, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Clarification for transparency - Slim was notified by Kim in this diff [2] about this thread though it wasn't a formal ANI notice and could have been missed if he/she wasn't paying attention to the destination link. Exxolon (talk) 11:38, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
I don't have anything to add here. Kim's problematic approach to BLPs and misunderstanding of policy is known to editors involved in the climate-change articles. Evidence will doubtless be submitted to the RfAr that's just opened. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 11:58, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Can you explain what it was justified by? As far as i know there hasn't been any complaints filed against me, nor have i ever been sanctioned on BLP issues (i don't have exact recally - but i can't even remember that i should have been warned). Are you simply taking SlimVirgins word? Is it Ok for an admin such as SV to tell other editors to stay away from articles that he/she edits (is involved in), without filing anything? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 14:13, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
This comment is a dishonest representation of what happened. SV did not tell you to stay away from that and other BLPs, she asked you to stay away. SV did not claim you were sanctioned or warned to stay away, she said that many people had told you that you "misapply the policies to suit your personal opinions, and you target the BLPs of people you disagree with" which is true. --Doodahdoneit (talk) 17:18, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Ding ding, we have a sockpuppet... -- ChrisO (talk) 17:38, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Or in other words: No, i haven't been asked to stay away from BLP's. So while it may look that way (from SV's comments) - that isn't the case. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 14:15, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
This comment too is a dishonest representation of the state of affairs. ATren and others have asked you to stop editing the BLPs of the climate skeptics for reasons similar to those described by SV. --Doodahdoneit (talk) 17:24, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Can I butt in to ask who is right with respect to the underlying content dispute? Kim appears to alledge that Indur M. Goklany was a rapporteur of the Resource Use and Management Subgroup, while Slim appears to alledge that Indur M. Goklany was the principal author. Is that an accurate summary of the dispute? The source they both appear to use is [3]. Could someone (not me) who is not involved in the Climate Change dispute tell us who is misrepresenting sources, and then ban them from the article? Thanks! Hipocrite (talk) 13:00, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

The report in question can be read at [4] - I think page 243 is the page that lists Dr. Gokalny. Hipocrite (talk) 13:16, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

It seems pretty clear to me that this cannot be considered a "third party source independent of the subject". Author bios are normally written by the authors, or based on information they supply. I have never heard of anyone fact-checking those blurbs, not over shades of meaning anyway. So it strikes me as problematic to argue for inclusion of material only found in a blurb like that. (Note, I'm not uninvolved, and have had problems with SV in the past, including the way she has represented sources in BLPs). Guettarda (talk) 13:48, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

This is what always happens—William Connolley and Stephan Schulz will be along shortly. Guettarda, accusing me of problematic BLP editing will gain no traction, no matter how often you try. What I find depressing is that this continues even as the ArbCom case has opened. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 14:03, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Yep, and Crum always shows up to defend you. It's called a watchlist, and you're well aware of how it works. As for accusing me of problematic BLP editing will gain no traction, no matter how often you try - I don't care about "traction", I'm not here to score points. Three (iirc) other editors supported me on the issue, and you stopped re-inserting it eventually. So - I don't care if you want to consider that some sort of a "win" (I'm not playing a game to win or lose). Guettarda (talk) 15:09, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Could we please resolve this without having wild accusations thrown around? I am asking for outside review - not that anyone defends me. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 14:17, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Maybe SV could just provide a diff of where KDP was put on a BLP restriction. I thought topic bans were usually decided by community consensus, or at the climate change probation page where they have more lattitude. This doesn't seem to be a question of this one edit, but why SV has taken the attitude that KDP may not edit BLPs. Weakopedia (talk) 14:29, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Correct assessment. I'm not under such restrictions - and haven't even gotten a warning of such. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 14:36, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Having had a look at this (but no previous involvement) it appears that Kim's version is right - in Climate change: the IPCC response strategies, the Report of Working Group III of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (ISBN 9781559631037, 1991), Goklany is listed on page 204 as "U.S.A. (Rapporteur)". He identifies himself as a rapporteur in this 2005 submission to the House of Lords Select Committee on Economic Affairs. The report lists its authors but does not attribute any authorship to Goklany. Really, though, this should have been sorted out on the article talk page rather than descending into unnecessary drama here. -- ChrisO (talk) 14:33, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree that it should have been resolved on article talk - which is why i'm nonplussed by SV's strong reactions and claims. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 14:39, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
I know you're annoyed, understandably so, but I don't think anything useful can be gained by raising it here (which was your decision, not SV's). I suggest closing this thread since I don't think there's anything actionable here, and redirecting discussion to the article talk page. -- ChrisO (talk) 14:47, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
There is one thing to clear up: SV made statements that indicate that i'm suddenly (without warning) topic-banned - and that is why i raised it here (that combined with the PA's). Content issues are for the article talk. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 14:52, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
This comment is a dishonest representation of what SV said. She never said you were topic banned. --Doodahdoneit (talk) 17:36, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Since she's an involved editor, she can't topic-ban you or anyone else. I don't read her comments (here) as indicating that you are topic-banned. She tells you what she thinks you should do (advisory), not what you must do or not do (imperative). Likewise you could tell her that she should go take a running jump but don't expect her to get airborne any time soon, since she's not under any obligation to take your advice. -- ChrisO (talk) 14:57, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
  • While I think SV's lack of discussion is deplorable, and while she shows a lack of good faith, I don't think that she intends her comment to be interpreted like that. Take it as a request and decide whether you want to heed, contest, or ignore it. Slim, I would suggest that you clarify that you neither believe or assume that Kim is topic banned. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:00, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Kim has some particular notions about BLP sourcing that I haven't seen him compromise on, and this is extremely frustrating for anyone (sometimes a consensus of us) who discuss this with him. The following puts into context Stephan Schulz' comments about SV's lack of discussion' and she shows a lack of good faith. SV and others, including me, have had epic-length discussions with Kim D. Petersen on BLP subjects. Massive amounts of time have been wasted with this editor who simply will not accept sourcing, no matter how sterling, if it provides negative information on a person sharing his POV, while at the same time his standards for including extremely negative information on at least one BLP have been so low as to include a nasty attack from a blog (see Talk:Fred Singer#Blogs?). Some links are on my ArbCom user-space workshop page accessable from the bottom of my user page. I can't recall a point in the BLP-related discussions I've participated in with Kim that he either admitted a mistake or even changed his opinion. I'm still working on how to word my evidence (it needs a lot of work), and if anyone has advice and/or links to further incidents involving Kim D. Petersen and problematic BLP edits/comments (including comments constructively showing me how I'm all wet on this), please feel free to tell me on my talk page. It would be in Kim's and Wikipedia's best interests if editors who share his overall POV get him to accept more of the community's widely shared notions about BLP sourcing. The alternative should be sanctions for WP:BLP violations or WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT disruption. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 16:10, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
I'm not going to comment on the above, except to say that i disagree with it (obviously), and that i hope the RfAr will clear up, as John apparently is setting up to do. Since that is one appropriate venue for such complaints.. (and the response to them). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 16:35, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Nothing "apparent" about it. I'm very explicitly laying out where I'm going to take this, some idea of how I expect to get there and offering you the opportunity to reconsider your actions and for others to try to help you reconsider. This should be resolved, one way or another. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 17:01, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Feel free to do so, it is the correct way - and do please allow the courtesy for me to disagree with your view :). I used "apparently", because i hadn't seen it before now. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:05, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

User:AnmaFinotera[edit]

This user is reverting all of my edits for absolutely no reason. He is claiming that I am a "sock puppet". How can I be a sockpuppet when I'm an anonymous IP address? Yes, I am the same person he feuded with before. I'm not claiming to be anyone I'm not. How does this make me a "sockpuppet"? Surely he is not allowed to constantly revert me for no reason? He is clearly attacking me out of petty spite. There is no place for feuding on Wikipedia. I have made nothing but constructive edits to articles, and he has reverted them simply because he can. I will not tolerate it.--98.71.195.16 (talk) 15:41, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

