Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive660

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

Noticeboard archives


Violent threats via email user[edit]

Please refer future questions from this editor to the Arbitation Committee, and/or Philippe or Christine at the WMF. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 20:22, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
I'm frankly a bit astounded at this whole situation and not sure what to make of it or how to handle it, but in a four hour span this afternoon I received a series of extremely vulgar, angry emails from (according to the footers), user:Erik fielding (with whom, as far as I know, I have never had any dealings, especially since their join date was today). The subject lines were all along the lines of "Fucking garbage with many artists's descriptions" and "Are you a fucking piece of shit, not replying to me?" and the last email of the series culminated in the following threat:

"If you continue to ignore my two very nice letters (one via email and one in your sick forum), I will find you, regardless of what I have to do to accomplish that, and assuredly put you in the hospital. [...]I am totally honest and trustworthy and never lie or go back on my promises. And, I assure you that if you persist in ignoring me, refusing to reply to my questions via email, and causing me pain and suffering, I will put you, whether you are male or female, in the hospital."

The email also expresses regret that it should be necessary for him to have to physically harm anyone right before Christmas. The sender provides what he claims is his real name, email address, phone number, and address. Could very well be false info or him trying to get someone else in trouble, or could be real, I guess.

I'm at a medium level of freaked-out-ness right now and not sure what to do from here. Request admin action to block user? Contact police with the identifying information given in the emails? Is this something that goes to the foundation? Checkuser? Arbcom?

I have the emails and can forward them as needed if someone lets me know where to send them off to.

I am not attempting to inform the user of this discussion. I'm sure that makes me a bad Wikipedian and I'm aware it's not obeying the giant orange banner, but I'm a little scared right now and I will not be contacting him, period.keɪɑtɪk flʌfi (talk) 04:11, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Notified, though I suspect the account was set up solely to gain access to the emailuser function. Gavia immer (talk) 04:23, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
Risker has blocked the Erik fielding (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) account, so I will merely note that that account is surely [suggestion that turned out to be incorrect redacted]. Gavia immer (talk) 04:53, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
I guess it could be them as much as anyone, Gavia immer, but what makes you think that particular user is the culprit? (ETA: I ask because the emails the user sent me did not mention that article, and were mostly focused on various musician and song articles that they thought were wrong, unlinked, or such things) keɪɑtɪk flʌfi (talk) 05:00, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
He's the article creator and is probably angry that you "de-rhapsodized" it. False alarm.Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:05, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
No relationship between ... and the person behind the threatening account; also no reason to think that there is a relationship there. Contrary to the belief of some, threats of violence toward specific users because of article edits are quite rare. Incidentally, I concur with Chaoticfluffy that there is absolutely no benefit in notifying those who are making email threats; this is a situation where block first, ask questions later is entirely appropriate. There may also be no relationship between the username and any person with that real name; however, given the circumstances I have blocked with an informative summary, recognizing that it may require suppression in the future. Risker (talk) 05:07, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Well, you know the email contents and I don't - I was guessing based on their ownership behavior on that article and the fact that it's recent enough to have inspired an attempt to contact you. That account does not seem to have an interest in music, though, so it's not them. (After ec): Risker has the bits to know what's up. I'm completely wrong. Gavia immer (talk) 05:16, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
Did the OP consider writing back with a 'de-escalating' email simply to say that s/he didn't mean to offend the other editor, that s/he doesn't own the article or control its contents, and that policy governs changes though they're open for discussion'. I don't think anyone should have to cower to threats, but sometimes ignoring someone who is yelling at you and not totally with-it is not the best short term strategy. Ocaasi (talk) 10:23, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
Replying to the email would disclose your own email address to them, which is not a good idea - as well as then having more personal information about you, they could also carry on the harassment and threats by ordinary email, without having to use the Wikipedia mechanism and without being able to be blocked from it. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:43, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
I don't use anything but a throwaway account for Wikipedia email, so I wouldn't be too worried about that myself. Still, it's just as reasonable a strategy to ignore it and let the higher-ups handle whatever is necessary. Ocaasi (talk) 11:22, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
Yes, many people do use a throwaway account - I use a disposable one myself. But it can be inconvenient to actually have to throw it away, as quite a few of us do communicate with others using our Wikipedia email. Also, I've been working in online communities for a good few years, and I honestly think the serious nut-jobs are best ignored - the psychologies of such people are so different to most of us, that trying anything we might deem rational usually only leads to frustration -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:59, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Range block request[edit]


See WP:ANI#Would a rangeblock work here? above. Since my last post there he's come back with another IP. I don't want to sp my talk page, but I'm going to if we can't range block - which I think we should if feasible since he's impersonating and vandalising other editors. Dougweller (talk) 15:27, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

An e-mail to the checkusers mailing list might get faster attention on this than the post here. Unfortunately from a timing perspective, also, a number of people are going to be away or busy for the holiday. Nonetheless, hopefully this can be looked at very soon by a CU with the right expertise. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:30, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
True. I took your advice and emailed the cu list, and my email was automatically rejected as evidently I'm not allowed to post to it, although it should be open to anyone to post to. Dougweller (talk) 15:51, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
That's bizarre. Please send the e-mail to me and I'll forward it, along with a request to figure out what the heck is going on. (And now I really must be out the door soon or I'll miss my train.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:01, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Three different accounts/IPs on three different ranges, albeit similar ISPs. Unless massive disruption occurs a range block doesn't seem possible. Brandon (talk) 00:35, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Internal Server error wikipedia[edit]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Getting a error on various Wikipedia pages. IT has to do with a COM of somesort. Sorry if this is the wrong page, it most likely is, but what is it? --Hinata talk 21:36, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Weird, I've been getting this a lot too. — Moe ε 22:03, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
The databases on most smaller wikis have been locked for now; synchronization issues, some diffs have been lost over the past two hours. I checked on IRC, they're working on it. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 22:06, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
IRC is the best place to go with that kind of thing (#wikimedia-tech on Alternatively, WP:VPT or Bugzilla should usually work even if Wikipedia itself is down. (talk) 22:25, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
I reported this on VPT hours ago. No one said anything yet. Not sure why this is at ANI. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 23:53, 25 December 2010 (UTC)


I became aware of this user - and I will demonstrate that it is very likely the same user - when I blocked the IP for 72 hours for vandalism and edit warring at Paola S. Timiras on December 19. At the time I blocked only the IP because he was deleting content, and at the time I didn't know any of the story I'm about to relate. It was simply another response to an WP:AIV report, and I didn't think any more about it.

About 24 hours later, User:Bondiveres added this statement to my talk page, complaining about the IP's block and that Wim Crusio, who edits here as User:Crusio, is on some type of vendetta against him about the use of 'phenomics' instead of 'phenotype'. This goes back to these two AFDs, as far as I can tell - the IP is trying to get information into the Timiras article that was deleted by consensus at AFD. Quack, quack.

Several hours to my involvement in this mess, Bondiveres sought help and advice from User:Gnowor, and you can find their conversations here. Gnowor clearly is trying to give the editor some advice, but Bondiveres seems like a classic case of WP:IDHT. Tonight Gnowor's patience finally wore out, and he's told Bondiveres again that he's going about this the wrong way and that he's done with dealing with Bondiveres's issues.

But this is why I'm here now: yesterday, Bondiveres started plastering this diatribe on my talk page and the talk pages of several other editors. He also stuck it into Talk:Wim Crusio over several edits. I think he's trying to demonstrate that the Crusio article should be trimmed because all the Nobel laureates' articles aren't as long, or something. I responded on his talk page to not take the size of articles in KB as some weight of importance or notability.

Meanwhile, the 72-hour block of the IP expired, and after it did the IP added the same screed to the talk page of User:Colonel Warden - word for word. Quack, quack, quack.

It's obvious to me that the IP and Bondiveres are the same person. I also suspect that User:Sgaran, the Steven A. Garan of one of the AFD discussions, is the actual sockmaster here. And it's plain that he's not here to add to the encyclopedia - he's here to harass Crusio in both real life and Wikilife. I'd like a checkuser run to see if these three are indeed the same, and if there are more.

In addition, I believe we should restrict this editor at least from User:Crusio, Wim Crusio, and Paola S. Timiras. There may be more articles and problems of which I'm not aware. And it goes without saying that he's not to do this canvassing on talk or user talk pages again.

I'm notifying editors who have received that long message and may know more - Gnowor, Crusio, User:OrangeMike and User:Nuujinn. I just discovered Nuujinn opened an SPI on Sgaran in May 2010.

