Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive621

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

Pages protected[edit]

I've just semi-protected Leonard Nimoy and LeAnn Rimes for excessive vandalism. As this is my first attempt at protection and I also added a "pending changes" config, I'm requesting any admin available to review and tweak/change as they see fit. Thanks Tiderolls 00:40, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Add Ozzy Osbourne and Vanessa Carlton. Tiderolls 00:52, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it's necessary at this point. Protection isn't also helpful here since this vandal will just block evade and move to a new article. More information at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive619#Rangeblock. I've rangeblocked this repeat vandal's primary addresses. Elockid (Talk) 01:15, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
I've removed the pending changes protection from the pages as they are not in the pending changes queue. Nakon 02:33, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
I've now got images of Leonard and LeAnn in a physical relationship ... and Ozzy and Vanessa too. Crikey, and is a horrible word sometimes. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:00, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
"Logic is a wreath of flowers that smells bad". Syrthiss (talk) 12:10, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
Keep up the good work, Tide rolls.  – Tommy [message] 15:29, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

User:Tbrittreid[edit]

I'm not entirely sure how to handle this. Here is a longtime user in good faith with a tendency to add some rather pointed edit summaries and who is misquoting the "verifiability, not accuracy" maxim in regards to the article on the old Green Hornet TV show. I have provided several instances which disprove that his contention that the "Black Beauty" was a 1966 "Chrysler Imperial." Our own article at Imperial (automobile) proves that the proper name of the car is "Imperial Crown." Imperial was a separate brand in 1966, not a model. I've reverted this fellow at least four times and I've been polite about it, but his edit summaries and failure to cite any source other than an incorrect one which lists the car as a Chrysler is becoming a problem. I've brought up the issue on the wikiquette page, did what was suggested, provided ironclad proof of the name of the car (both verifiable and accurate) and still he's reverting me, misquoting policy and suggesting I "go somewhere else" on the article's talk page. Other than suggesting he mind his edit summaries, I have never said anything to elicit a response like this. The source he's quoting, despite the fact the source is Dean Jeffries, is wrong. It is not a "Chrysler Imperial." I don't wish to do the wrong thing and just block him, but if he insists, I may have to. Anyone want to give me a hand with this? PMDrive1061 (talk) 00:49, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

This one kind of looks like a content issue at the moment, PMDrive1061, and you seem to be involved. I don't think you should block him yourself even if he insists. If you were just anybody and I happened upon this, I would recommend that you get other contributors involved to help establish consensus. If there is clear consensus for your version, his persistence would become disruptive editing.
On the content question, it seems to me a lot more beneficial to at least footnote the discrepancy. A whole lot of other people call the car used in the series a Chrysler Imperial: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], and [9], for instance. While it might be a misconception, the term "Chrysler Imperial" evidently has broad usage for the 1966 car: [10]. Given that, it seems like readers might be confused by encountering "Imperial Crown" in the article anyway, without some explanation. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:52, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Thanks, Moon. That was the point I made; Imperial was in fact a Chrysler model prior to 1955 and calling a 1955-75 Imperial a "Chrysler Imperial" is a common mistake. Even George Barris refers to it as a "Chrysler Imperial" on his website. I tried to tell him that I briefly had an old '69 Imperial LeBaron and that I knew what I was talking about. It was my father-in-law's second car and he loaned it to me for a few months a bunch of years ago. I was thinking about this last night and I might preface the line with something like "a Chrysler-built Imperial Crown" or in parentheses, something along the lines of (sometimes referred to a "Chrysler Imperial," albeit erroneously). I don't mind a compromise, but this fellow is stuck on a rule which IMO doesn't apply. Thanks for the help. :) Owe ya one. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 14:04, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Darrin McGillis[edit]

I'd like to request some admin attention at this AfD and also to have an admin talk to User:Dymo400. Shortly after the AfD was opened, an IP editor, User:98.242.241.252 started behaving disruptively: accused the nominator, a well established user, of starting this AfD out of political bias and because of a possible connection with the AfD subject's political opponents, thus violating WP:NPA and WP:AGF. Things then quickly deteriorated when the same IP started accusing everyone in sight of libel on numerous pages. The IP was subsequently blocked for 7 days, and then the block settings were increased to disallow talk page access. However, User:Dymo400 immediately picked up where User:98.242.241.252 left off, first at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Libel sourced from Blog of living person and then at the AfD page itself. User:Dymo400 has also engaged in substantial WP:CANVASSING for this AfD, [11][12][13][14][15][16]. When I pointed out the inappropriate nature of such canvassing, Dymo400 became belligerent towards me, and demanded accounting of my political views and accused me of political bias[17]. Since he does not seem to be in the mood to listen to me, I'd like a previously uninvolved admin to explain to him again the basics regarding WP:AGF, WP:NPA and WP:CANVASS. Thanks, Nsk92 (talk) 14:11, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Yep, the canvassing is blatant. I've pointed that out to the editor as s/he didn't think that was an issue even after you warned him/her. Toddst1 (talk) 14:33, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
FWIW, looks like the IP has been blocked (with talk page revoked to boot) for the remainder of the deletion discussion. –MuZemike 15:09, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
I think the exchange speaks for itself as one of about five people who originally created the page I felt it appropriate to contact those users since I was not the solo creator. Since that time I have been hammered by The user that created this request for admin review. I honestly do not know how to respond to this person, I have been polite and stated only my views and thats all, why and I ask that anyone chime in on this matter would continue to hammer me when I am not returning the favor I have no ideas. I want peace and harmony and do not want drama with anyone, but I cannot stop others from hammering me for stating my views. I hope everyone has a great week. Thanks for reading.--Dymo400 (talk) 16:14, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Edit warring at Bayes' theorem[edit]

User:Riitoken has been repeatedly adding a graph to which multiple editors have objected. User has been warned by two editors to refrain from edit warring and has not done so. User A1 (talk) 16:28, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

A distracting sig?[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Wikipedia:Signatures is a guideline (I didn't know that). Giftiger wunsch doesn't seem to have broken it. Many other editors have interesting sigs (no one has commented on mine, which I find disappointing). Nothing further to do. TFOWR 19:10, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Addendum: GW has graciously added an id tag to his signature, so the background (going forward) can be suppressed by adding the following code to your .css page. –xenotalk
span#gw_sig {background:inherit !important;}