See existing AIV report on this "editor", als User:66.177.73.86, who has already been blocked numerous times for his disruptive editing (adding blatantly false content, OR, etc), edit warring, personal attacks/incivility, etc.[5][[6]] He knows exactly why he was reverted as he is not making useful contributions, only resuming his edit warring and disruptiveness. Changing IPs doesn't erase your block log nor your warnings. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:44, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Just because I have been blocked in the past does NOT give you the right to revert every single edit I make. Clearly you are reverting me out of spite.--98.71.195.16 (talk) 15:48, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
You are disruptive with a known history of adding false content and OR to articles, with a seeming obsession with the Lemon Angel franchise. Such editing is not helpful and undesirable and will be removed. Fnboyism, rumors, and minute trivia are appropriate on Wikia, not here. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:50, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Give me a break. There was absolutely no reason for you to revert me on articles like Majokko Megu-chan. You reverted me because you're still stuck on this petty feud.--98.71.195.16 (talk) 15:52, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
The only one calling it a "feud" is you. You were already blocked for all the mess you tried last time, and have been repeatedly been blocked for the same mess multiple times before that. I suspect the only reason you changed IPs at all was to try to pretend to be someone else, but bringing up the same stuff only made it obvious who you were. Your "edit" was to add your personal, unsourced opinion to the article[7] and was properly removed. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:54, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
The information on the articles was unsourced and was correctly removed since they were potential WP:BLP violations. Find reliable sources before attempting to add the information back to the articles. Also stop trying to recreate the Lemon Angel article via other articles. —Farix (t | c) 15:55, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
I was just about to say "I don't see any reliable, third party sources for the IP's edits." N419BH 15:57, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
I did not "change" anything. I am at someone else's house while we pack everything to move. Oh, and that information didn't even need to be sourced. If you're going to do that, you might as well just delete the whole Sennin Buraku article. Oh, and I have never once added "false content" to any articles.--98.71.195.16 (talk) 16:00, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
The sentence "that information didn't even need to be sourced" indicates a profound misunderstanding of Wikipedia's rules. One of our most important rules requires that all information be sourced. If you don't have a source, do not add the information. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:02, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
It was already sourced. I merely expanded on it.--98.71.195.16 (talk) 16:04, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
you also added pov, original research, and an inexplicable typo to some of the articles. S.G.(GH) ping! 16:05, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
The information and sources were ALREADY THERE. I will discuss this once I have access to a decent computer. Goodbye.--98.71.195.16 (talk) 16:07, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Statement from Sennin Buraku: "It is arguably the first ecchi anime, and, as such, is highly influential as an early late-night anime."
Yes, that statement very much needs to be sourced. Who argues that it is the first ecchi anime? Who argues that it isn't? Who claimed that it is "highly influential"? —Farix (t | c) 16:08, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Indeed, that's the one I was thinking of. S.G.(GH) ping! 16:22, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
The only thing that can be backed up by an existing source on the article is that it was the first late-night anime and the manga is one of the longest running serializations. Nothing more, nothing less. However, three of the five sources are not reliable and one of the remaining just gives a credit listing by the studio that produced the series. —Farix (t | c) 16:31, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

It's unfortunate that the anonymous user's computer is only good enough to make complaints, but not quite good enough to read criticism. The question is, when she returns with another new ip address, is she welcome to contribute usefully? Or do we consider her a block-evading disruptive user, and just revert and block on sight? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:20, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

1. I am not blocked. I have never evaded any blocks.
2. This computer is extremely hard to type on.--98.71.195.16 (talk) 16:24, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
You're digging yourself a hole. We require reliable sources, and several editors have stated that they are needed. Why don't you go find some sources instead of continuing to argue that you don't need them. N419BH 16:28, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Indeed, "If you are the only one advocating an issue, it is most likely that you are wrong, rather than everyone is an idiot." S.G.(GH) ping! 16:36, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Just to break this down some more:

The only source for this article, which doesn't appear to be reliable in the first place, doesn't make this claim. The only statement that the source backs up is that "Some sources state that, like Sally, Akko-chan was also inspired by Bewitched."
The bold part is what the IP added. The original statement itself isn't sourced and the only sourced information is the credits section. AnmaFinotera does have a copy of the Anime Encyclopedia, so she can be checked with to see if it established either claim.
Now this edit is interesting as the same editor originally claimed that Lemon Angel was not part of the Cream Lemon series, then it was, then it wasn't. (Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga/Archive 45#Lemon Angel) If the IP editor who was attempting to insert the information couldn't make up his or her mind, then it definitely needs a source.
The only source even hinting at a connection between to two is this article. And it states that the connection is in name only as part of a marketing ploy.

So was AnmaFinotera correct in reverting these edits? Positivity. —Farix (t | c) 17:27, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

User:Captain Occam Unblock[edit]

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

Resolved: Additional restrictions are vacated after independent uninvolved administrator review. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 07:02, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
  • On June 10, editor was blocked for a period of 2 weeks by User:2over0 for "edit warring, WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, disruptive editing, and assumptions of bad faith".
  • On June 11, 2over0 unblocked - based on an unblock request, specifically "Unblocked to allow participation at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race and intelligence and associated pages only until expiry. It looks like your participation is vital to that case, and it would be unfair to prevent you from presenting your evidence. I have unblocked you for this purpose. I will make a note of this over there". This is therefore a de facto topic ban / editing restriction from everything else but that Arb case
  • On Jun 13, Captain Occam requested an unblock - as he was not blocked, I declined and pointed him here, to WP:ANI - the same place he has been advised multiple times to come.
  • On Captain Occam's behalf, I am requesting a review of the restrictions in place, with what I see as 3 possible solutions:

Option 1 - Complete Unblock[edit]

  • Support until and unless specific evidence is brought forth to substantiate caims which seems to be lacking he4e. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 14:27, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Support. Precisely because of this ArbCom case, it is now better to let him edit all of Wikipedia and only block him in case of very disruptive editing. Any mildly bad behavior which would normally prompt some form of intervention (warning on his talk page and then a block if this behavior persists) can now best be tolerated as how he behaves when not constrained is also relevant evidence in this ArbCom case. Count Iblis (talk) 14:39, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
    I'm sorry, but that seems that argument would result in absurd results. An editor named in an ArbCom case has a "free pass" except in case of "very disruptive" behavior? I'm not saying that I necessarily support the original block. but I can't really support overturning it. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:32, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
    Ok, I see that the "free pass" bit can be bit problematic, but at least let him freely all of Wikipedia during the ArbCom case. If I were an Arbitrator, I would want to see how this editor behaves in general on Wikipedia, what his interests are outside of this particular topic. E.g. it can make a lot of difference if you show the same signs of problematic behavior on all science related articles on controversial topics or only on the intelligence/race related topics. Count Iblis (talk) 14:14, 15 June 2010 (UTC)