This is nonsense and it's spreading. It has to stop. Thanks. KrakatoaKatie 08:29, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Given the length of the discussion that started on my talk page and has now moved here, I'm guessing it's helpful for a quick summary.
I was Huggling. I noticed an edit by Bondiveres (BV) to Paola S. Timiras. It was the same as an edit that Crusio had reverted. The edit in question looked like some shameless self-plugging, along with something that defied WP:MOS guidelines on bolding the subject of the article. I reverted. Although the edit was by an IP editor, BV was the one who alerted me on my talk page that it was constructive. I took a closer look, and tried to restore the info without the MOS violation.
Crusio notified me there was history and linked me to the AfDs above. I tried to act as an unofficial mediator between Crusio & BV and also educate BV as to WP policy. Eventually, I proposed a solution that avoided any potential plugging of articles which I believe BV contributed to off-wiki that are not notable (I defer to Crusio on notability standards on scientific articles based on my only physical science class in undergrad being Astronomy). BV had insisted that the name of a device (AIMS for short) was very important to Paola S. Timiras prior to her death, and that it was not the same as the ATIS it redirects to. I proposed we change the name on the PST page to AIMS with a cite to one of the non-notable papers for reference. Crusio didn't like the cite. I figured, if BV is really looking out for PST's interests, he won't care about the loss of the cite. He did.
After this, BV started to attack the Wim Crusio article which is a bio of Crusio. Based on the early edits to the page, and subsequent block of that user, it looks like the article's creator was a student of Crusio's (possibly). Regardless, Crusio himself at one point nom'd the page for AfD and succeeded.
Bottom line, despite the gentle hand I tried to treat BV with as he is a new editor, and a fairly stern warning by myself, BV is unhappy that he can't use Wikipedia to plug his non-notable off-wiki work. He's proceeded with a vendetta against a veteran editor who (understandably) lost patience with the situation long ago, as I feel I now have.
I sincerely apologize to the community if my handling of the situation has resulted in this escalating to this point. Please understand I intervened with best intentions. I thought I was dealing with two brilliant and reasonable individuals who would accept a fair solution (and Crusio did). In the future, when I see myself investing this much time in a matter with little progress, I'll hand it over to the pros.
Based on my time invested, I don't intend to return to this discussion, as I feel that is all the background I have. If more information is required, feel free to notify me on my talk page and I'll happily return. Thank you in advance for your time.--GnoworTC 09:07, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
BV's actions seem similar to Sgaran's to me, but then, the ips in the SPI seemed similar to Sgaran as well, so take that with a grain of salt. This conversation may be useful for comparison, but other than that I have nothing to add really. --Nuujinn (talk) 12:27, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
Here's a further demonstration that I don't know when to quit. Interesting tidbit I just discovered: The Paola S. Timiras article that the IP and BV are trying to add info to was actually created by Sgaran. Perhaps this user is unaware of WP:OWN as well?--GnoworTC 12:35, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Thanks Katie for taking this to ANI. I had some tough traveling days here with only sketchy Internet access and only just now got back to my office (you may have heard about the travel problems in France). I think Katie and Gnowor summarized the situation very aptly. Gnowor was very patient in trying to get BV to behave in a more constructive way (see User talk:Gnowor/P.S. Timiras, which also has links to the AfDs that are at the basis of this affair). I have removed BVs diatribe from my own talk page. I would appreciate if this personal attack could be removed elsewhere, too, but as involved party will not do this myself. As for my bio, this mess illustrates why I took an earlier bio to AfD. Fortunately for me, that previous bio missed a lot of info, so that the AfD succeeded. I did not take the current bio to AfD, as my experience with academics AfDs tells me that this time around, that wouldn't fly. Despite itching fingers, I try not to edit it and hope some other editors will put it on their watchlist and keep an eye on it. As for its size, I couldn't care less, as long as what is in the bio is accurate. Thanks. --Crusio (talk) 15:54, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

First I have been asked by Garan to be an advocate for him since he no longer has the time nor the energy to address what has happened. Second I would like to thank Gnowor for his time and effort in this matter. And now I would like to address the issue at hand. This entire issue was started when Wim Crusio's actions failed to redirect the wiki entry Phenomics to Phenotype on April 27, 2010, please look at the edit log for Phenomics to verify the dates and actions. Please look at the change log for Phenomics and you will observe Crusio repeatedly tried to redirect the site and failed. After Wim Crusio lost the "battle" to redirect Phenomics to Phenotype, he started a vendetta against my friend Garan, who advocated for keeping the page, and as of today the page is still there. After this loss Wim Crusio took a sudden interest in deleting/redirecting/removing content from the following entries: Automated Imaging Microscope System, Paola_S._Timiras, Aging Research Centre. I am not sure what the afore mentioned wiki pages have to do with "Phenomics"? Crusio even admitted that "There is a connection", these are his own words. A very long discussion took place with Gnowor regarding the restoration of information that Crusio deleted and as of this time of these comments, the restored item, is still on the site. Wim Crusio has removed quite a lot of information from wiki and this is all documented. He has deleted this information under the false pretense, just as he did with the information Gnowor restored. I have tried to restore the information Crusio has deleted but he has blocked every attempt but for one. Why is it that when Gnowor adds information to a wiki site and when the same information is added by BV it is considered "continued vandalism"? Crusio even removed the following item that was well referanced: "In 2001 at age 78, Timiras and her former Ph.D. student Paul Segall founded the Center for Research and Education on Aging at the University of California, Berkeley[5] of which she served as the first chair". Why would he do this? I am not sure if Gnowor wants to spend another hour of his time on defending this addition and that is perfectly understandable. I started to wonder of Crusio practiced a similar level of editing on his own site. I noticed that his own wiki page, Wim Crusio is more than twice the size of an average Nobel Laureate in Physiology or Medicine from the past 14 years. If people think that Wim Crusio should have a wiki page larger than that of any of the previous 32 Nobel Laureates in Physiology or Medicine, then that is great! I would support that my self. But let the discussion take place, do not delete the question and the responses to them. My posting of this question was deleted by him, and now no discussion can take place regarding this matter. I thought wiki was a place where good information that is referenced, can be posted, so that others can learn from this information, and discussions can take place with out fear of being stopped. I would like to know how I have restore referenced information that Crusio has deleted.? Without him blocking every step? And without people like Gnowor having to spend a great deal of time backing me up? Bondiveres (talk) 21:59, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

The issue is not the size of article, which has been explained to you as irrelevant, nor is it the use of phenomics and phenotype. The issue is your behavior. You are causing problems by canvassing, edit warring, and stalking User:Crusio. It's been explained to you that your information is not notable. Stop it. KrakatoaKatie 23:09, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
Regarding my success where you have failed, BV, I'd like to think that's from following WP guidelines about editing("being bold"), reverting, and discussing. You made an edit, I reverted, you and I discussed. I made an edit you and I agreed upon, Crusio reverted, then the three of us discussed. Where you're running into trouble is that when the discussion doesn't go your way, you've tried to insert non-relevant material in order to avoid the decision in the AfDs (prior to my involvement). When the discussion didn't go your way our interactions, you've proceeded with the canvassing, stalking, and editwarring that Katie mentioned.
Katie, Crusio, and myself could be contributing this time to improving this and other areas of the encyclopedia. Rather than joining us in that bold endeavor, you hang on to the hope that you can get your way with this one specific set of articles. You're running into trouble because we're trying to make the encyclopedia better, and you're trying to get what you want.
Additionally, regarding your size of Wim Crusio argument: I believe you have a flawed premise. That premise is that a more important article should be longer. If we accept that premise and act upon it immediately, I'd argue that Wikipedia would be immediately blank. We'd have to have a discussion about what article is most important, 2nd most, 3rd most, etc, and then proceed with restoring pages and trimming to appropriate size. And given that I don't believe the 100k+ active editors are going to come to an agreement on that any time soon, I believe that Wikipedia would remain blank for quite a long time. Wikipedia is a work in progress. Viewing your argument about size of article's in the best light, your conclusion is that Nobel Laureates should have longer pages than Wim Crusio. So take it upon yourself to make them longer. If Katie, Crusio, myself, or many other experienced editors were to make that argument, that is what we'd do. Why? Because it improves the encyclopedia, rather than taking away from it by deleting content from an article.
You're a scientist, BV. I guarantee you're a lot smarter than a lot of the people that Katie and I deal with when we normally fight vandalism. As such, I ask you to take a step back and evaluate your actions. Are you doing what's in the best interest of the encyclopedia? Or are you doing what's in the best interests of BV/Sgaran? I've spent the time engaging in this dialog with you because unlike users that make edits like this I believe you have valuable contributions that you can make to the encyclopedia if you choose to do so. Whether you choose to do so is up to you.--GnoworTC 23:57, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you once again for your great comments Gnowor and for your time. I completely agree with what you said regarding the fact, that it is better to contribute to the wiki encyclopedia than to delete as has been the case with Crusio and the afore mentioned pages. I am sorry for bringing him into this again, but this is why we are all here. The only reason I mention the page size issue, was to provoke a response. It appears I have done so. Please read what James Cantor said: "The problem you are describing seems to me to be a reason to add good material to the pages on your list.". James mirrors, what you said, in that it is better to add information than delete it, and once again I agree whole heartedly. But I am afraid that puts me into a bit of a catch 22 situation, and takes us back to when a certain person removed the content for the Automated Imaging Microscope System. Details of the system have been published in many peer reviewed journals, and I would like to share information about this system to the rest of the wiki community. But Crusio can blocked this, even though hard copy publications have published details of this system he does not want to allow the information to be put on wikipedia. He has made repeated attempts to suppress this information. I could play the same game and remove information from his page and say: "The information in the page was self promoting and superfluous and many other things" but as you said this would just deplete wikipedia. I would like to restore the page for the Automated Imaging Microscope System. Listed are the journals in which details of the AIMS system and the it's results are published:

Long list of journals cited by BV, removed by Katie, restored by Gnowor

Estrogen receptor-alpha immunoreactivity in the arcuate hypothalamus of young and middle-aged female mice; Neuro Endocrinol Lett. 2010 Feb 16;31(1):15.

Age-dependent loss of insulin-like growth factor-1 receptor immunoreactive cells in the supraoptic hypothalamus is reduced in calorically restricted mice; Neurology & Neurosurgery, Para. 488, Page 99, Sec. 8, Vol 152.2, 2007

Novel methods in computer-assisted tissue analysis: Customized regional targeting of both cytoplasmic and nuclear-stained tissue; Experimental Gerontology, Volume 42, Issues 1-2, January-February 2007, Pages 141-142

Tracking changes in hypothalamic IGF-1 sensitivity with aging and caloric restriction; Experimental Gerontology, Volume 42, Issues 1-2 , January-February 2007, Pages 11-12.

Insulin-like growth factor-1 receptor immunoreactive cells are selectively maintained in the paraventricular hypothalamus of calorically restricted mice; Int J Dev Neurosci. 2007 Feb;25(1):23-8

Age-dependent loss of insulin-like growth factor-1 receptor immunoreactive cells in the supraoptic hypothalamus is reduced in calorically restricted mice; Int J Dev Neurosci. 2006 Nov;24(7):431-6.

A study of insulin-like growth factor-I receptor immunoreactivity in the supraoptic nucleus of young and old female B6D2F1 mice; FASEB Journal, April 2006, 357.5

Caloric restriction reduces cell loss and maintains estrogen receptor-alpha immunoreactivity in the pre-optic hypothalamus of female B6D2F1 mice; Neuro Endocrinol Lett. 2005 Jun;26(3):197-203.

A survey of estrogen receptor-alpha immunoreactivity in the hypothalamus of young, old, and old-calorie restricted female B6D2F1 mice; Experimental Gerontology, Volume 39, Issues 11-12, November-December 2004, Page 1771

A comparison of estrogen receptor-alpha immunoreactivity in the arcuate hypothalamus of young and middle-aged C57BL6 female mice; Experimental Gerontology, Volume 38 (2003), Issues 1-2, Page 220

Creating Three-Dimensional Neuronal Maps of the Mouse Hypothalamus Using an Automated Imaging Microscope System; Experimental Gerontology, Volume 35 numbers 9-10, December 2000, page 1421

Automated Imaging Microscope System; Linux Journal 2000, Issue 70, Februrary, Page 32-35

Why is it, that the details of the Automated Imaging Microscope System are published in these journals and yet details of the AIMS system are not fit for wikipedia? Is it not worthy because I only listed 12 publications and the minimum is 15? I only say this tung and cheek. Or is it that wikipedia has higher standards than the following journals:

Experimental Gerontology, 
Neuro Endocrinology, 
Internation Journal of  Developmental Neurosciene,  
FASEB Journal, 
Linux Journal, 
Neurology & Neurosurgery 

If the answer is yes, then I think that says volumes about the people making the decisions to remove content from wikipedia.

I am sorry for my tone and if seems to be a little too direct, and if I have provided too much information, I only did so, to provide as much information as I have available; but when I see injustice I think it is the obligation of all of us to shed light on it and to educate and to inform, and I feel that is the best way to go forward. Bondiveres (talk) 02:18, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

I've blanked the section you added (restored within collapse by Gnowor), BV, and it's now apparent you just don't understand. KrakatoaKatie 02:58, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Discussion on topic ban for User:Bondiveres/User:[edit]

Based on his lack of understanding and continued refusal to abide by WP:N, WP:NPOV, and WP:V, and his ongoing harassment of User:Crusio, I propose a topic ban for Bondiveres and his IP from Wim Crusio, Talk:Wim Crusio, Paola S. Timiras, automated tissue image analysis, AIMS microscope and their related articles, broadly construed. He should also avoid interaction with User:Crusio and is not to edit the pages or talk pages of articles Crusio edits.

I need a checkuser to determine if these three accounts are related. If so, he must agree to edit from only that account.

Since it's the holidays, I may timestamp this to keep discussion going. If admins want to reword or change my proposal, propose away. I'm very tired and I need to rest a while. Thanks. :-) KrakatoaKatie 03:04, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Hello Katie,
I thought the purpose of wiki was to share information and not to suppress it. A "Discussion on topic ban" this sounds like something that takes place in China or North Korea. Please restore my comments and let this discussion take it's natural course. I am not sure if your actions are what Jimmy Wales had in mind when he created Wikipedia. Please do not suppress the free flow of information and thoughts. If your reply to my statements are "you just don't understand", you might at least be a little more specific and engage in a civil discussion that pertains to the topics at hand. I have taken the time to discuss the events that are outlined and I think I have brought up a number of valid points. I thought people such as your self would be willing to talk about these points so a mutual understanding can be reached. I am afraid the statement "you just don't understand" is not very constructive. Please outline your point of view and if I am unable to dispute your statements I will, agree with you, and I hope the reverse is true as well. All the best. Happy Holidays. I await your reply. Bondiveres (talk) 03:50, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Support see the following:
I removed the aforementioned content from the Wim Crusio talk page ---,[1], and BV restored it [2]. He began a disscussion on my talk page [3], to which I responded [4]. I again removed the irrelevant personal commentary and attack from the Wim Crusion Talk Page [5].
Hence, based on the discssion in the previous section, and what I have added here, I think an indefinite topic ban is in order, until this user is able to state their case for having the ban lifted. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 03:44, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
Hello Steve
Once again, the reason that this entire series of evens has taken place is because of deletion of information. I had hoped the free flow of thoughts and opinions and allowed to be expressed. I fear this may not be the case here. I would hope if someone disagrees with something can freely discuss issues without fear of being censored. If you disagree with someone, then please says so and give the reasons and less the other person reply and so on. That is how a civil society is supposed to function, even one that is online. I await your reply.
I did read your comments on your talk page and can I assume that this is the correct place to discuss this topic and if it is, then why did Katie place a ban on it? If this is not the correct place please let me know where the correct place is. Bondiveres (talk) 04:13, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Support per free speech/China/Korea arguments here. And Bondiveres, if you disrupt this discussion with attacks like that again, I'll block you temporarily so the discussion can proceed in a reasonable manner. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:13, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
Sarek thank you so much,
Thank you for a well put statement. Please tell me how else I can refer to system, where comments are removed from an open discussion? I am open to all suggestions. I only made reference to the afore mentioned regimes, because this is type of information deletion and blockage that takes place on a routine bases, and has been in the news of late. I would welcome your suggestions on how to classify this action. All the Best. And thank you once again from a well put comment. I await your reply. Bondiveres (talk) 04:25, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Support:
By directing BV away from this given topic, it will give him an opportunity to constructively contribute to other areas of the encyclopedia and learn WP policy. Refinement of Steve Quinn's application for lifting of the ban: After several months BV of active constructive participation in other areas of the encyclopedia according to policy, I think that BV should have the opportunity to argue from policy for the lifting of this ban. I propose this as a one time opportunity, with a bad faith request by BV of the lift of this ban being grounds for this ban becoming permanent.
Additional IPs with similar behavior and Articles that might be subject to Topic ban:

(This info found via Article Blamer upon inspection of Articles currently on WP that have cites similar to the ones used by BV)

Extended content
Additions of similar links to Preoptic area[6](2007), and Insulin-like growth factor 1 receptor[7](2006). Edit history also includes edits to Paola S. Timiras(PST) and AIMS, although edits outside of this subject area as well. Public computer? Last edits by IP are to PST in 2/2009.
Addition of similar links to Estrogen receptor[8](2006). Edits to Phenomics, Ageing, Estrogen receptor, Calorie restriction, Insulin-like growth factor 1 receptor. Last edits May 2006.
Addition of similar link to Australian Plant Phenomics Facility[9](11/2010). Only edit by this user.