I've just had a polite conversation with User:Giftiger_wunsch, which has now been archived here, about their sig. GW has recently been posting rather consistently here and on WP:AN, and as a regular reader of those noticeboards I'm finding their signature – GiftigerWunsch [TALK] – to be distracting. My experience is that my eye invariably gets pulled to GW's sig, which makes it a bit difficult to read the sections GW posts in. Although GW did make an alteration at my suggestion, I found that it did not effect the sig's distractive quality, and he or she would prefer not to change it further. (That's the altered version above.) One of their primary arguments is that no one else has complained about it, so I'm bringing up this issue here – as a place where GW's been posting a lot lately so regular readers will have seen the sig – to see if anyone else is bothered by it, or if it's just me alone. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:59, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I've notified GW [18] Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:04, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
I tend to be fairly lax provided it is not 50 characters long, rises up three lines or flashes, but that is just me. What change, out of interest, did GW make? S.G.(GH) ping! 17:02, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
At first I thought the problem was the background color, and GW made a change to that at my behest, but it's really the bolding of the colored text that causes the problem. You can see samples of bolded and unbolded versions in the coversation I linked above. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:12, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
I don't find it overly obnoxious but I see your point BMK.  – Tommy [message] 17:03, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
No, not at all obnoxious, just distracting. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:17, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
One could say the same for mine, but I also see no problem with User:Giftiger wunsch's sig. Did you discuss this with him prior to taking this to ANI? - NeutralHomerTalk • 17:05, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
Considering that the first line of his post is 'Ive just had a polite conversation with GW about his sig' I would say he has. ;) Syrthiss (talk) 17:07, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
OK, you can tell I am awake. :) Sorry Ken. :) - NeutralHomerTalk • 17:19, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
You seem overly obsessed with other's sigs. Didn't you have a problem with The C of E's God Save the Queen a few weeks ago? Syrthiss (talk) 17:06, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
Yes that's correct. (About the problem, not the obsession.) I believe I also had a concern about another user's sig four or five months ago, or thereabouts. In that case, the size was a problem and the user changed it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:16, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
I could happily do without the urine-colored background as it really is a little distracting, but I dunno if it's enough to warrant admin intervention. Tarc (talk) 17:11, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
I believe urine is typically a much deeper shade of orangey-yellow, actually. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 18:57, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
It definitely "pops out" if you scroll through ANI using pgup/pgdown. Perhaps it could be modified with personal CSS or javascript? –xenotalk 17:12, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
Do you mean that I could do something which would alter the look of the sig for me? I'd be very interested in that! Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:14, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
Yes. I know that I've been able to hide those distracting text-shadows. Someone more technically-minded than me might be able to help, try WP:VPT if no one chimes in here. –xenotalk 17:15, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict)I agree that it easily "pops out", but in my mind that allows easy identification of which posts I left, rather than providing a distraction from surrounding posts. I think I'm well within policy here, and I'm rather reluctant to change my signature because I've grown quite fond of it. Beyond My Ken, I hadn't considered this; you may be able to change its appearance with personal CSS, yes. Though inline CSS generally overrides stylesheet information so it may actually be the case that I'll have to remove the inline CSS and add it to my personal CSS instead to maintain its appearance for me, unless someone knows of a way to make spreadsheet CSS override inline CSS. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 17:18, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
I'm sure there must be a way to override the inline CSS, and that should mean I simply have to give the span tag a unique identifier which you can set to background:inherit; or anything else you please in your personal CSS; let me google this to find out how to override the inline CSS. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 17:20, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
Great! I'm grateful for anything you come up with! Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:30, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
This link seems to have a work-around to override inline CSS in most browsers except IE6 or below. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 18:12, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
It also appears to be the work-around xeno is using in his monobook.css file which he linked to here. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 18:14, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
  • I've got a terrible sense of deja vu here... I'd advise that Beyond My Ken (talk · contribs) tone down his criticism of other editors' usernames and signatures. Personally, I see nothing really wrong with the one in question, certainly nothing which violates the guideline. ╟─TreasuryTagquaestor─╢ 17:16, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
    Um, TT, did you actually read the discussion I linked to? What was there to "tone down"? Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:18, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
    (edit conflict) Yes, I did read it, obviously. That is how I was able to comment. Specifically, I consider that your passive-aggressive instruction that the editor "remove the background color" disturbingly similar to your equally out-of-sorts directive that The C of E (talk · contribs) "see [their] way clear to changing [their] sig" – it's really not nice behaviour. ╟─TreasuryTaginternational waters─╢ 17:22, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
  • I don't have a problem with the sig. It's not something I'd use for my own, but I can't say it bothers me. Without meaning an disrespect to BMK. I really don't think this is an issue. I could name half a dozen editors, including, as it happens, TreasuryTag, whose signatures are far more distracting than this and none of them particularly bother me, either. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:25, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
    It may just be me, my old and tired eyes, my screen, whatever -- that's why I brought it here, to find out what others think. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:32, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
    But HJ's point (certainly my point...) is that you should not have brought it here, nor should you have had that stupid long debate with Giftiger on his talkpage. You should have just dropped it, as you should have dropped the other issue, because they are not very important. ╟─TreasuryTagdirectorate─╢ 17:38, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
    Considering that I find your assessment of the tenor of my conversation with GW to be grossly inaccurate, I'm sure you'll understand why I'm not inclined to pay the least bit of attention to anything you have to say on this subject, as you seem terribly biased on the subject of me. I brought it here because here was were the problem occured for me, and here is where I knew i could find people familiar with the sig. I'm interested in hearing what people have to say, excited at the possibility that I might be able to solve this and perhaps future problems myself, without bothering others, and saddened at your apparent lack of tolerance with regard to my comments. Be that as it may, you can't please everyone, and since I obviously don't please you, and you are clearly unable to converse with me without putting yourself out of sorts, just walk away, TT, walk away. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:51, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
    It's so pathetic, Ken. I would strongly advise you to think carefully before you post another thread complaining about a relatively minor issue, even if you think your comments are justified, or you may find yourself on the wrong end of a user-conduct RfC. ╟─TreasuryTagconstablewick─╢ 18:02, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
    Speaking of terrible sigs... Arkon (talk) 18:04, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
    Superbly irrelevant observation there... ╟─TreasuryTagconstabulary─╢ 18:07, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
  • I like the sig - makes it easy for me to target, er, stalk, er, watch him. GregJackP (talk) 17:27, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Actually saw this sig when I was reading through here yesterday. Hurts my eyes. Would love to have it changed, but I dunno if it can be forced. Arkon (talk) 18:03, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your valuable input Arkon. Two comments in as many minutes, one leaving an edit summary "yours sucks too" and the other suggesting that I be forced into something which at least a couple of administrators has already stated isn't even appropriate for AN/I. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 18:10, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
Hey, don't worry about it. Theres no reason for anyone to make you change your sig so you sdon't have to if you don't want to, it happened with me a few weeks ago that my sig was requested tobe changed which I declined and the issue died after that no matter if 1 admin has a problem with it and others don't seem to. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 18:13, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
  • I'm tempted to close this thread on the basis that there appears to be no violation of Wikipedia:Signatures; Wikipedia:Signatures is a guideline, not a policy; and this is deteriorating into a "your sig is even worse" thread. Which I may or may not lose. And I don't know whether I should be concerned about that or not. So... close this thread? TFOWR 18:14, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
As the subject of the thread my opinion probably isn't relevant, but I don't see what else this thread is going to achieve so by all means close it. In the interests of fixing the issue for the user who filed the complaint, I will try to leave a solution on their talk page. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 18:18, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Solution: I have discovered a way to allow users who have an issue with it to block it out via personal CSS, but I need to insert an id parameter into my sig to avoid making the CSS apply to all span tags on the whole of wikipedia; but there's not enough room. With that in mind, I intend to put the new sig on a template in my userspace and subst it into my signature. I realise that the note on the preferences page says not to use templates, but I believe that WP:IAR applies here as the sole purpose in doing so would be to solve the problem for other users. Could an admin let me know if that is acceptable? GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 18:57, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
I would hate to re-stir this pot, but GW I'm not sure if consensus has established that you have to do anything... S.G.(GH) ping! 19:00, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
Indeed SGGH, the agreement rather seems to be that I am under no obligation to do anything to change the way my signature appears to other users. I like to think I am a helpful editor, however, so providing my WP:IAR rationale is valid, I have no problem with adding an id parameter to my signature and allowing others to use CSS to change the appearance of my signature on their screens. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 19:04, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
I also do this with my sig (having it in userspace) and was given permission by an admin (would have to look up who) and have had no problems and it works perfectly. Same sig you are about to see....now. - NeutralHomerTalk • 19:01, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

201.95.48.234[edit]

Editor 201.95.48.234 (talk · contribs) has made several personal attacks on Andrzejbanas (talk · contribs) at Talk:Leon, Talk:Inglourious Basterds and an even worse one at Talk:Little Miss Sunshine (which I have redacted). I gave a lv1 NPA warning for Leon but went to lvl 4 immediate when saw this diff --220.101 (talk) \Contribs 17:24, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Seems appropriate, obviously a nonce-y edit but the warning is fair and no edits subsequently which are offensive. S.G.(GH) ping! 17:31, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
I have reverted some of the posts as they seem to be tied to the personal attacks, feel free to revert to previous if one thinks I overstepped. I also reverted another personal attack as well. - NeutralHomerTalk • 17:34, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for help 'gentle-editors' (gender being 'uncited'!) --220.101 (talk) \Contribs 17:43, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
Neutralhomer = Dude....and You're Welcome :) - NeutralHomerTalk • 17:46, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
I "Don't Presume to Assume". Being NPOV too! SGGH I was pretty sure about. BTW our new friend has made another genre change, but no naughty words. --220.101 (talk) \Contribs 18:36, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
Hi everyone! I've just been ignoring this user with the personal attacks as I'm not too worried about it. But he is becoming a a bit of a genre warrior. The user posts under several random IPs and never cites sources, so I do not know what else we can really do to tackle this one. Andrzejbanas (talk) 18:53, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

<-- If he becomes more of a problem and continues attacking other editors, then we can block him, but for now, a level four NPA warning seems appropriate. MC10 (TCGBL) 22:10, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Beards, socks, imitators, and IPs[edit]

Resolved

This may be the wrong place to make this request; if it is then I apologize. While I'm aware of WP:NOTEARLY, I'm here to request that Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of writers with beards be immediately closed. The article is absolute nonsense, with all real editors immediately voting delete. Meanwhile, the editor of the page has only edited that page and the deletion discussion, and two IPs have joined the page to support the nonsense, with one even attempting to make it look like I voted for keep. This isn't really sockpuppetry, I guess, since we're talking about IPs and not usernames, but this discussion is just ridiculous. I'd like to have the discussion ended immediately, with any appropriate warnings given to the IPs and user. Thanks. — Timneu22 · talk 22:23, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

  • Closed. Obviously a joke, but I'd suggest that if the editor/IP come up with another attempt then some sanction should be applied. Black Kite (t) (c) 22:42, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Major sockpuppeteer[edit]

Resolved: Blocked they are, and nonsense deleted Rodhullandemu 23:44, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I've already filed an SPI for this, noone has done anything about it - Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ptah2010. He's applying for adminship, and creating a bunch more socks to support him. Will someone please block Ptah2010 from account creation and watch as the sock puppets stop coming in? Ian.thomson (talk) 23:21, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

That is ridiculous, block them all. Off2riorob (talk) 23:29, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
All blocked by Administrator Rodhullandemu as quacking ducks Off2riorob (talk) 23:44, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Sockpuppet editing Kristi Noem[edit]

There is an editor working the Kristim Noem article by removed reliably sourced information (such as her title in the South Dakota House of Reps), pushing POV (adding commentary that is not supported by third parties--mere personal opinion and adding information in a biased manner), violating BLP by attacking Noem's educational background, and most of all making edits under a series of different IP addresses.--InaMaka (talk) 00:18, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

It's borderline between BLP violations and vandalism. As it's all coming from IPs, and I'm not very confident in dealing with this, so I enacted a 3 day semi-protection. It's been sitting here for 40 minutes, and so to stop potential BLP violations, I've semi-d it. You have my permission to unprotect the page. I'm just doing it as a stopgap. NativeForeigner Talk/Contribs 01:06, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
As a non-admin my opinion my have no bearing hear but i have been in similar situations myself. I think the technical term is a dynamic IP a.k.a IP hopped. If the IP range is wide a ban/block would not be the best intervention. For the time being it is best to semi-protect the page as done. If in three days time the behaviour continues protect for longer periods of time. If possible try and engage with discussion on the talkpage. If all else fails semi-protection is probably the best option unless the IP address can be identified as the sockpuppet of a useraccount. Hope that helps, Regards. Lil-unique1 (talk) 01:11, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
Nevermind. I've trouted myself. Unprotected. I read it as all occurring today/yesterday, but it's happened over a longer time frame. I'll just watch the page, and rv any BLP vios for the interim. NativeForeigner Talk/Contribs 01:12, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigations[edit]

Following up from the header above "Major sockpuppeteer", SPI has one of the biggest backlogs I've seen. One case goes all the way back to May 30. It looks like a lot of them are simple DUCK checks, could some nice admins come over and help clean some of these up? Burpelson AFB (talk) 02:53, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Personal attacks on Talk:Orgasm[edit]

A very heated argument is occurring at this page. Please see the "extremely offensive and opressive" section. It appears that several users, including Fabray23, Miafina and the anonymous user 174.130.231.162 are engaging in personal attacks. -Quinxorin (talk) 04:29, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