  • Support for the same reason as Hell in a Bucket. Admin 2/0 has failed to provide any diffs illustrating edits by Occam that he finds objectionable despite the fact that several uninvolved editors have asked that he do so. David.Kane (talk) 14:46, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Support - Based on the below, the user seems to have been obeying the terms of the unblock, seems like there is no problem. Looking at the user's edits prior to the block, he had not edited the article for 48 hours before the block. I see no justification for a preventative block. --B (talk) 15:20, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Support. My assessment of this issue would be the same regardless of my opinion about the editor. An admin should not be able to block someone and refuse to provide specific examples and diffs of the user's behavior that led to the block, especially after being asked multiple times by a variety of people. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 17:41, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Are you involved in a romantic relationship with CO? Hipocrite (talk) 18:45, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
It's really none of your business. You already asked me if I know him outside Wikipedia on my userpage, I answered honestly; anything involving personal details about how we know each other is irrelevant. It's not something that has ever been stated by us on Wikipedia or any page we've linked to, so I hope you're not trying to engage in WP:Outing here.
If you think I'm voting this way because of my personal feelings toward Occam, rather than that the block itself is unreasonable, then you need to realize this is exactly how the votes from several other editors in favor of keeping the block look to me. A lot of these people have been involved in content disputes against Occam, and as far as I can tell this is why they approve of him being blocked, even in the absence of diffs and specific evidence from the blocking admin. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 19:21, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
Information and links to the fact that someone named "Ferahgo the Assassin" is/was the girlfriend of Captain Occam have been posted by Captain Occam multiple times on wikipedia, and is still in the archives: [8]. If you don't want this information on wikipedia you might consider contacting WP:OS to have that page (and this one, and any others where it has come up) scrubbed. aprock (talk) 20:38, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
This has been explained so many times already, I’m not sure what the point is in explaining it again. But I’ll do so anyway:
The only information that I’ve ever provided about my girlfriend’s identity is that my userpage used to contain a link to a DeviantArt community that I said was “my and my girflfriend’s”. The community has over 100 members, and there’s nothing on the page that I linked to which specifically identifies my girlfriend as having this Wikipedia account. However, by searching through this community as well as well as the personal DeviantArt accounts that Ferahgo the Assassin and I have linked to, Mathsci has claimed to uncover evidence that this user is my girlfriend.
If you think I’ve ever stated this myself, post the diff. All you’ve done is link to an entire 380 KB AN/I thread, and said the equivalent of “it’s somewhere in there”. I’m quite certain that the only people who’ve ever claimed this are Mathsci, and the various people who repeated this after Mathsci said it, which doesn’t give you permission to keep repeating the same thing yourself.
And incidentally, I have contacted oversight about this, and in response they’ve told me that it’s not possible for them to remove anything from AN/I threads. The fact that Wikipedia’s rule against outing can’t be properly enforced here doesn’t mean it’s acceptable to ignore it. --Captain Occam (talk) 21:02, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
Yes, based on what you've posted to Wikipedia, it's pretty clear that someone named "Ferahgo the Assassin" is/was your girlfriend. Whether or not the wiki editor of the same name is impersonating your girlfriend is a separate issue. I've suggested this before, but if this is stuff you're not interested in having on wikipedia, it's probably best for you (and Ferahgo) to just ignore requests to verify your relationship status. If there are issues with scrubbing this from wikipedia, that's even more reason to ignore any such requests. aprock (talk) 01:17, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
“Yes, based on what you've posted to Wikipedia, it's pretty clear that someone named "Ferahgo the Assassin" is/was your girlfriend.”
And you’re just going to keep claiming this while refusing to address what I said in response to it? I just told you: if you think I’ve said this anywhere on-Wiki, post the diff. (That is, a diff from me, not from Hipocrite or Mathsci.) If you can’t, then as far as I (and probably anyone else who reads this thread) is concerned, you’re putting words in my mouth that I’ve never said. --Captain Occam (talk) 14:26, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
Let's be clear here - Captain Occam was open about his RL identity when he wrote his userpage initially. It took about ten seconds of not-even-googling to learn that Ferahgo the Assassin was his girlfriend, contrary to his constant protestations that it took some sort of gymnastics - however, to demonstrate this would be outing. Captain Occam used Ferahgo the Assassin as a meatpuppet before - and was not even a little open about it - see [9], [10], and multiple others. It is not outing to say that User:Captain Occam is dating User:Ferahgo the Assassin. It is outing if I were to say "Ferahgo the Assassin is Jane Doe" (She is not Jane Doe). It is a violation of WP:MEAT to recruit your real life girlfriend to campaign on wikipedia for you. Further, Ferahgo the Assassin recent wrote "I don't try to keep [my relationship with Captain Occam a secret and will answer honestly if asked"]. Where's the outing, exactly? If it outing if, to take a counterfactual, I was dating Beyond My Ken for someone to say "Hey, Hipocrite, aren't you dating Beyond My Ken? Isn't it meatpuppetry for him to recruit you to agree with him about topics you've never edited before?" Hipocrite (talk) 17:44, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
@Captain Occam: As Hipocrite said, posting the details would certainly constitute outing. If you restore your User page to a state where the scrubbed information is again displayed on the page, I will be happy to explain where you made it clear that "Ferahgo the Assassin" is/was your girlfriend. aprock (talk) 20:08, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
For Christ's sake. Can an admin please step in here and block these people who are trying to get an outing confirmed? The original question Ferahgo was inappropriate, both that editor and Occam have refused to confirm the allegation that's been made. Persisting on this topic is flagrant outing. Rvcx (talk) 20:22, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
It's not clear from WP:OUTING whether relationship status constitutes personal information: Personal information includes legal name, date of birth, identification numbers, home or workplace address, job title and work organisation, telephone number, email address, or other contact information. I don't think anyone has ever published that sort of personal information, only that the two are/were in a romantic relationship. However, that is a personal issue, and in general it's not something I'm really interested in. In this case, my only interest is in correcting the claims by Captain Occam and Ferahgo that this information was not provided on wikipedia. Had they ignored it, or not responded with misrepresentations, there would be little to discuss. At the admin level, this is somewhat of a complex issue. It's not clear how this relates to WP:MEAT, or WP:OUTING, especially since this information was provided by Captain Occam through his user page and discussions elsewhere on wikipedia. Updating the policy pages to directly address this sort of personal information would help here. aprock (talk) 20:58, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
I think that pointing out two users' admission that they have a relationship does not constitute outing; hence no action from me. However, anyone posting speculation as to real-world identities or identifying information here will certainly and clearly fall foul of our policy - and shortly thereafter of some admin's tools. Perhaps not mine. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 21:04, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
SheffieldSteel, I don’t think you’re understanding the point here. This information has not been provided by me or Ferahgo the Assassin at Wikipedia, nor has it been provided at any page that either of us has linked to. I’ve asked Aprock and Hipocrite several times to support their claim that either of us said this by providing a diff, and both of them have declined to do so while giving a nonsensical reason why not. (If they think it would be outing for them to point to what I’ve said on-Wiki that they think proves this user is my girlfriend, how can it not be outing for them to keep repeating the personal conclusion they’ve drawn about me from this?) The link that Hipocrite posted that he claims supports his assertion about us is only Ferahgo the Assassin admitting she knows me outside Wikipedia; it says nothing about the personal details of how we know each other.
I’m quite certain that the reason neither of them can provide a diff in which either of us have said this is because no such diff exists. Is their unsupported claim that I’ve stated this on-Wiki is sufficient for admins to overlook their attempts to confirm non-public personal information about us? And if so, does this policy apply in other situations where someone claims this? If the only thing that’s necessary to get away with posting non-public personal information about another user is to claim that the user has divulged it themselves, and then refuse to provide a diff of where the user said this, it will be possible to get away with absolutely any instance of outing by making this claim and then refusing to support it. --Captain Occam (talk) 21:49, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
The diffs from your User page were scrubbed because you were concerned about outing issues. There are diffs elsewhere, but since they would out you, providing them seems contrary to your desires. If you restore the scrubbed version of your User page, I'll provide the diffs. Alternatively, if you definitively state that you would like me to out you, I'll provide the diffs. aprock (talk) 22:54, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
Umm, you’re still not being consistent here. If you agree that it would be outing for you to link to diffs in which other users were talking about the content that was removed from my userpage, why is it not outing for you to talk about the personal conclusions about me that you’ve drawn from this content?
You don’t have to answer this. I expect that an admin will probably be closing this thread soon, so hopefully when they do, they’ll also make a decision about whether what you and Hipocrite have been doing here is acceptable. --Captain Occam (talk) 23:14, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
I referred explicitly to the WP:OUTING guidelines, asked for guidance and got guidance. If you want me to provide diffs, which would expose personal information as described in WP:OUTING, I will only do it with explicit permission from you. Alternatively, you could drop the whole thing, as I've suggested several times now. aprock (talk) 23:32, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Support. There was no reason given for a block in the first place. The argument to continue it is that people didn't like the manner of the complaint about this? Stop the madness. The only thing being achieved here is the exposure of some serious favoritism, which warrants investigation. mikemikev (talk) 18:43, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Support. Per Mikemikev and others above. Providing no diffs and then accusing an editor of "not hearing it" serves no useful purpose. I am involved (as of recently) at the R&I article and had seen no recent behavior which would precipitate a block--and is that not what a block is supposed to be about? PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВАTALK 20:42, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Note to closing admin - The !votes in this section come almost entirely from those supporting Captain Occam's position in the referenced ArbCom case, and they constitute a good example of the complaints filed by Mathsci of predictable en bloc behavior and tag team editing from these folks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:50, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
By "almost entirely" you mean David.Kane and mikemikev, right? Because only 2 of the 7 "support" votes here so far are involved in the ArbCom case. In what universe is 2 out of 7 a majority?
Even if what you're saying was correct, how is it any different from the votes against the unblock? Muntuwandi and Arthur Rubin are both opposing Occam in the ArbCom case, and you’ve brought up your content disputes with him in several past AN/I threads even though you’re not involved in the arbitration. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 21:16, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
No, I mean pretty much everyone in this section except Count Iblis. I didn't say they were involved in the ArbCom case, I said they supported Captain Occam's position in the ArbCom case, a claim that is easily evidenced by their editing and commentary throughout the many noticeboards and talk page discussions on Race & Intelligence. The closing admin should be aware that these !votes are here for reasons other than neutral evaluation of the circumstances, but instead are probably motivated by personal connections and ideologically-based sympathy. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:59, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
I don’t even know who B and Hell in a Bucket are. The past day is the first time I’ve ever interacted with them. I also had never interacted with Vecrumba before around a week ago, and I have no idea what his viewpoint is about this topic; he’s stated a few times that he has no idea what mine is either.
This is a rather lame attempt to try and disrupt the consensus which seems to be forming, coming from one of the group of people who appear (based on their comments in past AN/I threads and on the R & I talk page) to have long-term grievances against me, which make up more than half of the votes in favgr of keeping thm ban. --Captain Occam (talk) 22:13, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
I have to agree with Occam. Beyond my Ken should be commenting on the opinioins given not the id of the people giving it. WOuld this somehow be more valid if he brought this up? Just saying.....Hell In A Bucket (talk) 22:27, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, block !voting -- the core subject of the ArbCom case under consideration -- is akin to meatpuppetry, and does not legitimately establish a consensus. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:17, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
I'm sorry, "The !votes in this section come almost entirely from those supporting Captain Occam's position in the referenced ArbCom case, and they constitute a good example of the complaints filed by Mathsci of predictable en bloc behavior and tag team editing from these folks."? It's quite simple, an editor was blocked with a pile of accusations and not a single diff. I don't even know if I support Occam's editorial position or not at the article, but let's pile on the bad faith crap. Oh, and "anyone who disagrees with someone else who disagrees with me/someone I'm against is a meatpuppet." Really, this "note to closing admin" is not helpful whatsoever. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВАTALK 17:25, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Support complete unblock, unless or until there is some explanation for the original block. This block seems to go against the basic notion that blocks are practical and not punitive. Further, it really looks like this was an admin making a statement about the parties to the ArbCom case (which concerns, among other things, whether "editors in good standing" deserve special treatment); there is at least as much cause for blocking User:Mathsci. Whether the appearance of favoritism is accurate or not, the block severely undermines faith in admin neutrality. Rvcx (talk) 22:45, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
No administrator has so far shared your views, even though you have posted them now in many forums. I believe I'm in good standing with 8,200 content edits and about 40 articles created. Because I've participated in various ArbCom cases, I'm also known to various members of ArbCom. Most administrators can distinguish between an WP:SPA and an editor who adds quite a lot of content in a wide range of areas. As far as WP:CPUSH is concerned, here is a classic case. What you have written above verges on a personal attack and I would ask you please to refactor your comments. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 23:23, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
Your content-free claims to special privilege on the basis of number of edits (which, I should point out, would be reduced by a factor of five if you'd ever learn to use the "Preview" button and stop littering Wikipedia's live pages with typos) have no relevance to the matter at hand. Thanks, Rvcx (talk) 23:29, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
I don't claim any special privilege. You on the other hand have just tag-team edited with two WP:SPA editors that have recently been blocked. I wonder whether your advanced skills with the preview button would help you write The Four Seasons (Poussin), Handel concerti grossi Op.6, Differential geometry of surfaces or Europe#History. You seem to have a lot of advice to offer, but very few content edits. Mathsci (talk) 04:06, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Support complete unblock unless the original block has any evidence to it. Blocks are not punitive, but preventive, so if the blocks don't prevent anything, the block is not valid. The restrictions put in place seem pretty harsh—only edit the ArbCom pages? Until he disrupts Wikipedia or evidence for the original block is provided, a completely unblock should be put in place. MC10 (TCGBL) 23:25, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Support complete unblock until admin who issued the block deigns to give his reasons. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:51, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Note to closing admin - Two of the three editors who have !voted since my comment above are also members of the block in question. I make it that there are only two three !votes in this section from non-aligned editors. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:24, 15 June 2010 (UTC) (miscounted) Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:29, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
Note to Ken There is nothing wrong with their opinions and to exempt them solely because they agree with Occam at ARBCOMis beyond ridiculous. You don't have to have completely unbiased people to make a consensus, unless there is a policy saying those who agree with you are exempted from doing it. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 04:23, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
Unfortunately, you are incorrect. !Voting in a block distorts any actual community consensus that may be forming, by misrepresenting the balance of the discussion. Admins are not supposed to count noses in determining consensus, they're supposed to take into account numerous factors, such as the quality of the arguments, and among the many things they should consider is block voting, such as has occured here. An uninvolved admin may not be aware of the en bloc behavior of the hereditarian faction involved in the Race & Intelligence dispute, so I think it is helpful to point it out. Absent the !votes of that block, there is no clear consensus in this discussion at all, which will, presumably, leave the status quo in place. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:23, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
So you'll have no problems pointing this out with a official policy disqualifying them from arguing on this persons behalf? Hell In A Bucket (talk) 14:15, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
So, @Beyond My Ken, is it the case that a "block" one disapproves of evil and a block one agrees with is consensus? It's a small step from conspiracy theory to witch hunt. Let's not go there. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВАTALK 17:30, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
@Hell: I never said or implied that they were disqualified from arguing on behalf of Captain Occam, what I said was that the closing admin should take into account that they are part of a !voting block and act accordingly. That is why I slugged my comments for the attention of the closing admin. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:33, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
@Vecrumba: The evidence of block behavior on the part of the heredetarian faction is very strong, and has been presented by numerous editors here and at the ArbCom case. No similar array of evidence has been presented for other block behavior, but if it exists, I expect that someone will present it to ArbCom. There's no witch hunt here, no wild conspiracy theory - anyone who's followed this issue over the last few months can see the clear behavioral evidence of block behavior. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:40, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
So there isn't a problem with not shouting from every section you didn't agree with that those people are involved, if what you say is correct the admin will be able to sort this out without you throwing the seeds of dissension and decide on the arguments merits without the color commentary. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 17:47, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Option 2 - Reblock for remainder of original block[edit]