I realize the first two IPs are too stale for a block, and the single edit by the last IP isn't very troublesome. Still, based on similar edit pattern, I propose the following pages be specifically included in the topic ban (although they probably would've already fallen under a broadly construed ban):

Thanks for everyone's time on this.--GnoworTC 04:33, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Inspection of BVs edit history shows not a single edit that was not related to the Sgaran walled garden or made to harass me. A topic ban would therefore in practice not be much difference from a block. I also add that BV has "seeded" his personal attacks against me over several pages and I repeat that I would greatly appreciate if somebody would remove these. Thanks. --Crusio (talk) 13:49, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
    • Note restored after redaction by BV.--GnoworTC 18:14, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Gnowor, perhaps you would be so kind to restore the redaction that was made by Katie as well. Crusio's comments are false and inflammatory. I would like to place this on the record and hope that these statements are not redacted. Crusio's false statements of walled garden's are personal attacks on me and I strongly protest, and I wish them to be removed. I can not stress this more strongly. I can not abide his presumptuous and false statements. Bondiveres (talk) 18:49, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Done. I believe that Katie's removal was to try to keep this discussion short and readable rather than listing several journals. You've asked, I've restored. Your removal was another attack on the user you're accused of attacking.--GnoworTC 19:01, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Gnowor for restoring a part of this section. Crusio's statements regarding walled gardens are clear attacks on me and I would like him to stop this reprehensible behavior. I find it perplexing how a man who is purportedly a Director at a french research institute can make false statements and put them on the record. And the evidence of these actions are written by him just above my comments here, and the statements are signed by him as well, and therefore there is no doubt of his guilt. I can not understand how someone like that can engage in such actions. I ask him most kindly in light of the holiday season to reconsider his behavior and to act more becoming of a person of his rank. I ask him most sincerely to stop his attacks. Thanks. Bondiveres (talk) 19:10, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Walled garden is a technical term used here on WP that you can read about via this link. It is not an attack. His statement that you don't have a single edit outside of the arena is accurate. His accusation about your dissemination of attacks on him and the article about him are also accurate according to your edit history.
More importantly, your continued contributions to this discussion focus on Crusio. This discussion is currently about your actions, and in every post, you try to deflect by saying "he did it first". Regardless of who started what/when, you need to take responsibility for your actions, which are in violation of a number of concrete Wikipedia policies, and for continuing to take up the community's time.
Also, notice: Despite having every opportunity to present your case via this discussion, users with no prior involvement are siding against you. This should be another reason to reflect on your actions.--GnoworTC 19:52, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Support topic ban BV's conduct seems to be the problem at the moment. He appears to be using this internet site as a WP:FORUM for making personal attacks on an editor through his real life position in the CNRS. That is completely at odds with the purpose of wikipedia. Mathsci (talk) 19:48, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

One more note. Crusio's dislike of my comments regarding the size of his personal wiki was greeted with thanks by the user Katie. She wrote the following after a very nice comment that explained the issue, she wrote: "Thanks again for the message." Please refer to my talk page in order to see her comments, they are very well thought out and written down. Thank you Katie. Bondiveres (talk) 19:57, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

  • It should be clear to all involved and uninvolved editors by now that BV is just playing with us. Somebody block him already, this has gone on long enough. --Crusio (talk) 20:03, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
    • Bondiveres, why don't you go see how many times I've typed 'Thanks again for the message.' It's called 'courtesy', not 'I agree with everything you've ever said'. KrakatoaKatie 20:05, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Comment see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Sgaran#24_December_2010. I was so tired I forgot to hit the save button and request the CheckUser. That's fixed now. :-) KrakatoaKatie 20:02, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Dear Crusio, Please do not refer to me as "this guy", I take the greatest offense, from your comments. I can not imagine using such a term, in order to refer to you, because I have more respect for the people that have taken time to look at the issue at hand. Once again I would hope that others can see the level of your discourse. I ask most kindly to change your tone. All the best. Bondiveres (talk) 20:14, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

BV's manner of posting comments here is unhelpul. Using the phrase "this guy" was clearly not an attack. Mathsci (talk) 20:19, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Mathsci, I beg to differ. It is a most offensive form of disrespect. I am quite certain you would not refer to Dr. Wim Crusio as "this guy", I most certainly would not. Please comment. Bondiveres (talk) 20:38, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

That is an unreasonable interpretation, particularly when referring to non-native English speakers. Mathsci (talk) 20:47, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
"This guy" is slightly pointed slang, but it's nowhere close to a breach of civility. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:50, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
Maybe Crusio was listening to Jimi Hendrix and got in a romantic mood ;-). Anyway it's about the last thing I'd get upset about. (talk) 06:57, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

I would like to say that I have devoted a great deal of time and energy in order to participate in this forum. I respect all those that have taken the time to do so as well. I find it very very offensive that Wim Crusio says otherwise. There are many other activities that I could be engaged in at this time of year, but I feel very strongly that I can not just bow to injustice. Once again I ask you please stop your attacks on me and try to act more in accords with the members of this forum. All the best. Bondiveres (talk) 20:27, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

This is not a WP:FORUM. You have been told that on multiple occasions. Mathsci (talk) 20:34, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
I sincerely hope your next comment, BV, responds to the last two lines of this post by me.--GnoworTC 20:36, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Good to hear from you Gnowor. I tried to look for the two lines you referred to, but I can not see which are the once the you mean. Please post this here, or just post a few words so I can search for them in your link. Thanks Bondiveres (talk) 20:44, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Comments below.--GnoworTC 20:52, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
Extended content

More importantly, your continued contributions to this discussion focus on Crusio. This discussion is currently about your actions, and in every post, you try to deflect by saying "he did it first". Regardless of who started what/when, you need to take responsibility for your actions, which are in violation of a number of concrete Wikipedia policies, and for continuing to take up the community's time.

Also, notice: Despite having every opportunity to present your case via this discussion, users with no prior involvement are siding against you. This should be another reason to reflect on your actions.--GnoworTC 19:52, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Propose Full Ban[edit]

Despite the situation escalating to a Topic Ban discussion, BV continues to focus on matters unrelated to the Topic Ban. I propose this now be escalated to a full permanent ban. I feel that a permanent ban is appropriate as BV's only contributions have been to matters related to this discussion. I also propose that users associated with BV according to the results of the checkuser be included in the ban.--GnoworTC 20:47, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

  1. As nom.--GnoworTC 20:47, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
  2. I honestly thought a topic ban would do it, but he just doesn't understand how much disruption he's causing and he shows no signs of backing off. He's made no article edits since October and he's using the servers to cause trouble instead of improve the articles he claims don't have enough detail. We've tried to show him the light but it's futile, it seems. KrakatoaKatie 21:45, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
  3. Per almost everybody else commenting here, BV simply does not get it. His attitude towards wikipedia seems to be disruptive at the moment. Unfortunately an indefinite community ban seems to be the only alternative at this stage. Mathsci (talk) 21:50, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
  4. I have no prior involvement with this editor or this specific issue, but I've read the commentary here and on various talk pages referenced here. Either BV doesn't get what he's been told over and over again, or he's deliberately ignoring it to press his agenda, but in neither case does it help the project to have such a person editing. My feeling is that unless he shows immediately that he's capable of editing in a collegial manner according to our policies, he should be shown the door until he can prove that he can. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:57, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
  1. I respectfully disagree. I have put forth a large body of information that supports my position. I am willing to answer any questions that are put forth, but I only ask this they be put in a respectfully manner. I have taken a great deal of time to provide as much information as possible. And ask that you consider both sides to this issue equally. All the best. Bondiveres (talk) 21:02, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