It's taken place over two months so that is hardly heated. There isn't really anything concerning here in the short term but maybe a warning is all that is needed here. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 05:04, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

User:IronBreww solely created to impersonate me[edit]

Resolved: IronBreww (talk · contribs) blocked indef. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 18:35, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

In a pattern from abuse from User:Emico, I have good reason to believe that he is back and using the sockpuppet account User:IronBreww solely to impersonate me.--Ironbrew (talk) 16:32, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Though the username is very similar, I don't see any reason to believe that he is trying to impersonate you. If you think that the account is a sockpuppet, you might consider filing an WP:RFCU to confirm that. Other than the username, do you have any other reason to believe that this is an impersonation? GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 16:35, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
Note also that the account was created in April and looking at the user's contribution history seems to suggest that the user is editing constructively. I also note that you haven't yet attempted to talk to the user about this; that should be your first port of call before jumping into an AN/I. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 16:39, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

My spider sense is tingling, tho, Giftiger Wunsch. Ironbrew edited previously on Iglesia ni Cristo topics and now Ironbreww comes along and is also editing those topics (well, one edit to the template and one edit to talk:Iglesia ni Cristo). I don't have time at the moment to dig further, but if I only edited primarily in one area and someone with User:Syrfiss even made one or two edits in that area I'd be inclined to be suspicious. Syrthiss (talk) 16:45, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I just had a quick look at the recent contributions of Ironbrew (talk · contribs) and I see the concern now; it does strike me as very fishy that the main two articles edited by IronBreww (talk · contribs) in his short contribution history (and they are mentioned on his talk page) are also being edited by Ironbrew. It also strikes me as a little bit strange that such a new user has all the instruction templates, etc. you might expect on the talk page of a much more experienced editor. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 16:51, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
Blocked. For future reference, issues like this should be reported to UAA. TNXMan 18:04, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
It's fizzy, it's ginger, it's... blocked. TFOWR 10:42, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

User:Alin (Public Policy)[edit]

Not an incident per say, but I wanted to see what other's opinions on this newly created user account are. user:Alin (Public Policy) has just been created, and from the text on the userpage "This account is used only to facilitate collaboration and development of content on the Public Policy Initiative-related articles on English Wikipedia. This account is not used for, or involved in, the development of any other content on the English Wikipedia." it seems to suggest to me that it may not be for the use of one person, but a larger number. Maybe I'm misreading it, or finding things in it that aren't there, but I wanted someone else's opinion. Canterbury Tail talk 16:49, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

OrangeMike just blocked for spam username. I would think this settles the matter. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:49, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
This is the account of Annie Lin, a new Wikimedia Foundation employee who is part of the public policy initiative. Orangemike actually blocked the WMF office IP.--Sross (Public Policy) (talk) 23:25, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
Unblocked... –xenotalk 23:29, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
I have seen 4 or 5 of these pass through UAA - most of which were not blocked. Will add this string to the soxbot whitelist.  7  23:34, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, xeno and 7!--Sross (Public Policy) (talk) 23:40, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
I feel kinda sandbagged here. "Public Policy Initiative" is a generic name. This looked like just another dadblamed corporate role account/s.p.a., and I blocked it as such. Putting it on the soxbot whitelist will not address the problem that it reads like a corporate role account; and there was nothing on the userpage to tell me or any other admin that this was a WMF account! Had it occurred to anybody that ordinary rank-and-file admins may be too busy to keep track of administrivia like that, and that the very purpose of a userpage is to clue other editors in? --Orange Mike | Talk 12:53, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
I don't think anyone is faulting you here. The userpage said "This account is used only to facilitate collaboration and development of content on the Public Policy Initiative-related articles on the English Wikipedia. This account is not used for, or involved in, the development of any other content on the English Wikipedia." - which was confusing to me as well as I've never heard of this "Public Policy Initiative" and it didn't make any explicit connection to the WMF. Waiting, however, would have been fine as well - the account wasn't editing. In the end: no harm, no foul. –xenotalk 12:59, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
Agreed, was not trying to find fault with the block. Communication from WMF onto WP:AN in the event of such initiatives might prevent this in the future.  7  13:13, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

If it helps Orangemike, a few months ago I raised a concern with User:Nimish Gautam because he was creating several accounts (UsabilityX, where X was numbers 1 to 9) and saying that it was WMF related. It was eventually confirmed by another WMF employee. I advised them at the time that they should consider being more transparent when doing things like this. I read the statement on the userpage for Alin, and you are correct that it doesn't explicitly state a connection to WMF...though after the fact it could be read that way. I personally might have attempted to communicate with the user before blocking since they hadn't edited yet, but considering the amount of spam and role accounts we see I personally can't fault you for being suspicious. Hope this helps. Syrthiss (talk) 13:03, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

This case was an easy mistake to make, as at least two of them that I cleared off UAA had identical userpages, except for a link to Outreach Wiki, which clued me in. Ms. Lin's user page includes no such link, which made it look like a promotional username without easy explanation. Courcelles (talk) 13:12, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
I left a note on Sross' talk page asking for their help in getting more awareness of this on the WMF side. Syrthiss (talk) 13:23, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
Yes, we absolutely need to be more clear about creating WMF accounts; the plan, tentatively at least, is to start having established office accounts create new WMF accounts (Cary Bass sent out a staff email about this last night), although I wouldn't be surprised if some slip through the cracks since new staff who aren't familiar with how this aspect of Wikipedia works are likely to try to create accounts before they are instructed on the right way to go about it. On behalf of the public policy team, I apologize for this mishap; we should have anticipated this, and we definitely should have drafted clearer text for the disclaimer that made the WMF connection obvious. Personally, and more broadly, I don't like the block-first approach simply on the suspicion of a role account; lots of well-meaning and potentially good contributors get summarily blocked, and organizations (e.g., the GLAM institutions Liam Wyatt has been working with, among others) are increasingly wanting to find ways to work with/on Wikipedia and just don't know how to go about it. Explaining what the problem with an account name is ought to be the first step, not instantly block and move on.--Sross (Public Policy) (talk) 13:42, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Impersonation Account?[edit]

Resolved: Thanks for the forthcoming Gnusmas other/Keegscee, your cooperation is appreciated. (Sock blocked per admission)

NativeForeigner Talk/Contribs 06:28, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

User:Gnusmas other posted a rather odd note on User:Georgewilliamherbert‎ talk page. Doing a little research, I found there is a User:Gnusmas. Is this a sock, impersonation, what? - NeutralHomerTalk • 05:58, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi Neutralhomer. I am not a sock of this user. I am actually a sock of Keegscee. Good day. Gnusmas other (talk) 06:00, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
There ya go. Block please? - NeutralHomerTalk • 06:02, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
Blocked indef. Lying, sockpuppetry, trolling, pick your poison. Courcelles (talk) 06:03, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
Thanks! - NeutralHomerTalk • 06:05, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
WP:FOOTBALLPLAYERWHOSHALLNOTBENAMED The Blade of the Northern Lights (talk) 06:07, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
"Short"cut created. :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:34, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Nibiru linkspamming[edit]

User:82.239.102.131 (now User:Senouf) keeps adding a spurious link to the article Nibiru collision. Since I don't want to be blocked for edit warring, and since he obviously will not stop, I need to either block him or have someone else explain the rules, since he isn't listening to me. Serendipodous 08:20, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Firstly, you didn't notify Senouf of the discussion as required - I've done this for you this time. Secondly, there has been no attempt at discussion with Senouf over the issue - I'm not saying that there isn't a problem but you should at least try to discuss the issues first, and then come here if the editor ignores you or refuses to enter into discussion. Mjroots (talk) 09:58, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
There is a discussion at Wikipedia:Editor_assistance/Requests#Nibiru. Senouf is pretty adamant about adding his link. --Ckatzchatspy 10:05, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
In which case, let discussion continue then. Mjroots (talk) 11:57, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
I note that not only is he adding his blog to this article, he's been promoting his ideas elsewhere [19] and [20] Dougweller (talk) 12:14, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
I've asked Senouf to stop inserting the links due to WP:COI and WP:SPAMLINKS, with the suggestion that the addition of a link should be made via a request on the talk page of each article in question and subject to consensus, Senouf to disclose any COI when requesting addition of the link. Mjroots (talk) 12:26, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Tricia Santos[edit]

I would like a review of my action here. This article about a 14-year-old contestant in a reality show in the Philippines first appeared on 31 May and attracted over 40 edits in a few hours from a variety of IPs and SPAs before being deleted as an attack page; it was presently restored as a redirect to the reality show article. It has now been recreated and is again proving a magnet for supporters and attackers, with promotional material about her career hopes and malicious gossip being added and removed. It could well be that the press coverage establishes notability, but in view of the subject's age and the BLP aspects I have restored the redirect to Pinoy Big Brother: Teen Clash 2010#Tricia and protected it, and the same for Patricia Santos. Feel free to revert me if there is consensus to do so. JohnCD (talk) 10:37, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Looks good to me, I'd have done the same. GedUK  11:43, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
Agreed, seems perfectly reasonable in the circumstances. Good call. EyeSerenetalk 12:31, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Eugeneacurry[edit]

Talk 10:24, 20 June 2010 (UTC): Anon Indefinite Block/Comunity Ban Slrubenstein

"unresolving" the case, see my comment below with this timestamp. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 15:13, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Restoring the "resolved" check -- JohnWBarber (talk) 00:45, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
Unresolved again because of unblock request.  Sandstein  20:23, 22 June 2010 (UTC) – and resolved again as unblock request declined,  Sandstein  04:58, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to request admin action against Eugeneacurry (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) for creating an attack page about me, which he said he intended to post to mainspace.

He and I have been in a content dispute for several months at Christ myth theory, after I opposed its promotion to FA status and tried to help fix it in ways Eugene disagreed with. He recently arrived at an article I had rewritten, John Polkinghorne, and proceeded to make certain changes. We got into a content dispute; he violated 3RR; and I posted a report on the 3RR noticeboard, which was not acted on—see here.