  • Support. (1) It prevents further spilling out onto pages covered by the topic ban, and (2) It gives Captain Occam what they want - an opportunity to request an unblock, and contest the original block. TFOWR 14:40, 14 June 2010 (UTC) Part struck, re-signing. TFOWR 15:52, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Except that it should get reset to a new two weeks. When you evade a block, it starts over. --B (talk) 14:44, 14 June 2010 (UTC) User had permission for edit, does not seem to have violated terms of block. --B (talk) 15:20, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Support This not the first time Captain Occam has edit warred over race and intelligence articles. He has been doing so since October 2009. This 3RR noticeboard archive report shows Captain Occam made 10 reverts to the race and intelligence article within 24 hours and continued edit warring 3 days after his block expired (diff to report). Occam is fully knowledgeable about edit warring and the consequences but was edit warring on Talk:Race and intelligence/FAQ according to the article'srevision history. Furthermore the administrator Georgewilliamherbert placed race and intelligence articles on a 1RR [[11]], which Captain Occam was fully aware of, even citing it in this diff .[12]. I see no reasonable excuse for edit warring. Unblocking him would set a very bad precedent and would be a punch in the gut to those editors who while being bold, have avoided edit warring. Wapondaponda (talk) 17:20, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Support - The complexities of this situation are entirely the result of the attempt by the blocking admin to show latitutde to Captain Occam so that he could participate in the ArbCom case on Race and Intelligence. Instead, Captain Occam chose to post on Jimbo's talk page, in contravention of his unblock conditions, and has refused multiple suggestions that he take his appeal here. In addition, only in the last day has he taken advantage of the purpose of his unblock and posted to the ArbCom case. The easiest way to reduce the uncertainties of this situation is to restore the physical block and have Captain Occam's participation in the ArbCom case continue by proxy. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:25, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
  • In reading this over, I realized that my comment may be taken as criticism of the blocking admin, but that was not my intention. I think 2over0's actions were an admirable attempt to be very fair to Captain Occam. It's not his fault that CO has taken advantage of it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:19, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Support Participating in an arbcom case that isn't about you isn't a right. He should never have been unblocked to participate in it.--Crossmr (talk) 22:33, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Option 3 - Remain unblocked, with original editing restrictions intact for the duration of the original block[edit]