It so happens that people who edit Wikipedia and are wiki-notable tend to have more detailed biographic articles than those who don't edit here. But Bondiveres has been harassing Crusio about this issue and a few other issues, for instance proposing for deletion a bunch of biographies started by Crusio (e.g. [10] [11] there are some more in his edit history.) I find these actions troubling. If Bondiveres cannot find something else worthy of his attention on Wikipedia shortly, an indef block or ban for harassment seem inevitable and warranted. Tijfo098 (talk) 21:22, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Tijfo098, as you can imagine I would like nothing better than have to reply to comments that are posted here. But the fact is, is that comments are being posted here and I assume that you expect a reply to them. Please do not chide me for responding to comments directed towards me, and say me time would be better spent updating wiki. I would like very much to do so. I hope you understand this, I think most people would. (talk) 23:56, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

  • "I would like very much to do so". Well, then start doing that and show us what you can. I have worked today, went shopping, posted here on this board, and in between created 3 new articles and edited/expanded several others. You can do that, too. --Crusio (talk) 00:09, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
    • So you're admitting, IP, that you and BV are one and the same? Because if not, your comment here is a little odd since you haven't responded to anything as yet. KrakatoaKatie 01:27, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
I would not support a permanent ban, because BV is very capable of making useful contribution here, once he learns not to make edits on his own projects and not to engage in quarrels with other editors. But at this point I see no prospect that a topic ban will work, for too many other pages are getting involved. In order to prevent further disruption, and what seems to amount to harassment of at least one of our best editors, I suggest a block for one month, including ip addresses used, and the ip address above. At the end of that time, if the ed. should return and make useful contributions--great. If he continues as he is doing now, a permanent ban will be in order. I am slightly involved as I closed one of the afds in question, so I ask any other admin to review and do the block. DGG ( talk ) 00:11, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

First I would like to thank Crusio for his comments and I agree with him, and as a result I would like to propose the following:

  1. I will honor and adhere to a 6 month self imposed moratorium on any changes to the wiki pages that are in question.
  2. I will devote my time and energy to upgrading other wiki pages.
  3. In 6 months time I will start a dialog with Crusio and work with him in order to arrive at a status quo that both of us can agree with.

I sincerely hope this proposal meets with your approval, and if so, I hope all of us can consider this matter closed. All the best. Bondiveres (talk) 02:57, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

  • BV, I am personally willing to accept this (let's keep the spirit of Christmas alive). However, you might first convince us of your good faith by removing the personal attacks on me that you put on several talk pages (insofar they haven't been removed yet). If you do that, I will support this solution and I'd even be willing to help you edit articles in the coming 6 months with advice on WP policies/habits/guides (but there are many good editors all over the place, so I'd understand it if you'd rather work with them than with me). However, despite all holiday spirit, I do want to add that I have no more patience with personal attacks, so at the first recurrence, we'd be back here. I don't like to be at ANI (for one, all the changes here clutter up my watchlist), so I do hope that you're sincere: WP can use more academics willing to share their knowledge. --Crusio (talk) 11:45, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
  • I agree that BV should remove the inappropriate material placed on several talk pages. After that I support BV's three part proposal, with one exception. Although, Crusio is willing to help out, there are many good editors from whom advice and guidance can be sought. Hence, there is no need for BV to focus soley on Crusio for this, especially given the situation. I have to admit I have misgivings about BV "starting a dialog with Crusio and working with him in order to arrive at a status quo that both of them can be happy with". The status quo appears to be is Wikipedia guidelines and policies, and from experience I know that Crusio supports these. Editing is not really about what certain editors are happy with; and being in agreement with guidelines and policies is satisfying. I am sorry to bring that up, but in advance it may be best to bring it out in the open. Problematic editors in the past have used this "happy" justification, or a some similar variation, for contradictory editing and argument. I bring it up so Crusio, and other editors don't get caught up in having to fend off additions or deletions that each can be "happy with", as a justification. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 16:32, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Wise words, Steve. You're right that just a compromise between BV and me would not be enough to restore any of the deleted material. After all, I didn't delete that stuff, I proposed it for deletion and after hearing the arguments from both sides, the community decided to delete. Anyway, let's see whether BV shows good will and removes those personal attacks. If that shouldn't happen, then I won't have much faith in this solution either. --Crusio (talk) 16:48, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
  • I started removing the inappropriate material from the User talk pages. I had to make sure I have definite grounds for removal. My justification is "Remove inappropriate content. Please see edit history and content removal per WP:TPNO, and User:Bondiveres/User:, specifically no personal attacks, and do not misrepresent other people. It might also be considered vandalism.
So everyone can see what I am doing, here is the first removal [12]. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 17:46, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

As per Crusio's request, I have initiated the removal of the material he has requested, starting at his talk page. I then went to a subsection of Gnowor's page and the message says "The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it.". Please advise me as to what to do regarding the afore mentioned message. I await your reply. but in the mean time I will continue the clean up. Bondiveres (talk) 18:21, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
I have removed all the material I could find, excluding the material in the Gnowor subsection, because of the message stated above. I will deleted the material, but I await your instructions on this matter. Bondiveres (talk) 19:12, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

──────────── My apologies that I haven't been able to participate in this discussion over the past couple days. Been a bit busy with Christmas. I'm assuming that BV is referring to the dialog here which was immediately antecedent to the discussion here at ANI. I put an archive box on it, but if Crusio would prefer that the content on that page be removed, BV can feel free to do so. Additionally, per all of my previous comments, I'm looking forward to BV constructively contributing to the encyclopedia. I do agree with the modification that changes to the contested pages should be done by consensus and not by BV & Crusio alone. Hope everyone is enjoying the holidays!--GnoworTC 20:16, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

I have also changed one of the points of my proposal, and replaced the words: "happy with" to "agree with". I reference to Steve Quinn's and Wm Crusio's comments. When two people agree upon a compromise, it is not always the case that one or both are "happy" with the agreement, but it is something that they can accept in order to move forward. Bondiveres (talk) 20:29, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
Thank you Gnowor for your guidance, I have removed the material. In response to your comments regarding an agreement between Crusio and my self. This is to avoid the voluminous amount of discourse that has taken place thus far regarding the contentious wiki pages. If we can agree on the content of a page or if it should be re-instated, it then will be commented on by the larger Wiki community. I very much would like to avoid, and I am sure Wim agrees with me, this endless stream of content that does not enlighten the general public. Bondiveres (talk) 21:15, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

I also apologize for coming in late today (Santa brought Katie one of these and she's still setting it up! such problems Katie has, I know... :-D) Looks like the spirit of Christmas has sprinkled charity and goodness all around! That's what I hoped would happen by bringing this to the attention of the community, and the community didn't let me down. BV, I could give you a kiss, and I'll shut up now so I don't mess up the work! Yay! :-) KrakatoaKatie 02:58, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Katie, but please don't tell my wife. :-) To all; it's getting late here and it's time that I get to sleep since my better half is already partaking in that activity as I write these words, and tomorrow we head for the mountains for a few days of skiing. I wish all a very happy new years. Bondiveres (talk) 05:07, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Glenn Beck Article[edit]

I believe that the Glenn Beck article page is the subject of editbullying and a place where many well meaning editors are driven off by partisans on both sides. There is a small group of regular editors there, who essentially police the page, and remove reasonable content. Given the controversial and public nature of the subject, I suggest more rigid third party mediation on that page. As it is now, it is essentially impossible to contribute anything meaningful. Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 20:01, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Has mediation been considered, either via the Mediation Cabal or the more formal Mediation Committee? –MuZemike 03:51, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

The other participant in the Glenn Beck discussion refuses to enter into mediation. Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 22:04, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Canvassing, personal attacks, and a general lack of attempting other solutions does not leave me inclined to participate in any such process with the editor.Cptnono (talk) 22:07, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Then the article continues to be at the mercy of Cptono's blockage. Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 02:34, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

You do wonders for my ego. And you continue to canvass, BTW. Cptnono (talk) 02:38, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Since no one has done this today...[edit]