A few hours later, Eugene created an article about me, now oversighted, in his userspace. It was written in the form of a Wikipedia article, and he said here on his talk page that he intended to post it to mainspace under the title "SlimVirgin". When he saw it had been deleted, he even asked another admin to undelete it for him. The article was written in a purportedly sympathetic tone about how I'd been cyberstalked, but it repeated the details of the stalking. He says it wasn't intended as an attack page, but it's hard to see how else to interpret it.

I feel this crossed a line and that some kind of action needs to be taken. Eugene is the pastor of an American Baptist church and relentlessly pushes what seems to be (in my view) a fundamentalist Christian POV. He regularly disparages sources he disagrees with—to the point of causing BLP problems—belittles editors who oppose him, and engages in serial reverting. He's definitely one of the most aggressive editors I've come across. There's a previous discussion here on AN/I about his comparing sources who argue Jesus may not have existed with Holocaust deniers.

If no action is taken about the attack page, he'll interpret it to mean that this degree of hostility is acceptable. I'd like to know whether there's community consensus to do something about it, and if so what. I kept a copy of the article, so I could email it to a couple of people to vouch for the contents, if that's needed. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 01:39, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Based on other behavior I'm concerned, but when you had that oversighted (as opposed to just deleted or hiding those revisions) you removed it from normal on-wiki review processes. There are only a handful of people who can comment on what was there now.
I am not comfortable with the idea of taking action for something I can't even see.
Are there non-oversighted edits which he's done which demonstrate the behavior problem pattern clearly?
If not, if someone who saw it pre-oversight feels that the material justified action that's fine, they can do so, but posting here for general review seems sort of hard without evidence to point to...
Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:46, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
I kept a copy, so I'll e-mail it to you. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 01:48, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
It's a pickle, isn't it? I can't imagine any scenario where a valid G10 and oversight would be- in any way- acceptable, but the fact that oversight was employed means all but a couple dozen are unable to say anything definite about this. Courcelles (talk) 02:08, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
Received. It's not a bright-line immediate-indef blockable attack page, but it's concerning and worthy following up on.
I'm asking Eugeueacurry some questions on his talk page. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:03, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
My understanding has always been that creating a page like this about a fellow editor in response to a content dispute was indeed a bright-line issue. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 02:11, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
Especially if an oversighter felt the page justified that level of suppression... Bobby Tables (talk) 04:25, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
But how do we know if it is justified if the reasons and evidence are not transparent (i.e., made, at least temporarily, public)? As someone once said, "Trust, but verify". Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 05:01, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the policy is, but isn't it unfair to accuse someone of something without making the evidence public? I mean, not doing so seems like a secret trial. Am I wrong about this? Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 02:26, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

It's worth noting that Bill supports Eugene no matter what the latter says or does. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 02:31, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
So an editor can't be blocked for creating an attack page unless the attack page is left in public view? Um- no- not at all. Deletion of attack pages is very sound policy, as is blocking editors who create them. --Courcelles (talk) 02:34, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
No, that's not what I meant at all, and I'm sorry that I gave you that impression. I have no problem with the deleting of attack pages. That IS a sound policy. My point is that if the "article" is not made public while deciding its merits, doesn't that put a question mark on the decision process? I mean, shouldn't the process be open in order to insure fairness? Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 03:01, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
  • I'm trying hard to imagine what could be on that page that would not be obvious harassment. I'm failing. The very act of creating an article about someone you're having a conflict with, and claiming you plan to put it in article space, is a prima facie attempt at intimidation, or at the very least baiting. It's gone, and he has said he won't be adding it again, so I suppose I won't block now, but IMHO this is the kind of shit we should be blocking people for, not using naughty words or making mistakes with a script. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:33, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Yes, the mere act of creating an 'article' about a user you're in a dispute with is disruptive and probably amounts to harassment. Do we need an interaction ban? In any case, any further harassment or personal attacks by Eugeneacurry on SlimVirgin should result in a substantial block. Fences&Windows 02:48, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

As I've said on my talk page, I can honestly say that that I wrote that "article" without malice and with every intention of having it conform to Wikipedia's policies, including WP:NPOV. I intended to submit it to the Deletion Review folks (since the namespace had been salted) once it was finished, so I understood that it needed to be entirely above board. That said, it seems that three people who have actually read it found it problematic and I've agreed to let it go. Perhaps I was "too close" to the situation to see it for what it was; but I never meant it to be anything other than a good-faith high quality stub.

In any event, the admin that deleted the "article" didn't feel that it warrented a block; so far the 3RR board haven't felt my actions at John Polkinghorne (where SlimVirgin also reverted pretty liberally) warrented blocking; SlimVirgin's attempt to raise the issues again here seems to be little more than forum shopping in an effort to silence my opposition to some of her edits at Christ myth theory. Still, like I've said, I'll not try again to write an article on her, no matter how well-intentioned. Eugene (talk) 02:58, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Eugene, a lot of people her have just pushed WP:AGF to its limit. If you want to continue editing here, then please do not create anything that could be reasonably interpreted as attacking somebody, regardless of whether that's your intent. Please try to work collaboratively with all editors, including SV and if you can't play nicely, stay away from each other. The best advice I can give you is the oft-ignored phrase "comment on content, not the contributor". HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 03:02, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
admin that deleted the "article" didn't feel that it warrented a block -- I beg your pardon. I didn't feel it warranted an immediate block; your disingenuousness regarding your motivations makes me wonder if my judgment was a little off. --jpgordon::==( o ) 03:12, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
I'm not at all being disingenuous; I've been exposed to SV through less than ideal circumstances, but the exposure prompted interest, the interest to an attempt at a wiki page. I don't see anything sinister about that. But like I've said, I've let it go. Eugene (talk) 13:35, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
Eugene is asking us to believe that of all the millions of topics out there he could have created a stub on, I was the most interesting thing he could think of, and it was a cooincidence that this occurred to him hours after I reported him for 3RR. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 03:14, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
Even without having seen the page, I'm quickly becoming of the mindset that this might, indeed, be worth a block. --Courcelles (talk) 03:23, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
The idea that wiki-drama that does not reach the point of major media coverage (we all know the main examples of this) is encyclopedic enough for inclusion is dubious, at best, which makes assuming good faith difficult. Kansan (talk) 03:27, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
I felt that coverage in the New York Times and Slate was "major" enough. But as I've said, I've let it go. Eugene (talk) 13:31, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
I see two pretty simple principles here. The first has to do with any-page-that-has-been-construed-as-an-attack-page. I see zero excuse for it at Wikipedia. Of course we create pages in which we documented the times we have been attacked, for use as evidence at ArbCom. But Curry is clearly talking about something else. The principle is simple: we should be here working on articles. Criticize articles, praise articles, edit articles. There is simply no need to descend into attacks against others. This is a no-brainer. The second issue is the oversight. You cannot blame SV for asking. If fault lies with anyone, it is with someone who has oversight powers using them improperly. I am concerned about blsming SV for someone else's actions. Sure, we can disagree over how she reacted. But the responsibility for any redacting or overlight lies with the person SV went to. WP depends on giving these powers to people of good judgment. If you want to question their judgment, fine, but direct your questioning at them. Slrubenstein | Talk 08:52, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
I'm confused ... you're complaining about oversight of the page? We normally oversight things that invade editors' privacy. Slim was 100% correct to ask for it to be oversighted and whoever oversighted it was 100% correct to do so. Attempting to out your fellow editors is not an acceptable tool in a content dispute. In creating this page, Eugeneacurry showed that he is not able to edit cooperatively and I strongly feel a lengthy block or ban would be appropriate. --B (talk) 13:34, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
@B - no, I am not complaining against oversight. I am not complaining against anything. I am simply saying that Eugenecurry has no grounds to complain against SlimVirgin. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:53, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
Any particular reason you removed my comment Eugene? Removing a comment that suggests you be banned makes it very hard to assume you are acting in good faith. --B (talk) 13:37, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
Sorry about that, it was an unintentional mix-up stemming from an edit conflict. Eugene (talk) 14:08, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
I have indef blocked Eugenecurry for removing User B's post, which advocated a block, as alluded to above in the middle of a discussion regarding their lack of appreciation of the inappropriate responses they made in an earlier dispute with an editor. Any admin who feels that Eugenecurry has become sufficiently clued up as to the correct use of protocol and practice in these matters may unblock without reference to me. I would also urge parties not to allow this block to simply become fact, but to arrive at a consensus on how this matter may be resolved (which, of course, might include an indef block) with or without Eugenecurry's continued involvement. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:00, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
I've unblocked under the "block people for the right reasons" banner. I've seen exactly this sort of edit conflict result in apparently deleted edits often enough to assume good faith for this particular action. --jpgordon::==( o ) 14:06, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

It might help the discussion if I described (in very broad non-attack terms) the nature of the article so that this conversation might be put in context. I mentioned SV edit count (sourced to a minor regional newspaper), her first name as she gave it in an interview with a reporter (sourced to that reporter's article in a minor regional lifestyle publication), her experience as a subject of cyberstalking--using the term "stalking"--(sourced to a major mainstream online publication), some of the coverage the stalking recieved in peri-Wikipedia venunes (sourced to a major national newspaper and a technical journal), two theories predicated on that stalking--neither of which were presented as flat facts and neither of which were intrinsically disreputable/negative--I thought they were sort of glamourous myself--or overly personal (sourced to the previously mentioned major mainstream online source and the lifestyle source), and SV's response to the situation in terms of founding a new organization (sourced to the lifestyle publication). I didn't include any information that hadn't already been covered by reliable sources, I didn't try to make SV look bad, I didn't editorialize. While the community thinks it was nevertheless inappropriate (would you feel the same way if I wasn't the one who wrote it and if it was about someone on some other Wiki-like project?) I hardly think it rises to the level of a vicious "attack" and I certainly don't think it merits blocking.