  • Support 3 Although the WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT has continued on Jimbo's talk page, requiring Bwilkins to bring this here against Occam's wishes, I support the restriction until the expiration of the original block. Would change to 2 if problems persist, and editor could post AC comments on his own talk (as has been done before). CO has been extended a lot of good faith here. Verbal chat 14:29, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Support per verbal. -- /DeltaQuad|Notify Me\ 14:43, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Confirm community ban for remaining duration of original block length (pending explanation of original block - I might disagree at that point).--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:51, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Support Per Verbal; I agree that allowing him to appeal to the God-King is a extension of the original relaxation of the block. I don't yet agree with option 2, but I could be convinced. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:05, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Support Just reading this made me dizzy. You keep asking the same thing over and over and kept getting the same types of responses but you would reject what information you were receiving. I don't think that there is any single dif to show the behavior. I think it's the overall way you react to things. You really WP:IDHT. I think the block should stay and if this behavior of ignoring what other's say is repeated then I would say to make the block again without assuming good faith that you will stop the disruptive behavior. Sorry, --CrohnieGalTalk 17:31, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment: Although I am recused from this particular case, I can state that it is a common practice to unblock an editor with restriction to participate in an Arbcom case in which the editor has a notable interest; such appears to be the case here. Since his unblock is specific to his participation in the Arbcom case, his focus should be solely on providing evidence and commenting on the workshop page of the case. Risker (talk) 06:32, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

CO Unblock Discussion[edit]

Discussion and !votes above would be appreciated. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 14:13, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I do not want to discuss this here. And it’s not because I’m afraid of being blocked again; it’s because every recent thread here that’s involved me or the race and intelligence articles (which the subject of the ArbCom case for which I was unblocked) has turned into a mudslinging match about the content disputes over these articles. Several other (uninvolved) editors who’ve commented on the thread in Jimbo Wales’ user talk understand this also. If this thread is allowed to continue, it will likely turn into nothing but a colossal waste of everyone’s time, just like every other recent thread here on this topic.
Is it permissible for an admin to force me to appeal my block here when I specifically have a desire against that? If I’m being disallowed from continuing to discuss it in Jimbo Wales’ user talk, I can bring it up at the Arbitration Committee Clerks’ Noticeboard, per EdChem’s suggestion. --Captain Occam (talk) 14:34, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
Incidentally, another question: if this thread degenerates the way I’m predicting, am I going to be accused of forum shopping if I attempt to appeal my ban in the ArbCom case? If so, I want this thread closed right away. An administrator does have the right to essentially take away an editor’s right of appeal, by using it against the editor’s will in a channel that the editor has specifically stated that he does not want to pursue. --Captain Occam (talk) 14:43, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
If you wish to appeal your block, you can email the blocking admin or use the {{unblock}} template. Your block was removed soley for the purpose of participating in the arbitration. Editing here and Jimbo's talk page are is not permitted. --B (talk) 14:44, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
B, he was already denied on unblock based on the grounds that he wasn't blocked, and told that he would not be blocked for participating here. Catch up, please. :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:48, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
Fixed --B (talk) 14:52, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
If CO continues down this path, I'd change my support to option 2. As B says, he can then request an unblock. However, I would expect his refusal to participate here (not that his participation s required) would look bad to any admin. Verbal chat 14:53, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
B, the blocking admin also has specifically given me permission to request information about how to appeal my block in Jimbo Wales’ user talk.
He gave that permission retroactively, after you had already violated the terms of your unblock by posting on Jimbo's page. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:19, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
If people are going to be voting here without being familiar with the details of this situation, I recommend that everyone also read the discussion about my block in 2over0’s user talk. (2over0 is the admin who blocked me.) Since he did not provide any specific examples of what my block was based on, four different users have asked him to please explain in detail the justification for my block, but he’s failed to respond to any of them. As explained in ImperfectlyInformed’s comment there, a single admin also does not have permission to enact editing restrictions without any community discussion; to do so would be an example of discretionary sanctions, which is a failed proposal. --Captain Occam (talk) 14:57, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
Actually, editing Jimbo's talk page was a relaxation of your restrictions, showing exemplary good faith by 2/0 as you had already broken the restriction by posting there. Verbal chat 14:59, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Verbal if this case was as clear cut as you claim, Occam would still be blocked and there would be a flood of diffs to prove this was a prudent course of action. I for one would like to see the diffs proving the allegations. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 15:01, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I haven't said it was clear cut. He's been given a lot of leeway, and decided to continue his WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Verbal chat 15:04, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
You're repeating yourself without proving anything. Can you please show us why these are needed? Hell In A Bucket (talk) 15:28, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
(ecX4) Indeed, I don't feel that we require CO's additional participation here if he does not wish to: this discussion and !votes can be made based on the contributions that are visible to everyone. In effect, it's a group response to an unblock request, only it will remove any and all doubt. Indeed, he was told that he would not be blocked for filing this, nor for commenting here. I was tired of seeing the lack of direct action, and am otherwise uninvolved in the entire situation (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:09, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
If the community isn’t able to come to a consensus either way (which is what I’m predicting will happen, and that’s another reason I suspected that discussing this here wouldn’t be productive) what will that means in terms of my editing restrictions? Since there was never any community consensus for these restrictions in the first place, it seems like this would just leave open the question of whether the restrictions are valid. (That is, whether 2over0 had the authority to implement discretionary sanctions on an article where Arbcom hasn’t authorized them, and whether it was acceptable for him to do so without providing any diffs of objectionable behavior from me, even when he was asked for them.) --Captain Occam (talk) 15:33, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
Conditional unblocks are extremely common - yours was a conditional unblock. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:52, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

You will ultimately lose that appeal The only person other then 2/0 to remove it would probably have to be Arbcom if no consensus can be made here. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 15:40, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I need to apologize to Captain Occam. I was looking at this strictly as a question of whether or not the editing restrictions were obeyed, rather than as to whether or not the underlying block was appropriate. He hadn't edited the article for two days before the block. Blocks are preventative, not punitive and once I looked at the actual edits, I don't see a reason for the block at all. The editing restrictions should be removed. --B (talk) 15:29, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
Note Just in case no one looked, 2over0 has not been here since 6/11.--CrohnieGalTalk 16:34, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
He was still online and editing other Wikipedia pages while people were asking him for an explanation of why he blocked me, though, as well as for a few hours afterwards. The fact that he went offline shortly after this doesn’t explain why he never responded to anyone’s questions about this in his user talk. --Captain Occam (talk) 17:13, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Review of BWilkins unblock decline[edit]