Merry Christmas! Thanks to everyone for helping keep us sane over the past year and for allowing for fun on this noticeboard. Have a great holidays! Kevin Rutherford (talk) 17:05, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Off topic canvassing. This should be a the miscellaneous village pump, you won't get any support by canvassing here. </sarcasm> Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 18:57, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
Oppose Cavalry's off-topic vote (for this user is clearly voting, which violates at least 18 acronyms that I can't be troubled to remember now) and encourage Santa and his elves to leave Cavalry a very large lump of coal. :P Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 19:36, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
On the 1st day of Wikipediamas, my stalker linked to me: a WP:CANVASS!
On the 2nd day of Wikipediamas, my stalker linked to me: 2 WP:VPMs, and a WP:CANVASS!
On the 3rd day of Wikipediamas, my stalker linked to me: 3 WP:AAANIDs, 2 WP:VPMs, and a WP:CANVASS!
for the curious, AAANID is similar to WP:AAAD and WP:AADD.
On the 4th day of Wikipediamas, my stalker linked to me: 4 WP:CIVILs, 3 WP:AAANIDs, 2 WP:VPMs, and a WP:CANVASS!
On the 5th day of Wikipediamas, my stalker linked to me: 5 WP:NPAs! 4 WP:CIVILs, 3 WP:AAANIDs, 2 WP:VPMs, and a WP:CANVASS!
I'm out of ideas now. (X! · talk)  · @988  ·  22:43, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
Aye, and a Merry Yaksmas to all! —DoRD (talk) 22:53, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
Merry Christmas to all and to all "where's the ham?" :) - NeutralhomerTalk • 23:40, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
I suppose that "WP:AAANID" stands for "Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in A.N.I. discussions". X-D Who knows, we may even need something like that. :-D ;-) [|Retro00064|☎talk|✍contribs|] 03:07, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, everyone! Hope Santa was kind to you all! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 06:12, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

RfC has been closed prematurely[edit]

The RfC, which was started by me on Dec 22 [13], has been closed on Dec 24 [14]. The user who closed this RfC referred to the fact that initial discussion started on Dec 2 [15]. This rationale is flawed in my opinion, because the normal RfC duration is 30 days (calculated from the first timestamp after the RfC template), this dispute has not been finished and the discussion was not dormant. More importantly, the RfC has not achieved its initial goal, namely, the outside input was minimal by the moment of its closure (mostly those users who took part in the previous discussion expressed their opinion there). My requests to self-revert the RfC closure have been ignored [16][17].
In my opinion, the RfC, which has been closed prematurely, should be reopened and the user who closed this RfC should not be considered as an uninvolved user any more.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:38, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Please tell the whole picture, you started this topic on December 2, you made no progress let the discussion be archived because you where the sole person with your point of view which goes against policy. You re-started the same discussion again and others have stated its just beating a dead horse which I agree and why I closed it. WP:SNOW may also be relevant too. ΔT The only constant 20:09, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
Note: I commented on both discussions. Yep. The issue has been debated on and off for 23 days (for anyone else looking, this was the previous discussion) and practically every editor who has commented has explained (in some cases, they've had to do this multiple times) why your proposed addition to NFCI is not tenable. Clearly, if someone thinks there is still useful debate to be had, then re-open it, but I think that the closer's rationale that WP:DEADHORSE is being invoked here is correct. Black Kite (t) (c) 20:11, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
The RfC is supposed to proceed according to some formal rules, and these rules state the time is calculated based on the the first timestamp after the RfC template. In addition, the reference to the discussion that lasted from Dec 2 is quite illogical: obviously the reason behind RfC (that, by the way, was initiated following the advise of another participant of this discussion, Hammersoft) was to involve new users, whereas most users who expressed their opinions during this two-days-long RfC were the same users who participated in the previous discussion. In addition, from my previous discussions on other talk pages I know that the point of view expressed during this RfC is not shared by a significant part of WP community, however, I couldn't address directly to those users, because that would be canvassing. However, we definitely need to give enough time for these users to join this discussion.
Obviously, the RfC hadn't achieved its primary goals by the moment of its closure, so to close it now is both against the rules and common sense. --Paul Siebert (talk) 20:28, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
As I said, I wouldn't object to it being re-opened on purely procedural grounds, but I do feel that the discussion has run its course, because the RfC has just ended up re-hashing all the viewpoints from the previous (longer) discussion - with the same result. (Incidentally, if you really wanted more eyes on the issue, it would've been better to post it at WP:CENT). Black Kite (t) (c) 21:09, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
The problem is that during the discussion about the same subject on other talk pages the opinions differ considerably from those expressed during this discussion. Based on that I conclude the preliminary results of this RfC hardly reflects the opinion of WP community.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:20, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
I think the close was fine, per Black Kite. From what I've seen, there is nowhere near consensus to change the NFCC, and this has been made clear since earlier this month. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 21:11, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
From your comment I conclude you hardly read the discussion carefully. I never proposed to change NFCC.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:20, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
Effectively you are, though, because your proposed NFCI#9 (and remember NFCI is only a guideline, not a policy) would conflict with various parts of NFCC, notably #8. Black Kite (t) (c) 21:30, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
I am afraid you are wrong. I explicitly wrote that the proposed NFCI #9 (as well as already existing examples) is supposed to deal with only those images that meet all NFCC criteria, including the criterion No 8, so such conflicts are impossible by definition. The problem is that current NFCI list covers not all major cases of acceptable use of non-free images, and this leads to prolonged disputes on other talk opages.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:43, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
If an image meets all the NFCC criteria, including 3a and 8, why does it matter if that type of image is explicitly mentioned at NFCI anyway, though? And NFCI is only a guideline anyway. Could you give an example of such a dispute over an image that meets all of NFCC? Black Kite (t) (c) 22:14, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
Good question. The reason is simple. I faced the situations when the NFCI #8 has been used as a pretext for removal of non-free images that had a strong contextual connection to the sourced discussion in the article's text and served as an illustration for significant historical events. These images were removed because they were not a subject of commentaries per se, despite the fact that NFCC were met (and despite the fact that NFCI is a non-exhaustive list of the examples of acceptable use of NF images, so if they do not meet NFCI #8, it is not an argument per se). To avoid similar problems in future, and because the cases described by me are the examples of acceptable use (per NFCC policy), I propose to include this example into the NFCI list. If someone believes that NFCI #9 can be misused (only good things are possible to misuse), let's re-word it to make it stricter.
In addition, the WP:NFC#UUI example #5, that de facto prohibits to use non-free images as illustration of historically significant events, is in direct contradiction with the Foundation's stance on the non-free content and applies the restrictions on the usage of non-free photos that do not exist in the policy. We need to re-examine this issue and to decide if that really serves WP purposes.
I would say, the main advantage of the NFCI #8/WP:NFC#UUI #5 is that the combination of these two examples simplifies the life of those users who specialize on removal of inappropriately used NFC: these rules are rather formal and, as a result, they are easy to implement without going into the details of the concrete article's content. However, this medal has a reverse side: these examples create problems for the users who work on historical articles, and the balance between the interests of these two groups (which currently is shifted towards the formers) should be observed. --Paul Siebert (talk) 02:47, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
I simply made a typo. Is that a crime, now? /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 23:53, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
No crimes, I just thought you made your conclusion without reading the discussion carefully. I am glad I was wrong.--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:47, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
The objective of RfCs is to attract outside editors if there is a dispute. In some cases this results in a change in consensus and should be allowed to run its course. If the editor making the RfC is clearly wrong then the RfC will establish that. I would let it run its course. However it could be rephrased because it seems hard to follow. TFD (talk) 21:44, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
Despite the fact that I feel I fall on the same side of opinion on the issue of the RFC like with Black Kite or Delta, as Four Deuces points out above, the RFC is to gain wide consensus on an issue instead of limited set of editors (in this case, most that have strong interest in maintaining the NFCC the way it is). NFCC and NFCI reflect consensus, and while I know how most of the NFC regulars feel, they're not the only voices. The only thing we have to watch for is the Foundation Resolution on non-free images, what Paul is asking for doesn't seem unreasonable to consider within that. (This situation is reminding me very much of the date delinking issue with a limited set of voices claiming they were right). This is not to say Paul's attitude is helping, but the RFC should run the course. --MASEM (t) 21:54, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
I've only just become aware of this discussion, and I'd like to comment on it. I'll go and ask the closer if they are willing to re-open the discussion to allow comments to be added. Carcharoth (talk) 03:59, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
Thank you, Carcharoth. --Paul Siebert (talk) 05:01, 26 December 2010 (UTC) Taipei[edit]