I realize that Wikipedia tends to err on the side of restraint and privacy regarding it's editors, but I felt that if other notable editors who recieved mainstream media coverage could have a Wikipedia article (e.g. Essjay, though I recongnize that Essjay is a more controversial figure), why not SlimVirgin Eugene (talk) 14:26, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

You have been here long enough that you know that casual mentions are not evidence of notability. There is obviously nothing out there for writing a biography of her. Also, as Slim correctly pointed out, your revelation of this as a topic for an article occurring during a dispute with her is completely unbelievable. It's ridiculous that you are even trying to defend this. --B (talk) 14:45, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
Well, my only defense on the notability point is that at least some of the sources (the lifestyle one and a couple others I didn't get a change to integrate into the body) focused largely on SV. As for the timing, you're right, in retrospect it wasn't the best idea. Eugene (talk) 15:02, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
It's hard for me to believe that this is unrelated to your editing dispute. You don't appear to have been inspired to make articles about any editors with whom you are not in conflict. If I were in this situation- I came to believe that a person with whom I was in conflict was so important that an article about them must be written- I'd probably go to articles for creation and see if any neutral people wanted to take on the project, just to make sure that my own judgment wasn't clouded by our disagreement. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 14:47, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
In retrospect you are obviously right. I should have just put in a request for an article and simply provided the links to the RSes. I had thought, foolishly it seems, that SlimVirgin might have been impressed by my fairness towards her in the article and realized that I'm not just a jerk opposing her in other article disputes for spite, that my concerns are substantive and not motivated by personalities. Could I still submit the sources and a request? Or would that only be construed as further evidence of my nefarious intentions?
As for my not writing an article on other editors (those on my "side" of disputes), I'm not aware that any of them are notable. But if you're aware of reliable sources covering Bill the Cat 7, I'd write the article this afternoon. Eugene (talk) 15:02, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
It's utterly impossible to believe that this is unrelated to your long, bitter editing disputes. I'm not sure whether or not you can make a case for technically not violating some behavioral policy or guideline, but this has the stink of bad faith all over it. (Why you would do this while identifying yourself as a minister on your user page is shocking to me. You don't really need to sacrifice the second greatest commandment for the first. [21]) As far as Wikipedia is concerned, your creation of the page a serious violation of WP:DISRUPTION, which I think is a good, catch-all policy for this kind of behavior. As I told you a while back on your user page, I really hoped you'd try to get along. And wouldn't the normal thing to do when creating an article about another editor be to contact that editor and, if told the editor didn't want an article, then to drop the idea unless there were some overriding need for it? I can't assume good faith enough to accept your explanation just above at 15:02. It doesn't look believable that you would create this without contacting her first. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 15:12, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
When the material was first deleted off my talk space I said that I would be willing to submit it to SlimVirgin for review prior to submitting it to the Deletion Review team. [22] When it became clear that SV wasn't pleased, I said that I'd drop it. [23] Eugene (talk) 15:17, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
No, the good-faith way of doing it would be (1) get the idea to create an article of, at best, marginal notability; (2) contact the editor/subject with the idea, preferably in a private email; (3) procede further only if the editor is receptive to the idea. Especially with an editor you've had conflicts with. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 15:36, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Jpgordon, I am a little bit confused about your reverting LessHeardVanU. Are you simply asking that there be more discussion before Eugenecurry be indefinitely blocked? Or are you cateorically opposed to such a block? You wrote, "I've seen exactly this sort of edit conflict result in apparently deleted edits often enough to assume good faith for this particular action" and I would appreciate it if you would amplify on this. I personally cannot think of a time when one editor created an article on another editor in the middle of an edit conflict. I personally see this as the worst kind of edit-warfare. I see no encyclopedic justification for this. How Eugenecurry could think that the world needs an encyclopedia article on Slim Virgin is frankly beyond me, but no matter how I look at it I just do not see any "good faith" spin on his doing so in the middle of an edit war. I see this as truly corrosive to the encyclopedia. I would like to restore LHVU's block but out of deferrence to you, would first ask for you to clarify whatever you think ought to be discussed first. What am I missing here? Slrubenstein | Talk 20:03, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

  • LHVU blocked Eugene not for creating the page about SV, but for refactoring B's posting here advocating a block; except that Eugene didn't remove it - he got caught in the common "edit conflict glitch" where two editors post very close to each other and the second edit overrides the first, making it look like the second poster has deleted the first poster's edit. It happened to me recently, and when I posted at VPT, it turns out it's fairly common. So it was a good unblock. Having said that, I'd have blocked Eugene indef anyway for creating the attack page in the first place. Black Kite (t) (c) 20:10, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
    • I would agree with that block. Clearly this is retaliation for SV's editing. AniMate 20:25, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
      • I agree with the above. His explanation that it was an accidental removal seems fine. He should clearly be indefinitely blocked, not for the accidental removal, but because he has clearly demonstrated he cannot edit cooperatively. --B (talk) 20:28, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

It seems that a number of people are advocating an indefinite block. What precisely is the intended purpose of such an action? Eugene (talk) 20:33, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

To prevent the disruption and genuine human distress which your presence seems to have caused and have the potential to continue to cause. FWIW, I support an indefinite block. ╟─TreasuryTagquaestor─╢ 20:40, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

SV has emailed me a copy of the text, and I agree with George that it isn't blatantly an attack. But Eugene is not some juvenile, either, he can argue very intelligently at Talk:Christ myth theory and he's smart enough not to produce something simple, so I think he knew he was doing something harmful to another editor. He says now that he wouldn't do it again. George used the word "concerning". I'd say I'm concerned about him, too. Some of his comments early in this discussion indicate he doesn't quite understand just how bad this is. I hate to be wishy-washy about this, but I'm not familiar with past practices, so I'm fine with following whatever the common practices have been in situations with this kind of a less-blatant attack page. At the very least, he should get some kind of block, in part so that the fact he wrote an attack page is on the block record. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 20:55, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate the explanations, and retract my question for Jpgordon. I agree that refactoring a post is not an acceptable reason for an indefinite block (although if this occured at a much earlier stage in this conflict, a 24-hr. block might have sent a much needed message). I have just blocked Eugenecurry indefinitely because i think it is a disgrace to use a wikipedia article as a means of pursuing a conflict against an editor. The minimum integrity of the project as a whole is based on the idea that we create encyclopedia articles in good faith. Eugenecurry has demonstrated the worst kind of faith that perverts the encyclopedia by using it against itself. I further note that this occured after a very long period of edit-warring and what appears to be some degree of stalking. I see that diferent editors have tried to impress upon Eugenecurrie the importance of working within the spirit of our core policies and he has chosen to edit-war instead. I think there has been a healthy discussion here, with the participation of a wide range of editors, who express support for this indef. block. I trust this one will stick and if any other admin. questions my act I would be glad to discuss it further. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:57, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
Just to make it clear -- refactoring a post might or might not be an acceptable reason for a block, but since Eugenecurry didn't refactor a post, but instead encountered an annoying bug, that block was just incorrect. I agree with your block here; he doesn't get it. --jpgordon::==( o ) 21:27, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
Fully endorse. Eugenecurry's actions were so far beyond the pale of acceptability this is the only response. Courcelles (talk) 21:00, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
Fully endorse block. For reasons already stated articulately above. The circumstances/timing here are telling.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:26, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
Likewise. I've seen a copy of the deleted content and, although it's not really an attack (SV is a [insert profanity of your choice]) type thing, it's not the kind of thing one would write in good faith. I think Eugene has been disingenuous in this thread and generally wasted a lot of time and proved to be a very aggressive editor and I think this block is a necessity, at least for now. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:38, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
Resp to Slrubenstein (and Jpgordon) I indef blocked because of what appeared to be the refactoring of another editors comment, which was proposing a block/ban, during a discussion regarding that same editors extremely poor response to an earlier editor dispute. While I am content with the unblock on the basis of a glitch making it appear that the editor removed content deliberately when they did not, I would point out that I didn't make the sanction upon that incident in isolation - and that I noted specifically that they might be unblocked once it was clear the editor would not make further similar edits (which, since they did not in the second place, meant they could be unblocked promptly). Indefinite is just that, any time period between "how fast can I hit the unblock button" and "forever" and only for as long as it is deemed appropriate. Of course, next time you could ask... Oh, and, yes, good block by Slr. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:40, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
Actually, after thinking this over while cooking dinner, I'm becoming more of the mind that a full community ban might be in order here. Courcelles (talk) 00:01, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Eugeneacurry's actions are spectacularly inappropriate, and his behaviour on WP over the last several months do nothing to convince me that there is any benefit to be had from allowing him to continue editing here. Good riddance. Call it a ban if you want, this one should not be allowed back any time soon. Guy (Help!) 09:21, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Just what is going on here?no need for me to put it that way -- JohnWBarber (talk) 16:40, 20 June 2010 (UTC) I was rereading this thread and it occurred to me that Eugenecurry was involved in a past thread on this page, so I looked it up. (Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive609#Slanderous Accusations of Anti-Semitism, from two months ago) I thought I might put a link here so that any admin who might be considering lifting the block in the future would have a little more insight into Eugenecurry's previous conflicts. I was very surprised to see that the previous thread was a complaint Eugenecurry made against Slrubenstein, the admin who has now indef blocked him. I still agree with the block, but that wasn't good form, it shouldn't have been done by Slrubenstein. Looking over WP:BLOCK#Conflict of interest, I see Administrators must not block users with whom they are engaged in a content dispute; instead, they should report the problem to other administrators. Administrators should also be aware of potential conflicts of interest involving pages or subject areas with which they are involved. I think a mere two-month distance between this thread and the previous one counts as "are involved". If an admin not previously in a conflict with Eugenecurry wouldn't mind unblocking and then reapplying the block, it's more likely to be respected in the future. It's important that the blocked editor, his friends and everyone else think that the process here was fair, even if they disagree with the result. It won't help to have a messy block followed by an unblock that will likely be messy, too. Better to secure this thing in place while it's fresh in all our minds. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 15:13, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
  • I think the block is solid; Slrubenstein is not sanctioning Eugenecurry for violation of policy, but was enacting the communities consensus following a full discussion. Since Slr is acting according to that consensus and not on his own judgement then the past history is irrelevant. As it is, consensus is unambiguous and does not require reviewing to ensure Slr was correct in his understanding of it. LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:44, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
Agree with LHvU - this is a solid block. Its been discussed here and consensus is very clear. Secondly the matter of being uninvolved is equally clear - Eugenecurry wasn't being sanctioned for attacking/harassing SLR--Cailil talk 16:14, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I obviously do not think the word "are" applies here. I have not had any dealings with Eugenecurry for over two months, nor he with me; as far as I am concerned that mater was closed long ago. I have been involved in edit conflicts that were considered resolved about twelve hours afte the last contenious edit; in my experience I have never seen anyone give or ask for more than 36 hours to see if a conflict really had ended. Two months? You know, it is not like either of us were on vacation! Is there any editor here who seriously considers a conflict ongoing when both editors have continued to edit Wikipedia, and a range of articles, for two months, without any contlict? As far as I am concernded my last interaction with Curry could have been a year ago!