(out) Incidentally, I believe BWilkins' description of Captain Occam's circumstance as "a de facto topic ban" is quite wide of the mark. In fact, what Captain Occam is under is nothing more or less than a de facto block. If the software had the capability of blocking someone from everywhere but specific places, that option would have been used, and CO would only have been physically able to post on his talk page, at the ArbCom case, on Jimbo's page and here (Jimbo's at CO's request and AN/I as the proper place to appeal his block). That physical capability is not available, so 2/0 allowed a conditional unblock for those areas only. In point of fact, Captain Occam is virtually blocked from every place on Wikipedia except those 4 places, which is not at all like a topic ban, where one is allowed to edit anywhere on Wikipedia except the place where the ban is in place. The two situations are mirror opposites, not equivalents, so describing CO's situation in that way is entirely incorrect. For this reason, Fqb's suggestion that CO use an unblock request was perfectly apt, and BWilkin's declining to countenance it on procedural grounds was not only very un-Wiki-like, but incorrect as well. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:34, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that public undressing, but "Blocking is the method by which administrators may technically prevent users from editing Wikipedia." If CO was currently unable to edit due to technical means, then he would be blocked. He is technically able to edit. Period. If you want to discuss that in a better forum, let's do so - but don't detract from the point that someone finally tried to provide resolution to a situation. There was enough disruption and badgering taking place on Jimbo's page, that nobody else needed to continue it here. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:24, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
Let's please be clear -- I think your decision to bring this here was a good one -- Captain Occam had "beat around the bush" (so to speak) for quite a while, and it's good that you forced the issue to a decision by bringing it here. But that doesn't change the fact that you should have dealt with his unblock request as an unblock request on his talk page, since he was (and is) de facto blocked. Your decision was a bad one, and (like all admin decisions) is subject to scrutiny from the editing community. Your apparent conviction that he was topic banned is demonstrably incorrect and unsupported by the evidence, and you should have expected it to be second-guessed when you brought the whole megillah here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:39, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm happy to have my own actions reviewed, so I have made this into a separate sub-section, so that it does not detract from the issue at hand. I have clearly stated why I declined the unblock on the user's talkpage, Jimbo's page, and elsewhere. I stick by the decision that it was not an unblock request that was required to appeak a conditional unblock because he was not technically blocked as per WP:BLOCK - if anything, it was closer to WP:BAN as it was a socially-imposed condition. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:35, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

  • A few things need to be clarified here. A conditional unblock is the equivalent of a de facto restriction because it is a socially imposed condition rather than a technical means of preventing someone from editing. Conditional unblocks can be listed at WP:RESTRICT under "final warnings", though this is not a requirement like with formal community imposed editing restrictions. This is because a conditional unblock is not effected with a community consensus; therefore, an administrator may lift the condition because it does not require a community consensus to be lifted. However, should a reviewing administrator prefer to send the appeal to the community or have his/her action reviewed by the community for any reason, that administrator is entitled to do so. Theoretically, it could also be appealed to ArbCom or Jimbo, but practically, they would expect (or be expected to assert) that the community is to consider such an appeal first because they are a "last resort". In this case, 2/0 (the administrator who imposed the condition) requested that the restriction be considered by the community (at ANI) should the sanctioned user desire to appeal - should another administrator have refused to comply with this request and lifted the ban anyway, it would be predictable that 2/0 or someone else would have brought it here. In this particular instance, Bwilkins actions are therefore sound, and both Fqb and Beyond My Ken were/are off the mark. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:39, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Concur. I'll also note (as BWilkins did) that Beyond my Ken did not attempt to address this issue with BWilkins at his talkpage before bringing it here. Syrthiss (talk) 14:51, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
Ah - he brought the issue here, I responded here. There's no need for back door discussions when the front door is open. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:49, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
Note: I'm the one who added the heading, as even though B my Ken felt it "incidental", there was a clear and strong questioning of my action, and I'm open to such critique (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:31, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
Regarding the main point of my critique, it seems to me that refusing to deal with an unblock request because, in the admin's opinion, a conditional unblock is more like a ban than a block, is process for the sake of process. The block was imposed by a single admin, and was made conditional by a single admin, and the usual and normal block procedure is for a single admin to review it when an unblock request was made. The community need not get involved unless the admin requests a review of the block, which normally happens here. The only practical difference BWilkins' choice made was to muddy up the situation unnecessarily; however, as I stated above, I do applaud his fringing the issue here (where it would have gona in the normal course of events%, despite the sqbject's fear of having his case reviewed by the community at large. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:30, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
I don't know if Beyond my Ken is drama mongering or acting in good faith. IMO he seems to be trying to discredit anyone with a opinion that differes from his own. In this BWilkins did do the correct thing by directing the editor to here. Granted it could've been handled anywhere but a topic ban should always be decided by the community. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 15:52, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
Jeez Louise, if I'm "drama mongering" I'm doing a damn bad job of it. No, this really is good faith concern on my part, in this case about unnecessary process, a concern I've raised in the past in completely different circumstances as well. I have no desire to rake BWilkins over the coals, nor do I have any opinion about his administrative actions in general, I simply think his take on the situation was wrong and his actions made things unnecessarily complicated. Obviously, others disagree with me, but that's what makes horse racing, politics and Wiki-discussions. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:45, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
Beyond my Ken is one of the main reasons why I wanted this issue to be resolved somewhere other than AN/I. There are a few editors who show up in nearly all of the AN/I threads related to these articles and generally turn them into mudslinging matches, and Beyond my Ken has been one of the worst examples of this.
I was also worried that his doing this would prevent the thread from reaching a consensus, regardless of whether or not my ban is justified, but it looks like the opposition to my ban is strong enough that this might be happening anyway. --Captain Occam (talk) 17:02, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
He's made his point, and whichever admin counts the !votes and determines consensus will take it into advisement, I'm sure. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:50, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
Will that be happening soon? This thread seems to have served its purpose: there are four votes to completely re-block, five votes to keep the current restrictions in place, and ten votes to completely unblock. At this point, the only remaining discussion seems to be Beyond My Ken and Hipocrite attempting to drag out the issue and muddy the water, and I don’t think allowing the thread to continue down this path will accomplish anything.
If an admin doesn’t close this thread soon, I think it would be best if everyone stopped replying to both of them. By continuing to reply, we’re only contributing to this thread being diverted from its original topic, and making it more difficult for an uninvolved admin to make a decision about it. --Captain Occam (talk) 18:47, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
A marvelous example of the passive/aggressive behavior BWilkins pointed out on your talk page, Captain Occam -- reiterating the bogus !vote count from above as if the objection about block !voting had never been raised, at the same time getting in a dig at those raising the issue -- all while moaning about how badly you've been treated, when, in fact, you've been on the receiving end of an extraordinary amount of special treatment -- justifiable special treatment, but special nonetheless. I'm only sorry that the middle option (return to straightforward block) didn't receive more support, so that you could see the difference between what it means to be blocked, and what has happened to you. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:27, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
I find it pretty ironic that I’m the person who’s been accused of Wikipedia:IDIDNTHEARTHAT here. I know, I know I said that I wouldn’t reply anymore… --Captain Occam (talk) 20:18, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, I guess I'm pretty dense. I don't see any "irony" and I don't know what it is you think I'm not hearing. I hear perfectly well that my point's been made, and there'd be no need for me to restate it if you hadn't barged right it and acted like it never existed. I'd be quite happy to let it lie, if you would agree to as well.

Pax? Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:49, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

My point was that nobody commenting here other than you thinks that the “alignment” of the users voting makes any difference in this thread. Even some of the “non-aligned” users apparently think this idea is ridiculous, but you don’t seem willing to accept what they have to say about it either.
I don’t expect you to be willing to change your mind about whether this makes a difference or not, but if you’re willing to acknowledge how many other users disagree with you about it (both “aligned” and “non-aligned”), I guess I’m willing to let this drop. --Captain Occam (talk) 22:12, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
I'm afraid I can't concur with your analysis of the situation, which overstates things in a way that's quite inaccurate, but I have no desire to delve further into your misapprehension, as it's essentially a side issue. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:16, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

───────────────────────── According to Occam " there are four votes to completely re-block, five votes to keep the current restrictions in place, and ten votes to completely unblock". The way I see it, options 2 and 3 are similar in that they both advocate for an editing restriction of some sort, with option 2 advocating a stronger restriction than option 3. They are not entirely separate, so it would seem that the number of editors favoring a restriction roughly equals those who don't, especially when we discount the COI of meatpuppets. Wapondaponda (talk) 03:28, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I regret my experience with the use of "meatpuppets" is that it is a code word used to discount the "side" one disagrees with. Let's just deal with the issue of a block with no supporting documentation provided with the block. That is a question of procedure, not a popularity contest. If you have specific accusations, then please make them in the appropriate forum, not here. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВАTALK 03:51, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Wikilawyering[edit]