I blocked (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) for 24 hours for what I considered to be disruptive editing (including copy-and-paste moves) regarding the Xinbei/New Taipei controversy. (For the underlying factual dispute, see Talk:Eric Chu (the mayor of Xinbei/New Taipei) for more details.) But now I am not sure whether I was too embroiled. I'd appreciate it if someone else not otherwise involved can review the situation. Thanks. --Nlu (talk) 00:19, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Looks fine to me - stopped the edit warring. KrakatoaKatie 04:59, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Server errors[edit]

Resolved: I should have read up the page. Kelly hi! 05:16, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Is it just me, or has anyone else noticed an increased incidence of internal errors from the servers tonight? I have been doing a lot of fast editing on images and am seeing it pretty frequently. Kelly hi! 05:02, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

See the above thread "Internal Server error wikipedia", which has been closed, as the discussion is currently at Wikipedia:VPT#Weird_error_on_loading_WP:VPT. Regards. [|Retro00064|☎talk|✍contribs|] 05:05, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
Oh, thanks. My bad. Kelly hi! 05:16, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Mbz1 starting up a dispute that was 6-months gone past;[edit]

Unresolved: Mbz1 (talk · contribs) blocked indefinitely by Gwen Gale (talk · contribs). HeyMid (contribs) 12:20, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

but reviewed below. Tijfo098 (talk) 13:54, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Mbz1 (talk · contribs)

6+ months ago, this user was banned from interacting with me, and I guess that interaction ban has now ran out.. Noting this, Mbz1 immediately jumped in in an issue they were not, by any stretch of the imagination, involved in, with the sole purpose of baiting me with a personal attack in the form of an unsubstantiated accusation that I 'wikistalked them all over wikipedia', when such never happened. As they are clearly just trying to start another argument, I request the expired ban be re-instated. I didn't mention them, didn't talk to them, didn't do anything in regards to them, and then as soon as it end, they go on the offensive and attack me?

Per the above, I request that they be given a short block for a clear WP:BATTLEGROUND violation.— dαlus+ Contribs 06:07, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Editor has been notified and removed the notice.— dαlus+ Contribs 06:44, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Make that a long block, since they aren't going to leave this issue alone. Either that, or they are banned indefinitely from interacting with me. I haven't uttered a word since the 6 month ban all those weeks ago, and yet here, some time after the ban, they try to start another fight?— dαlus+ Contribs 06:44, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
Mbz1 removed a templated message notifying him of this thread with the edit summary "removed garbage"? That's interesting behavior right there. [|Retro00064|☎talk|✍contribs|] 06:48, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
Which is fine. I left him a note asking him to avoid interacting with Daedalus969 unnecessarily, which I is something I expect Daedalus969 to follow as well. Prodego talk 07:02, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
Does that really do enough to address the complaint, though? She (not he) fresh off the interaction ban just went and...interacted. When users right off a topic ban go back to the topic and engage in the same behavior that let to the ban in the first place, that's usually leads to something more severe. Tarc (talk) 15:57, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Wow, agreeing with Tarc -- I think a block for WP:BATTLEGROUND has been solidly earned by Mbz1 for general pugnaciousness and incivility and some of the rudest edit summaries I have ever read. betsythedevine (talk) 16:03, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I'd support a block, and I would suggest a substantial one. Another incident where Mbz1 seems to be digging up long-dead incidents is currently here at AE (where Mbz1 seems to be a regular visitor), where there are also suggestions of Mbz1 engaging in outing of another editor. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 17:35, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
And yet more WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality... assuming bad faith and describing another editor's conduct as "disgusting" because they suggested controversial material shouldn't go on the Main Page on a sensitive date [18]. (Surprise surprise, this too is related to the Israel/Palestine/Arab topic area.) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 17:41, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
Counting on my fingers, ok, WP:BATTLEGROUND with Daedalus, Supreme Deliciousness, Chem Ed, and I would point to even a fourth Wikipedian Bali_ultimate here and here, all examples just from the first 100 of Mbz1's Contributions linked to above. betsythedevine (talk) 18:01, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
It would have been nice if somebody is to block user:Demiurge1000 if for nothing else then for canvasing--Mbz1 (talk) 18:06, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
User:Betsythedevine is also [canvasing once and canvasing 2. Is this only me who sees something strange here? Just asking.--Mbz1 (talk) 18:16, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
Yet another instance of not knowing what canvassing is. Bulldog123 20:04, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
You are supposed to notify people when they are under discussion at ANI or elsewhere, or am I mistaken about this? betsythedevine (talk) 18:19, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Just to inform everyone, Mbz1 created a sockpuppet case for this. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 18:10, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

And why haven't you blocked exactly? Seems like a fishing expedition to me— dαlus+ Contribs 18:30, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Mbz1 has been blocked for a week by Gwen Gale for harassment and disruption, and I've closed the SPI case. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 18:40, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Can we seriously consider a community ban on this user? Checking her block log, we have a whopping 10 blocks already. If this doesn't exhibit a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality, I don't know what does. A few days ago, I got a mysterious message [19] on my talkpage. Mbz1 (a user I never interact with outside of AfDs where we always disagree) "reverted" it as vandalism [20]. Considering she doesn't seem to have any association with this troll account (or at least I hope not), I can only assume she regularly patrols my talk page. This "patrolling" has been going on ever since I actively participated in the AfD for List of Jewish Nobel laureates (a list she has contributed to significantly). Thereafter, she's been hounding my contribs, jumping in on discussions she has nothing to do with only to reprimand me whenever I make a mistake, like this unintentional case of outing. Bulldog123 20:04, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
I know nothing about these other editors, but if Daedalus969 doesn't receive a very long block for his various actions then the system has failed. Kuguar03 (talk) 20:08, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
Back up your accusations or they are personal attacks. You also know nothing of this situation, so your request for a block can really be taken as a grain of salt. You're only here because I dared tell you that your actions were attacks themselves.— dαlus+ Contribs 20:13, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
No, I'm here because the extreme hostility you continually display towards other editors is disruptive. Kuguar03 (talk) 20:50, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
Diffs or it didn't happen; you can't just claim something of someone and refuse to back it up; it doesn't work that way. I left your thread alone, I dropped the stick, but now you have chosen to pick it up again.— dαlus+ Contribs 20:56, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
Gwen Gale changed the block on Mbz1 to be indefinite. Now can we put an end to this discussion? — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 20:16, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
No problems here.— dαlus+ Contribs 20:34, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
Long overdue. Bulldog123 21:00, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I imagine this discussion will be moved to a different forum, because the ban by Gwen Gale, the ban's upholding by a different admin, the ban's extension by Gwen Gale, the examples I gave at Mbz1's request, and perhaps other matters as well are all being strongly protested on Mbz1's talk page, with calls for uninvolved sysops to step in. betsythedevine (talk) 00:03, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

This outcome is sad and grotesque. At her best, Mbz1 is a luminous Wikipedia contributor. She is also volatile and periodically high maintenance. But that is a small price to pay for the value of the content she adds to Wikipedia. Genuine content editors are now bizarrely at the bottom of the Wikipedia food chain. They should be at the top. It would be great if Wikipedia administrators had the motivation to identify editors who, although sometimes problematic, are nonetheless high performing contributors, and if these administrators had the skills to accommodate such editors. Instead, administrators too often treat such editors with contempt, as Mbz1 has been here, as though they were mere vandals who should be squashed.
Personally I feel embarrassed and ashamed when I see stuff like this. It is such a conflict. Wikipedia is a massively significant project, yet our administrators are letting the project down so badly. No doubt there are many benign administrators who simply don't intervene because they are afraid. But other administrators seem to have the goal of blocking (demeaning) as many high performing content editors as they can. Most content editors will not speak out now about stuff like this. They are afraid. They know how vulnerable they are now.
Mbz1, if you happen to read this, you need a rocket up your arse for the silly ways you overreact. You definitely need a severe rapping on the knuckles. Grow up. But you were, are, still one of the more creative valuable content editors Wikipedia has had the privilege to attract. Ultimately, the value of Wikipedia is just the sum of genuine and creative content editors, such as yourself, that it was privileged to attract and nurture. We attract a lot of such editors, but then we most dismally and stupidly fail to nurture them. Instead we savage them. If Wikipedia lacks the skills to create a space where content editors such as Mbz1 can flourish and continue to contribute her periodically luminous offerings, despite her somewhat flawed interpersonal complications (and don't we all all have them, however we cover them up), then really, what hope do we have as a species. Why do our administrators make mere interpersonal flaws so fatal? This is a collective craziness and failure on the part of our own unaware Wikipedia administrators, and not for the first time, a jewel creative editor, has stupidly and unnecessarily been strangled. --Epipelagic (talk) 11:52, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
But not that unusual in cases where user conduct and content contributions conflict dramatically. See User:Ottava Rima, (this was brought up on WP:AN for review not so long ago.) Tijfo098 (talk) 16:30, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
Let the celebrities get off with a slap on the wrist, and treat the common-folk harsher? That doesn't sound right; treat them the same as everyone else. Content contributions don't make you exempt from the rules.— dαlus+ Contribs 21:01, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Block review[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.
This doesn't seem to be helping any at this point. I've asked the blocking admin to clarify issues some more - that's probably the necessary dialogue at this point since the intention was clearly not for the indefinite block to be permanent. Perhaps I shouldn't have started this thread in the first place, but it did at least give a temperature reading that the community isn't obviously ready to give up on this user at this time. Rd232 talk 02:33, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