No administrator should block someone for personal reasons; it should only be a block that is called for by policy or represents th will o the community. I explained the rationale for my action, and so far no one has found fault with it. And I see a strong consensus here for a community ban.

The reason this system works - is widely agreed to be fair - is that any admin can undo a block at any time. All it takes is one admin who considers the rationale for the block wrong, or who does not agree there is community support. So I view my block in this case exactly as I would view it in any other case. I am no different from LessHearVanU in this regard. Does any administrator think that my rationale for blocking is wrong? Does anyone doubt community support? Then unblock, by all means! I see no other point in further discussion. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:52, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm open to the idea that I'm making too much out of this, and I am not as familiar with blocking policy and practices as most of the editors contributing to this thread probably are. I think a conflict over something as personal as talk of anti-semitism means it's going to be problematic for either party to block the other for a long while. That was a very serious, very emotional conflict. Personally, I can still get angry over matters less offensive after many more than two months. Is that a case of being slower to heal than most? Maybe. But I was actually talking about a conflict of interest in the subject area. Your last edit in the subject area was here [24] on June 16 at Talk:Jesus. The conflict in the previous complaint was at Christ myth theory. Am I misreading Administrators should also be aware of potential conflicts of interest involving pages or subject areas with which they are involved. at WP:BLOCK? If so, I'd be happy to withdraw my objection. Personally, I still see a conflict of interest on both counts mentioned above and I think it looks bad (and it's a bad example for other admins to follow), but my main concern is practical, and if more editors still think the block is unlikely to be reversed, let's mark this resolved again. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 16:40, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
  • I support the indef block, and oppose the reversal of it, for reasons already articulated in detail above by others. I, for one, see no consensus on this page for such a reversal. With all due respect.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:43, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
  • I don't see it either. I restored the "resolved" check at the top. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 00:45, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
I concur both with the block and that this is now resolved. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:24, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
I'm too late to the party, but I'll just note that I think this was badly handled. I see an editor who did a stupid thing (haven't read the page, so working with limited information). That stupid act was compounded by disingenuous explanation, but after viewing a consensus that the act was unwise, repeatedly agreed to move on. I thought a block was supposed to be preventative not punitive. I see nothing in the editor's responses that even hints at refusal to accept the community decision. Looks to me like "We don't like him, so he's blocked." What did I miss? (Feel free to respond to my Talk Page if this isn't the place to discuss it.)--SPhilbrickT 19:15, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
I'm also not impressed with the way this was handled. I'm not sure he was a net positive, but I'd like to see people who are less involved do this. (I'm not watchlisting this page). - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 11:57, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Unblock request of Eugeneacurry[edit]

Resolved: Very unsatisfactory unblock request was denied by Sandstein after being discussed. TFOWR 22:22, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

See here. Please discuss. I've not read the original content and haven't formed an opinion myself, but the request, on its face, would seem to merit discussion.  Sandstein  20:23, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

  • If it were me, I'd decline the request without a moment's hesitation. "I further maintain that the article itself would have been a valuable addition to Wikipedia"—in the unblock request itself (!)—is prima facie evidence that he just doesn't get what the issue is here. – iridescent 20:34, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
  • He seems reasonably contrite and shows some evidence of fruitful introspection... especially after the wife apparently told him he was out of line. Consider giving him another chance and keeping him on a short leash. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:34, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
  • I was trying to assess this unblock request before it was put on hold by digging into the various histories, and finally decided that I just could not make up my mind. I cannot assess the original content of what might have been an attack page, of course, since it's not available to me. I agree with User:Iridescent above, in that I am finding it hard to believe that anyone would think that such an article was a reasonable contribution; it just seems to me disingenuous to be suggesting that this could somehow be a "valuable addition" in the circumstances, and a bit Wikilawyerish. At the same time I agree with User:Baseball Bugs above that he seems "reasonably contrite and shows some evidence of fruitful introspection". He has a history of contentious edits and a confrontational attitude that seems to not serve him well here; he also has a history of scholarly contribution. Given his history, I find it hard to believe that we are not going to be back here in another few months going through a similar discussion if he decides to reclaim the moral high ground on some other issue with some other editor. My practical view is that this user's ability to monopolize the time of other editors/admins that could and should be used in fruitful contribution now outweighs any potential benefits of his contribution. However, I am trying hard to assume good faith here; perhaps the "short leash" mentioned above, combined with (I suggest) a ban on interacting in any way with User:SlimVirgin, might be sufficient to steer the editor back to productive contribution. (It's a pity that we cannot suggest that his wife sit in on his editing.) I apologize for being unable to make up my mind one way or the other and thus being relatively useless; I have outlined my thoughts in some detail because I hope they may be useful to others, even if only to provide something with which to disagree. Accounting4Taste:talk 21:01, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
  • I'd be very concerned to see an editor unblocked after creating an article about another editor he was in conflict with. This is part of a pattern with Eugene of seeing Wikipedia as a battleground, with sources and editors he disagrees with being personally attacked. I've warned him in the past about the BLP violations he's posted on talk pages, e.g. I warned him here after he posted links on the talk page to disparaging photographs of theologian Robert M. Price, one of sources who suggest Jesus may not have existed (see Christ myth theory), and someone Eugene strongly disagrees with. He uploaded another unflattering photograph of Price to use in Price's BLP—see the files for deletion discussion—and Eugene knew that Price was grimacing in the image because he referred to it in the alt text. [25] He also edited the BLP to call Price a "sub-academic," without a source, [26] and edited the dab page about Price's name to remove that Price is a theologian. [27] These are just examples; there are many more. His article about me, which he's now trying to portray as benign, presented a false and damaging claim about me as if it might be true. That he's trying to present this as a helpful creation means he still doesn't see that the encyclopaedia can't be used as a weapon. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 21:19, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
  • I'd say unblock and keep on a short leash and indef if any problems occur in the near future. I generally agree with Baseball Bugs here. Might be wise to throw in an editing restriction wrt SlimVirgin Hobit (talk) 22:04, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
  • It appears that Eugene's problems, including those with SV, relate to his WP:OWN issues on Christ myth theory and related articles. Perhaps an unblock with a topic ban on that group of articles would allow him to follow a more productive route? Black Kite (t) (c) 22:08, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
  • His unblock statement indicates he still can't admit the article is actually inappropriate, not just in terms of him being the author but that it's an insult to have a few controversial incidents, in most of which the subject is barely mentioned, form most of a WP article about that person. I'm appalled that he still doesn't admit that. He's admitted the core of the problem about starting the BLP article on SV, and I think he should have realized that it might create off-line harassment for her if anything actually led to her identity, a possibility he couldn't rule out. (I'm not sure he realized any other possible harm would come from it.) Eugeneacurry's past WP:BATTLEFIELD behavior is very relevant here. The incident in which he was accused of anti-semitism shows he was not, I think, really being anti-semitic (there was no consensus) but certainly insensitive. Please note the date on my suggestion for him to tone it down and note his response. [28] Not long after that, the battlefield behavior continued. [29] I really just don't know whether or not this editor can help himself. If he's let back, he should first get, at minimum, a three-week block (because I think he's not always honest with himself about his motives and we therefore need to reinforce the memory of this incident) and a months-long ban on editing Christ myth theory and its talk page as well as any BLP is in order. Perhaps there should be some kind of civility restriction. I expect further problems, but also some good editing. I think he has some expertise useful to Wikipedia. But overall, I am a bit more comfortable with leaving the indef block in place and having this come up for reconsideration in six months or so. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 22:17, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep blocked. There's recently been some discussion on the Foundation-L mailing list about the challenges in attracting new editors, particularly women, to participate in Wikimedia projects. This is one of the biggies - the lack of comprehension on the part of some editors that using the project itself as a weapon against a perceived foe is contrary to every principle of this project. It *is* harassment, far more than wikihounding is, because it is purely directed toward a specific individual and has no benefit at all for the encyclopedia. Such behaviour is corrosive and harmful not only to the individual who is the target, but also to the project as a whole. This needs to be a bright line.