I think there is way too much wikilawyering taking place. We need to step back and look at the bigger picture rather than debating whether this is a block or a topic ban. Let us imagine there was no arbcom case, Occam would have been blocked and would have had to go through the normal appeals process. This is what all the blocked users on the edit warring noticeboard have to go through. By coincidence, Occam is involved in an Arbcom case, and because there is a deadline for submitting evidence, it is only fair that Occam participates. It is for this reason only that Occam was conditionally unblocked, and nothing else. Most blocked editors listed at the edit warring noticeboard are not involved in an Arbcom case, and therefore do not even get conditional unblocks. They do not get a chance to post on Jimbo Wales' talk page or to post an unblock appeal on ANI either. I therefore believe that Occam has been given a lot of preferential treatment, that most blocked users don't get because he is coincidentally involved in an Arbcom case. The main problem here is inconsistencies in the application of the blocking policy. Wapondaponda (talk) 17:45, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree. However the one thing that is really really lacking and killing this case is the refusal for the blocking admin to participate here. I would be open to reviewing the evidence for this block if the admin would discuss. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 18:05, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
Muntuwandi, if I could’ve just used the unblock template and gotten an admin to review my block in the normal fashion, I would’ve preferred that. I suspect that most uninvolved admins would have overturned a block that was implemented without any specific explanation of what it was based on. But because of my conditional unblock, the unblock template was removed on a technicality, and now I’m having to go through this protracted AN/I argument that (as I stated above) I would have much rather avoided. What you regard as “preferential treatment” for me, I regard as nothing but a massive inconvenience required of me in order to achieve the same result (appealing my block) that I could have achieved much more easily otherwise. --Captain Occam (talk) 18:24, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Wish I was a wikilawyer. I could charge 300 wikidollars a wikihour, and show my wikiskills in the wikicourtroom. It'd be wikisweet... HalfShadow 18:26, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Review and decision[edit]

This is an unusual situation - we rarely impose the type of edit restriction that limits someone to Arbcom case responses only, though it's been done a number of time. The admin who imposed it also has become idle for 5 days. Community "votes" also aren't exactly a standard way of resolving issues with blocks.
Logically - the edit restrictions were a modification to the original block. The place to start in determining what to do going forwards is reviewing the specifics of the original block.
In the days leading up to the block, Captain Occam focused editing on the Arbcom case and on the talk page of the Race and intelligence article. Having reviewed all the threads there, in the days leading up to the block, Occam edited in a manner which was somewhat milder than the prior months, was discussing largely in good faith, and was not doing anything out of the ordinary for the situation currently under arbitration. There were extensive fruitful multiparty discussions going on on the talk page.
The underlying content and behavioral issues at play in the Arbcom case can be seen in the ongoing activity, and perhaps it would be best for all parties if we simply lock the article from editing for the remainder of the case, but the editing slowed down significantly over the last few days (since I full-protected for 1 day on June 8th). It was certainly not worse than prior times.
I believe that the block was done in good faith. However, I believe that in retrospect, nothing was going on at the time of the block that was out of the ordinary or beyond that already subject to normal Arbcom review and needing admin intervention. Admins should not be afraid to enforce policy normally against Arbcom case participants, but we also shouldn't focus overly critically on them. Arbcom will make any out-of-the-ordinary decisions required.
Had there still been an active block I'd overturn it at this point. Given the edit restriction was a replacement for that, I believe that it should just be vacated at this time.
This is not an invitation to resume any disruptive behaviors. However, reasonable normal behavior with due respect for the Arbcom case underway is not a problem for the encyclopedia or community.
As an uninvolved admin, having reviewed, I am doing so. The additional restrictions in place on Captain Occam are vacated. I am going to copy this section to WP:ANI, the Arbcom case workshop, User talk:Captain Occam, and User talk:2over0.
Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 06:54, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

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

Comment on Georgewilliamherbert's review[edit]

(copied from ArbCom workshop) Georgewilliamherbert's review of Captain Occam's behaviour on Talk:Race and intelligence and Race and intelligence prior to the block does not seem to be accurate. He seems to have failed to notice that Captain Occam was reinserting material rejected by consensus for the third or fourth time. This behaviour of Captain Occam is typical. Here is another example of WP:CPUSH [13]. Georgewilliamherbert is making value judgements about content and failing to notice long term behaviour, which is precisely the problem with WP:CPUSH. Mathsci (talk) 07:24, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Occam didn't edit the article between my full protection of the 8th for 24 hrs ending and the block. He had made 2 relatively minor edits (in comparison) earlier on the 8th, and a long series on the 6th which were immediately reverted by someone else without fuss.
Occam's edits on the talk page for the days leading up to the 10th were, as I said, in the context of friendly and productive multiparty discussions on the talk page and were not disruptive.
We are arbitrating whether there's a problematic long term pattern. The arbcom case is the place to plead that case. We are not supposed to use admin discretion to presume the outcome of the arbcom case while it's in play. If Occam had done something serious during the case that's one thing. What he did leading up to the block was clearly not serious and urgent requiring admin attention despite the Arbcom case, and doesn't justify the block.
Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 07:36, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
At this point this is at Arbcom. They will catch shit either way they decide but maybe it's best left there to be decided because [[WP:CPUSH}]] is advice and not official policy. I'm actually somewhat surprised by this action as well but at this point I think there is a lot of eyes on the situation now. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 07:33, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Georgewilliamherbert had placed race and intelligence issues on a 1RR restriction, Captain Occam violated the 1RR restriction by edit warring here. Captain Occam was blocked for edit warring, which was later amended to a conditional block and has now GWH has vacated these restrictions. My question for Georgewilliamherbert is what is the point of making rules if they are not going to be enforced when editors violate them. I think it is only fair that when rules are made, they are enforced because some of us take these rules quite seriously and we get demotivated when we abide by them, and others get a free pass for violating them. I am sure everyone knows the feeling you get when this occurs. Wapondaponda (talk) 08:43, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
A number of parties violated the original 1RR. That calmed down and had not acted up again when the block occurred. Again - Occam hadn't edited the article between the protection and his block. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 18:29, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Making a single-handed decision when a community discussion (based on precedence) is ongoing? Just, wow. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:53, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
  • The ruling of Georgewilliamherbert is justified on the basis that the blocking admin did not provide reasons for the block. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:50, 16 June 2010 (UTC).

E-mail from 2/0[edit]

Just as a matter of record, I had contacted 2/0 by e-mail while the community discussion was ongoing, and received this response today:

Thank you for letting me know. If it is still a going concern, would you please mention that I am moving and am suffering unexpected delays in setting up my internet access? Clearly, I endorse whatever conclusion the community reaches, though I do express some hope that people who comment do due diligence by reading the relevant contributions first. Thank you for your help in this matter.

Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:06, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

1RR violation by Captain Occam[edit]

Fresh from his unblock Captain Occam has just violated the 1RR restriction on Talk:Race and intelligence/FAQ [14], [15]. Wapondaponda (talk) 10:04, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Both editors warned. I suggest actually linking to this restriction somewhere findable by other-than-psychic means.... --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:25, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
The link is already in some of the above threads. But here it is again [16]. Occam had previously edit warred on the FAQ page, which was why he got blocked. He later argued that 1RR only applies to article space rather than talk pages stating here, "Georgewilliamherbert’s 1-revert restriction applies only to article space rather than to extensions of the talk page". However he was advised here that the 1RR applies to any page. So this is the second time Occam is edit warring on the FAQ and he was fully aware that the 1RR applies to it. Wapondaponda (talk) 15:50, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I was the other editor involved in the 1RR fiasco. I was fully aware of the 1RR restriction, and I should have been more careful in editing. There really is no excuse for my violating 1RR. I will be taking a 48+ hour wiki-break at this point to cool off. aprock (talk) 16:16, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

SarekofVulcan, your comment in my user talk is the first time that any admin has said told me the 1-revert restriction applies to the FAQ. Since 2over0 still hasn’t provided a specific explanation for why he blocked me, there isn’t any way for me to know whether or not this was one of the reasons for it. It also does not carry much weight for me to be “warned” about this by Muntuwandi, who is an ordinary actively engaged in a content dispute against me, and who obviously objects to my edits for that reason. Now that you’ve pointed this out to me yourself, though, I’ll be careful to avoid violating 1RR on the FAQ as well as the article. --Captain Occam (talk) 20:31, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
That fact the 1RR applies to the FAQ is mentioned in my response to Captain Occam found at this link Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race_and_intelligence/Evidence#Responses. This is what is written
Occam states "Georgewilliamherbert’s 1-revert restriction applies only to article space rather than to extensions of the talk page".However, Georgewilliamherbert wrote "Anyone not already under a 1RR restriction in Race and Intelligence issues should consider yourself under one now [17]". "Issues" is plural. There is no distinction between article space and any other space .
Wikipedia:3RR#The_three-revert_rule states with regard to what pages edit warring applies to "A `page` means any page on Wikipedia, including talk and project space."
This statement was made 4 days ago, so Captain Occam was notified well in advance, yet still proceeded edit warring on the FAQ. Once again this is typical Captain Occam, selectively interpreting rules. Wapondaponda (talk) 20:50, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
For Captain Occam's benefit, warnings by non-admins are to be attended to, even if the warning is from someone you have had negative interactions with in the past. If you have questions about the validity of any warning, the thing to do is to seek out opinions from experienced uninvolved editors, preferably an admin, rather than to ignore it.

Since I probably fall into the same categeory for CO as Wapondaponda does, it might be helpful for someone else to confirm this for him. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:01, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Muntuwandi: did you read my entire comment? Let me say it again: “It also does not carry much weight for me to be “warned” about this by Muntuwandi, who is an ordinary actively engaged in a content dispute against me, and who obviously objects to my edits for that reason.”
It happens fairly often that I receive a “warning” to stop editing the article in a particular way from someone who has made it very clear that they object to my edit in terms of content, and who is not providing this “warning” to any of the editors on the other side of the dispute who are engaging the exact same potential rule violation at the same time. It also happens fairly often that I receive a “warning” to stop engaging in a particular behavior from someone who is themselves engaging in the exact same behavior that I am, or even more of it. Often times, the “warning” is the other editor’s substitute for discussing the content dispute on the article talk page, even when I’m making an effort to discuss it with them there, and they’re ignoring my attempt at discussion. When the “warning” is this obviously an attempt to gain the upper hand in a content dispute by introducing some additional politics to it, can I really be expected to take it seriously? --Captain Occam (talk) 21:14, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Considering the block-unblock you just went through, I would expect you to take every X-RR violation warning seriously. The fact that you don't and would rather edit-war (even if waiting for the opposing editor to make his case) I think speaks for itself. At this point, I'd be inclined to recommend that your editing restrictions (except for participating in the ArbCom case) be reinstated. You obviously haven't understood what a warning not to edit war means. There's no "ifs" no "buts", just don't edit-war.--Ramdrake (talk) 21:29, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Captain Occam, I have not been involved in all these recent edit wars you have participated in. My comments were not made as a warning because they were made in retrospect. I was commenting on your previous edit war on the FAQ page, and how that constitutes a 3RR violation. So what I wrote was not a warning, rather it was discussion about how the 3RR applies to talk pages as well. To be honest, I have always known that you can be belligerent, but I didn't expect you to start edit warring so soon after your unblock. Wapondaponda (talk) 21:47, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I’m aware of your argument that 2 reverts in a 24-hour period is sufficient to violate 3RR. You don’t need to explain again why you think this is the case. However, I’ve never heard this particular claim from anyone other than you. Are there any uninvolved admins here who can comment on whether or not this is actually correct? --Captain Occam (talk) 21:53, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Ramdrake, what we’re dealing with here is a warning from Muntuwandi which was argued based on his conclusion from the fact that Georgewilliamherbert had chose to pluralize a single word (which GWH had never clarified), as well as the assumption that 2over0 blocked me because I’d violated 1RR on the FAQ. (Which 2/0 had never stated). I take SarekOfVulcan’s warning seriously, but your own comment about this is an example of the same problem I’ve just described. Your past interactions with me make it obvious where your vested interests lie, and even if they didn’t, this would be obvious enough from the fact that the only person whom you think deserves any sanctions here is me (and not Aprock). Could someone who is actually uninvolved please answer the point I’m making about this? --Captain Occam (talk) 21:48, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
I think that it would be most constructive to assume that everyone acted in good faith in the past in the presence of a little ambiguity and chose different interpretations.
With that said - going forwards, I think the 1RR restriction should apply to related article talk pages and the FAQs contained therein as well.
Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:12, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

No Drama Festival upcoming: Notification and request (2 issues)[edit]

Admin Jayron32 has previously coordinated the Dramaout 5 day festival. That is a festival where editors try to write articles and avoid drama for 5 days. This July, Jayron32 is busy but suggested that I may coordinate it. He suggested ANI as one of the places to put a notice.

Task 1 (Easiest to do: just sign your name): Feel free to sign up to participate in the dramaout here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:The_Great_Wikipedia_Dramaout/3rd It will take place for 5 days starting July 5, 2010.

Task 2:I requests volunteers to help out. Help this page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:The_Great_Wikipedia_Dramaout/3rd which needs a little copy editing. Many volunteers can copy edit.

Task 3: A sample template has been made but is in raw form, not on a template page. One or two volunteers can create a template, maybe like this.



Gun-type Nuclear weapon.png This user will participate in the 2010 Great Wikipedia Dramaout, a dedicated effort to exclusively article write for five days.




Task 4: Several volunteers to notify past participants (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:The_Great_Wikipedia_Dramaout/2nd) of this new dramaout. To reduce the load, I request 8 volunteers to contact 10 people each. Volunteer 1 will notify person 1-9 on the list. Volunteer 2 will notify 10-19 on the list.


Thank you. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 15:11, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Volunteer signup[edit]

  1. task 4. Will notify persons 1-9 and 10-19 and 20-29 Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 15:11, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
  2. task 2, will do in the next 2 days. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 15:18, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Administrative abuse, Legal threat, Win money, Free Sex[edit]

  1. This ANI thread is not gettting much participation. Maybe it should be retitled "Administrative Abuse, Free Sex, Legal threats, Win Money" to attract attention and get responses! Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 19:25, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
    I try to avoid the no drama festival. Too much drama. - Wikidemon (talk) 19:38, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
That's what I get for following Jayron's instructions! p Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 20:46, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Gwen Gale alleged admin abuse[edit]

User with multiple accounts[edit]

Resolved

There is a user who has created many accounts entitled "XXXX (Madden)" and has created userpages for all accounts with a fake autobiography of a player from his Madden NFL game. Here is a list of accounts generated by User:The-Pope, which was taken from WT:NFL#(Madden) accounts:

  1. User:Markael James (Madden)
  2. User:Marcus Robertson (Madden)
  3. User:Jervis Santana (Madden)
  4. User:Thomas Harris (Madden)
  5. User:Albert Ramos, Jr (Madden)
  6. User:Albert Ramos (Madden NFL)
  7. User:Albert Ramos, Jr. (Madden NFL)
  8. User:Albert Ramos (Madden NFL series)

I think all accounts should be blocked as sockpuppets of each other, and the userpages be deleted as a violation of WP:WEBHOST. Eagles 24/7 (C) 22:38, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations is that way. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 22:49, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Alright, I'll take that route instead then. Eagles 24/7 (C) 22:51, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
No, don't bother. Obvious socks are obvious. I'll delete the pages and block the users. Black Kite (t) (c) 23:41, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
I already started the request here so a Checkuser can be performed to find additional socks. Eagles 24/7 (C) 23:47, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Immediate issues resolved. SPI with CU looking for sleepers. Shadowjams (talk) 07:19, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

AIV Backlog[edit]

AIV is backlogged, admins are needed, lather, rinse, repeat. Thanks. :) - NeutralHomerTalk • 03:42, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Past Sock IP off a 1 year ban creating issues again[