    Just as importantly, and no offense to SlimVirgin, but neither she nor her Wikipedia persona are notable. The attack page created by Eugeneacurry was a coatrack; most of the references did not say what he attributed to them. It not only fell below our standards for a BLP, it actively contravened just about every editing policy we have. As long as Eugeneacurry believes that is an acceptable way to write an article for our project, he should not be here. Reconsider unblock with conditions in six months. Risker (talk) 22:30, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

    • Keep blocked. I find Risker's comments to be a persuasive argument based on a point which I hadn't considered; I agree with this assessment. Again, sorry to have waffled above. Accounting4Taste:talk 01:05, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep blocked Risker puts this quite nicely, and frankly I don't think we need someone with this kind of battlefield mentality on this project. AniMate 22:59, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Reduce to temporary block Eugene certainly has his own "attitude" that sometimes comes into conflict with wikipedia policy. However, the disputes are ephemeral, and Eugene's contributions are lasting and many. He sticks to the sources and amasses vast lists of sources to attempt to demonstrate his views; I myself have gotten just as frustrated as he has at some edits and editors. Was this page a poorly-thought out idea? Sure. Eugene was willing to drop it as he stated himself. Just make it a temporary block, or you'll lose one of wikipedia's best editors. NJMauthor (talk) 23:08, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep blocked - Serious repeated policy violation patterns. Also as per Riskers comments. Off2riorob (talk) 23:10, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Reduce to temporary block per Baseball Bugs and NJMauthor. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 23:18, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Temporary block and short leash. I am no stranger to articles that relate to RL religious controversy: I recently copy-edited Jerusalem, which is a hot-button page. It is the result of appalling behaviour when such articles lead to the kind of personal attack page at issue here. However, I do not favour indefs if at all avoidable, because they tend to have bad consequences for the project (i.e., they have deleterious psychological effects and to bounce back on WP—you know what I mean). Better to protect the project from disruption for a stated period and assign someone from Mediation to counsel the user, and then to supervise him if he later returns. That would build in motivation and protection, and is worth trying. If it doesn't work, then probably an indef. Tony (talk) 01:30, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep Blocked In addition to the attack page, Eugene has serious WP:OWN issues, creates a hostile, nasty atmosphere, and has driven off numerous moderate editors in frustration. I would however be content with a temporary block plus topic ban. I think he is too close to the subject matter, too passionate about defending his faith, and thus his judgement is skewed. He cannot see where he crosses the line. I was baffled that he thought comparing mythicists with holocaust deniers[30] was somehow acceptable. In his apology he has difficulty assessing where he was in the wrong, only admitting to a hint of "wrongness" in his motivation (the "giddy little thrill"). I don't think that is good enough. ^^James^^ (talk) 01:44, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
In fairness to Eugene, some very well-respected religious scholars have made the same comparison (see here and do a word search for "Holocaust"). In the context of a book or discussion among scholars, I think it comes off as less insensitive. In a heated talk-page discussion, it's a much worse idea, but the context seems to show it wasn't used in an anti-semitic way or in some other way meant to hurt. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 02:17, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep Blocked per the request itself which shows no contrition, as Risker points out with good insight. And if you can't learn to be humble in an unblock request, you never will be. As I see it, an unblock request should not include "I still maintain that the content of the article I wrote concerning SlimVirgin was policy compliant. I further maintain that the article itself would have been a valuable addition to Wikipedia." Common sense would indicate continuing the indef block per WP:BATTLE among other established guidelines, and I do not think six months is out of line. (Note: this is the first time I have heard of any of this matter, so I do count as fresh eyes.) Jusdafax 02:32, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Seeing as I would still like to escalate this to a community ban, keep blocked. His actions weren't "entirely honourable"? No! They were entirely dishonourable. Courcelles (talk) 02:36, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
Agreed. This is serious enough to merit a community ban. Support block and would support site ban--Cailil talk 16:07, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep Blocked - He wrote an article about someone he was in a dispute with and thinks that is ok and wants to be unblocked? Forget it. Burpelson AFB (talk) 02:43, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Support the Block I find myself not only unconvinced concerning Eugene's explanation as to exactly why he wrote the article about SlimVirgin, but of the opinion that his agenda here needs to be re-configured if and when he returns, the POV editing on contentious religious topics needs some cooling down time...Modernist (talk) 03:17, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Since there's, at least, no consensus for an unblock and the blocking admin has also argued against it, I'm declining this unblock request. I agree that the unblock request is less than satisfactory under the circumstances, as explained by some editors above.  Sandstein  04:55, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Impersonation?[edit]

Resolved: Old memes don't sleep. They wait. --Smashvilletalk 13:34, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

User:Atari2 claims in a photo that he's Chuck Norris... WP:Impersonation here? ♪ ♫ Wifione ♫ ♪ ―Œ ♣Łeave Ξ мessage♣ 04:48, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

This looks more like silliness than any real claim to be Chuck Norris, me thinks. — ξxplicit 04:51, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
True... Just that below his photograph, he writes his "other name" is Chuck Norris :) ♪ ♫ Wifione ♫ ♪ ―Œ ♣Łeave Ξ мessage♣ 04:54, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
WP:OBVIOUSBADJOKE seems to be a more appropriate link. Did you attempt to discuss this with them before coming here? --OnoremDil 04:55, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
Never mind, he's removed it. Says it was a joke. So no issues. ♪ ♫ Wifione ♫ ♪ ―Œ ♣Łeave Ξ мessage♣ 04:56, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
Wow, when did we stop allowing humour? Unless he started editing Chuck Norris-related pages stating loudly that he was indeed Chuck Norris, this was not even something worth mentioning. A major slapping for you (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:55, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
I don't feel a major slapping is appropriate here. I'd prefer to see some... roundhouse kicks! I'll get me coat... TFOWR 12:08, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
Honestly? This is despicable. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 13:24, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
For my part, I was definitely joking (and the roundhouse kicks were directed at the same targets as the trout proposed by Bwilkins, i.e. not Atari2). I don't believe that Atari2 was impersonating Chuck Norris because, frankly, I don't believe anyone has the courage to impersonate Mr. Norris. He's too scary. TFOWR 13:30, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
I don't know. I think Chuck Norris jokes should be blockable offenses. Keep your memes up to date, man. --Smashvilletalk 13:32, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
(e/c) Oh! Ha! Sorry, no, I was referring to the ANI report, not your well-deserved and admirably-targeted roundhouse kicks. I agree that it is plainly clear that if Atari2 were impersonating Chuck Norris his account would have met with the same fate as anyone who crosses Chuck Norris a long time ago. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 13:34, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
Ah, got it - sorry! Though I do have to add that Norris has nothing on Bruce Schneier: he can tell exactly where you are by reading ECHELON data. In realtime. TFOWR 14:39, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

─────────────────────────

How in heavens did I miss all that? :) Got the point. Cheers. ♪ ♫ Wifione ♫ ♪ ―Œ ♣Łeave Ξ мessage♣ 02:55, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
No need for a {{roundhouse kick}}, then? ;-) More seriously, impersonation is a serious issue, and it's probably better if we err on the side of caution. Better to have a false positive that's discounted here, rather than a "missed positive" that remains unnoticed. TFOWR 10:40, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
Sure, no worries. Thanks for the message, and best regards. ♪ ♫ Wifione ♫ ♪ ―Œ ♣Łeave Ξ мessage♣ 20:17, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Continued problems: Malke 2010[edit]

About a month ago, I blocked Malke 2010 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) for essentially lashing out at those that disagreed with her and accusing them of impropriety (mostly making personal attacks when there was no such thing). After a number of appeals and attempts for folks to point out that her behavior was indeed problematic, she was unblocked.

I have kept her talk page on my watchlist as I usually do for folks that I've blocked and this warning prompted me to take a look at her recent actions. Unfortunately, the editor is back to accusing folks she disagrees with of impropriety: [31], [32], [33], [34], [35], [36], [37], albeit a bit less confrontationally this time.

This recent flurry was prompted after she unilaterally decided that Womens Airforce Service Pilots was incorrectly named. Since she believes that this admin is harassing her and that she has done nothing wrong, I am bringing her behavior here for review. Toddst1 (talk) 20:17, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I have not done any such thing. I posted a question on Daniel Cases' talk page regarding the Womens Airforce Service Pilots. There was no article talk page discussion, etc. I'd just been doing a lot of reading on the subject and I asked what is the policy when it turns out an article might have an incorrect name. I then found out information today and I changed the article name. I didn't have time, because of RL work, to make posts on the article talk page with my sources. I planned to come back later today. When I came back, I found that User:BilCat had templated me. I removed the template and went to his talk page where I posted it with a polite note asking him not to template me. Toddst1 has injected himself into the discussion on Daniel Cases' talk page, and now he and apparently two editors who are frequent contributors to his talk page, have set out to make this into something.
I was just about to post a complaint about User:Dave1185 for personal attacks and threats when I found this notice on my talk page. This is all much ado about nothing. Here are the diffs. Please see for yourselves. Please also notice, that neither BilCat, nor Dave1185, nor Toddst1 has ever edited on the Women's Airforce Service Pilots page. I am not a disruptive editor. This is being made out to be something which it is not.
Adding diffs: This is what Toddstl is claiming are not personal attacks: [38]

[39] And this is a personal attack from Toddst1. [40]Malke2010 21:58, 22 June 2010 (UTC)


[41] [42] Threat:[43] Template: [44][45][46][47][48] Dave: [49][50][51]

Talk page where there was no previous discussion about name of page, nor is there any previous editing by any of these editors. [52] Personal attack/threat: [53]

[54] Personal attack: [55]

Malke2010 20:28, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

None of those comments you list as "Personal attacks" are attacks. Also, the "talk page where there is no previous discussion about name" is a link to your own talk page, not the article page.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:45, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Article talk page where there is no discussion about the name of the article except the one moved by Toddst1.[56].Malke2010 20:49, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Hello Malke, "bad faith warning", "give you enough rope" "you need to move on" - none of these are threats or personal attacks, just statmenets. I guess "lets not forget your list of BLOCKS" might be a little on the nose but... remember what we spoke about regarding having a thick skin? I confess I still think you apply WP:NPA too strongly. S.G.(GH) ping! 20:51, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
I edited the Womens Airforce Service Pilots article in Jan 2010 and April 2010. As such, a recent spate of moves this week caught my attenjtion. Last night, the page was moved by User:Orangemiketo its current title, with the edit summary "moved Women Airforce Service Pilots to Womens Airforce Service Pilots: per http://www.airforcehistory.hq.af.mil/PopTopics/WASP.htm". I looked at the source at that time, and verified its content. Today, I discovered it had been moved again, with the summary "correct name is Womens Air Service Pilots", but no proof from a source. I chaced the talk page, and saw no current discussion on the name. I then checked User talk:Malke 2010 to see if there had been discussion on the user's page, and found one post by User:Daniel Case. At User talk:Daniel Case#article name was a discussion with several users on the name, all dated "Yesterday" by my time. As the Move as just after noon my time, I felt a formal warning was approiate, and issued it. Everything els is either on the article's talk page or the user's talk page. WHile I can understand a user feeling overwhelmed when several editors show up all at once to tell you you've done wrong, her reaction has only made matters worse for her. - BilCat (talk) 20:54, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Also, Dave1185 is a registered lurker on my tsalk page, and a welcome one. He probably saw the response Malke had posted on my talk page here, and checked it out. He and I often watch each other's backs, as we have both been targets of wikistalkers in the past. - BilCat (talk) 21:05, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
What's a registered lurker? Is there a userbox for that? Maybe I should have some of my WP:TPW's register? ++Lar: t/c 21:21, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
  • It's just a spontaneous phrase I made up becaus I wouldn't remeber "talk page watcher"! By "registed" I meant he has my approval to watch my page and act on my behelf when necessary. - BilCat (talk) 21:27, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

The warning is bait and you are just attempting to get a reaction which you failed to get. So you are claiming all sorts of things that are not true. I have done nothing wrong. I've not made any inappropriate comments. An editor with an honest question would not have templated me.Malke2010 20:59, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

What things have I stated that are not true? Do you mean my having edited the page twice beofre, when you claim I haven't? Or something else? - BilCat (talk) 21:05, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
As for your edits, you reverted vandalism and fixed a link. Hardly the interested editor you are attempting to portray yourself as. And your portrayal of my actions and motives is completely false.Malke2010 21:25, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
I think whaht has happened here can be deduced from her own reactions to my comments here. If you compare them side by side, it looks like were talking about two different things. I rest my case. - BilCat (talk) 21:32, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Difficult issue; an editor who makes good faith efforts to improve the encyclopedia, but conflates legitimate questioning of her edits as personal affronts (pa, wikihounding, etc.) and subsequent review of her actions as harassment. I don't know if one or two of the editors with whom she has a good working relationship would be prepared to mentor her, in that she might bring any concern regarding the intent of another editors actions to their attention and comment instead of reacting so... impulsively. I am of the opinion that short blocks would be counterproductive, so we should consider other options before long term blocks become the only solution. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:03, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
I haven't done anything wrong. Show me diffs of where I've done any of the things you are saying I've done. You can't. There aren't any. I'm a good faith editor who is being harassed by Toddst1. Show me a diff that supports what you are saying. What would you say if I'd been the one templating User:BilCat? Or, what if I'd been the one to make the comments/threats that User:Dave1185 had made? I'd be blocked by now. I'm not conflating anything. I asked an editor to not template me. An honest, reasonable editor would not have done that.Malke2010 22:11, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
This is way overproduced. Malke was took the bull by its horns which is not totally a bad thing. Then, the move was reverted, discussed, and consensus formed. The best option is just to leave Malke alone. Everybody's comments are working her up. Malke, you have to develop a thick scalely skin on Wikipedia. The problem here is your reaction to criticism and not your actions. This thread should be closed. It's just stirring up trouble. There's nothing here until a page move war starts. RJ (talk) 22:13, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for your comments. The thread should be closed. I've done nothing wrong. I want it to say that.Malke2010 22:17, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
Your comment "I've done nothing wrong." is somewhat disturbing. You need to listen to both constructive and somewhat less than entirely constructive criticism. If people are complaining about things you do, and uninvolved admins agree that there's a behavioral problem, insisting there is not one is eventually a path towards Wikipedia oblivion.
This is not just an encyclopedia that everyone can edit; it's an encyclopedia that everyone edits together. You owe the community attention to its concerns. That doesn't make every particular criticism leveled right. But you need to engage with and pay attention to those criticisms. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:50, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I think LessHeard vanU's comments are right on the money. The previous blocks have been indeed counterproductive. Gwen Gale (talk · contribs) has attempted to informally mentor this user as has SGGH (talk · contribs). Unfortunately, neither have been very successful, despite notable attempts. Gwen eventually ended up blocking her. Toddst1 (talk) 22:41, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I too agree with "conflates legitimate questioning of her edits as personal affronts (pa, wikihounding, etc.) and subsequent review of her actions as harassment" as said above. Gwen Gale is familiar with this whole thing, having been involved in previous issues. I'd trust GG's assessment of things, however I wish Malke would just accept that bold changes will bring criticism and stop blowing things up with her liberal application of WP:NPA. I'm afraid that blocking will end up being the only alternative. Perhaps getting her into discussion before unblocking - should that happen. S.G.(GH) ping! 22:49, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
I've done nothing to warrant this thread at all. Show me diffs that show me being disruptive, that show me templating regulars, that show me making personal attacks. This is a nonsense. You cannot block me. I've done nothing wrong. Malke2010 22:57, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
Also, please note, I've never been mentored by Gwen Gale or SGGH. Not in any way, ever.Malke2010 22:58, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, we tried. S.G.(GH) ping! 23:25, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

No, neither of you were ever mentors to me.Malke2010 23:37, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

No, despite several emails it became apparent that you are not willing to alter your attitude and your decision to treat every slight as a personal attack, and rebuke everyone harshly with an overreaction. S.G.(GH) ping! 00:02, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I've not corresponded with you in anyway regarding this thread.Malke2010 00:46, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
Regarding Gwen Gale blocking me, Toddst1 is being disingenuous in his characterization of this. I deleted a personal attack by RepublicanJacobite and wrote, 'removing vandalism' in the edit summary because I genuinely believed it was vandalism. Gwen blocked me. She later realized her mistake and unblocked me. There is nothing here. Everybody go home.Malke2010 23:05, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
Malke, for the record, I gave you a formal warning for moving the page because I flt it was warranted, given the discussion on User talk:Daniel Case#article name in which you participated. It was celar to me that you had move the page from a title a clear source supported to another one with no supporting sources, or even a reason given. Your comment on that page, "I've sent an email to Harry Reid's office" was made 18 hours before you made the move, with no followup comment on that page to explain your actions. As such, I felt you made a deliberate move without disscussion, and thus a formal warning was necessary. Templating regulars is not forbidden, and there are circumstances where it is warranted. This is one of them, in my opinion. If the community feels I erred in that decision, I'll be willing to accept that. But it is not wrong, nor was it "baiting" in anyway. As to removing the first post you made on my talk page, I misread the warning which you had copied from your page to mine, and I thought you were warning me. That is why I deleted it. I have since restored the comment without the copied warning to my page. That still does not justify your own overeactions to the situation. All you had to do was admit you made a mistake in moving it prematurely, and continue the discussion. That's why Todd copied the comments from Daniel's page to the article talk page, so the discussion could be continued there. In fact, it has contiuned without you, and has since been moved to another variation of the current title. - BilCat (talk) 04:09, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

What to do about Malke?[edit]

It's pretty clear from the thread above that Malke:

  1. can't handle disagreements constructively and this has repeatedly led to problems[57]
  2. continues to have a very different and problematic view of her behavior that doesn't indicate any potential change.

We've tried mentoring and that didn't work. Short-term blocks were indeed counterproductive. Does anyone have alternative ideas besides long-term blocking? Toddst1 (talk) 00:47, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Please provide diffs that support your claims.Malke2010 00:51, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
Your report to ANI evidences them. S.G.(GH) ping! 09:29, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
Hi. I was notified of this thread by Toddst1. I've got very limited time here; it's late in my part of the world (given my hours, that is). I'm one of the admins who blocked Malke in the past; following that, we engaged in what seems to me to have been a pretty productive conversation about civility and working with others on Wikipedia. Malke has come to my talk page a number of times since to seek advice on interacting with others. I'm not sure what if any action is needed here, since I don't really have time to read through all the diffs and history (late in my part of the world), but if it is determined that a mentor would be beneficial here and Malke would be comfortable with that solution, I would be willing to take up the position LessHeard vanU suggests. I agree with RJ that a thick skin is sometimes necessary to successfully navigate Wikipedia; indeed, goes a long way to doing as Georgewilliamherbert suggests in engaging criticism. Now I'm sufficiently bleary-eyed to have to take myself off. I'll see where things stand with this in the morning, but I wanted to note my position before turning in. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 01:25, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, Moonriddengirl. I'm off for now as well.Malke2010 01:32, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
  • One month block - I stayed away from this until now, and in the interests of full disclosure, as I said at the last Malke/ANI thread, this is an editor I have had ugly run-ins with in the past. That said, as I pointed out in several venues a few weeks back, Malke 2010 does not learn from short blocks, and I do not think further mentoring is the answer. I have fairly recently told Malke on my own talk page they need to learn to walk away, great advice that went unheeded, as Malke went right back to snippy comments literally right after being unblocked. As for Malke asking for diffs... who needs diffs when you see an editor making the kind of defiant comments like we see above on the ANI page when they are a multiple blockee who is back again facing admin complaints? Statements like "You can't block me" etc. etc. more than prove the point. The last step before a long-term block is a medium-term one. And this is what should have happened last time. Let's stop the merry-go-round. Jusdafax 01:56, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
Jusdafax, those are very serious accusations you are making. I should think if they were true, you would be more than happy to provide diffs.Malke2010 03:07, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
Just scroll up, and read your own comments (and the replies from various parties which, with considerable restraint, rebut your statements). Jusdafax 03:51, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Diff? Malke, how about this insinuating message you left on Daniel Case's discussion page? From the looks of it, it sure looks to me that you're accusing Toddst1 of something there (per point number 37 of WP:OWB, though without socks, as yet). Thoughts? Another thing to note, does the passage of