I would suggest that whilst a week block might have been appropriate to allow the user to reflect on how they're going about things, an indef block of an established contributor really requires rather more discussion. I think Gwen Gale's indef block needs to be reviewed, and if there is a move to formally community ban Mbz1, record that appropriately. Rd232 talk 12:58, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

  • Agree. A reasonable and sensible comment by Rd232.--Epeefleche (talk) 13:16, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Support block. This editor constantly causes problems, and the lengthy block log is evidence of inabilty to reform. I could say more, but won't. This was an enough is enough moment.Bali ultimate (talk) 13:20, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Support review This was grossly disrproportional and misguided sanction against an estiablished and useful contributer. The admins should AGF like all of us. - BorisG (talk) 13:36, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment (adapted from my post on mbz1's talk page before this review was started): Topic or interaction bans require cooperation from the banned editor. All that admins can do to enforce those is to block (globally) for violations. Unlike parking tickets, which are for the same amount every time, it seems that blocks in Wikipedia are escalating in length. So, Mbz1 is the only one who can improve on this situation. The significant amount of administrative complains from Mbz1 against editors with whom she had a long term conflict, some of which were unfounded or retaliatory (recent SPI against Dedalus, recent AE against Supreme Deliciousness), need to weighted against her content contributions, some of which I am fond of myself. At least a topic ban from all Wikipedia namespace seems appropriate, but that probably won't help with the other interaction issues. Perhaps reduce the block length to a month or so would be more appropriate. Tijfo098 (talk) 13:51, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
  • The indefinite block is technically correct, since indefinite is not infinite and is not a ban - it means that the block lasts until the problem that triggered it is satisfactorily addressed by the blocked user. But I suggest that an indefinite WP:ARBPIA topic and interaction ban would be more appropriate in this case. Mbz1 is apparently a valued contributor in other areas, but in my experience she does not interact collegially and usefully with many people in the Arab-Israeli conflict topic area.  Sandstein  13:58, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
Sandstein, you may be right about interaction, but topic? Is there a pattern of disruptive editing in article space? - BorisG (talk) 14:04, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
To my knowledge, all of her many blocks were a consequence of inappropriate interactions with other editors in this topic area. But a broad topic-area interaction ban implies an article editing ban, because article editors need - and are required to - communicate with each other. I should add that a similar indefinite ban would probably be a good idea for several of her regular opponents and allies for much the same reasons. One need only look at the top ten usernames that keep fighting with each other in the regular WP:AE threads about these issues.  Sandstein  14:13, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict) One doesn't seam possible without the other in this case. See this AE thread where both the reporter the reportee were blocked: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive71#Mbz1. I don't know what the beef between her and Dedalus is. The problems seems to be WP:BATTLE conduct stemming from the I-P topic area that gets personalized and becomes a series of interpersonal disputes that overflow in other articles. So, I agree with Sandstein, both topic and interaction bans are needed, but those have been issued before. The question at hand is their enforcement. At what point "enough is enough" and an indef is warranted despite other content contributions. YMMV as they say. Tijfo098 (talk) 14:15, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose the block I have never seen more unwarranted block than this one was.--Broccoli (talk) 14:21, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Support finding an alternative. Don't wish to criticize the admins who took the action that they did (other than blocking the talkpage, which was MHO a less than obvious call), but guys, can we find a better way. I think every time one of these rows blows up, the parties on all sides have seemed just as bad to me - that's the problem where people are arguing from the soul, everything looks different. What is going to work, what tools and solutions do we have, that we can use to resolve this so that Mbz1 can continue contributing, other people can continue contributing, no foolish accusations are made etc. Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:23, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
    • Do you have anything specific to propose? Tijfo098 (talk) 14:31, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment on the involved votes. The for/against the block split is as predictable as ever for the I-P regulars. Tijfo098 (talk) 14:26, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Tijfo, I think this analogy is superficial. The arguments here are more colleagial, nuanced and reasoned, on both sides. In particular, I take your and Sandstein's point that contribution to articles is impossible without interaction. However I disagree that the problem is enforcement. I understand (correct me if I am wrong) that Mbz1 did not violate her topic ban or interaction bans, at least not in a persistent manner. She started interaction soon after an interaction ban expired? That's not violation, and a simple remedy is to extend the interaction ban. - BorisG (talk) 14:44, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Do you think that editors need to be specifically forbidden from repeatedly filing vexatious reports before they are blocked for the eleventh time? Tijfo098 (talk) 14:48, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
  • A ban on all AE, AN/I etc pages may be useful. Yes, creative solutions are called for if we care about Wikipedia content. Blocks, and especially long-term blocks, are a very blunt tool and should be used as a last resort. Too often we see the opposite. As an extreme case, I saw a comment during the recent ArbCom election, where one editor said a candidate was inexperienced because while he had been an admin for a long time, he did not issue many blocks. - BorisG (talk) 14:44, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Support indef - As I usually note at these reviews, any action which pries yet another tendentious editor out of a heated topic area is a good thing. Indef is not for forever, so the user is quite able to be unblocked given a clear "I fucked up, here is what I will do to avoid fucking up in the future" unblock request. Tarc (talk) 15:01, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment As an editor who has had a number of run-ins with mbz1 in the past I think that a further review of her actions is necessary before lifting the ban, I also think that we should give Mbz1 the chance to respond in a reasoned manner to the concerns leading to her current block. As I understand it, the initial block was precipitated by her immediate engagement of a party with which an interaction ban recently expired, continuing with an SPI even after she was urged to not seek further involvement. Also cited was what has been characterized as a "retaliatory filing" (by uninvolved admins) at AE which seemed to include material from literally years ago. I would like to hear Mbz1 respond to these matters on her talkpage. As Mbz1 has appealed to a number of admins seeking an interaction ban between the two of us, most recently here I am obviously an interested party to this, nonetheless I think that it is hard to argue against a review of her actions. Based on prior experience I would support a ban on ANI / AE etc pages, however I think that the root cause is her personal investment in the I/P area, where, I must say - positive contributions from her are more difficult to find. unmi 15:03, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment I would just like to review the history of the block we are being asked to support or not support. Initially, this thread began with a request that Mbz1 get a one-week block, citing WP:BATTLEGROUND and the text of a very uncivil edit Mbz1 made concerning Daedalus, an editor with whom she had just come off a 6-month interaction ban. Several people supported a one-week block, citing even more clear examples of WP:BATTLEGROUND from recent Contributions by Mbz1. Mbz1 filed an SPI against the editor she had just been reminded not to interact with and accused two other editors who were doing ANI-notification of canvassing. Gwen Gale imposed a one-week block but did not specifically mention WP:BATTLEGROUND. Mbz1 appealed saying she had done nothing wrong. A second admin approved the one-week block. Mbz1 continued to protest that she had done nothing wrong and did not plan to change her behavior. Gwen Gale changed the ban to indef, saying that automatically unblocking after a week would clearly not get the desired result of Mbz1 changing behavior. Mbz1 revamped her talk page from top to bottom, displaying a large collection of the DYK and Featured Picture prizes for which she works so hard, and topping the collection with a block-notice of her own. Gwen Gale removed the block notice but left the brand-new display of Mbz1's trophies. Mbz1 undid that edit. I forget at which point in this discussion she stated that Gwen's admin tools should be removed. But after this piece of edit-warring, Gwen removed Mbz1's talk page access, which she had declared she did not want to use to defend or apologize for ANY of the behavior others had cited. Then Mbz1 canvassed Sandstein and possibly others by email asking for intervention on her behalf. So the question is not, do we support an infinite community ban for an editor who has done nothing but create wonderful content. The question is, was Gwen's initial one-week block appropriate? Is it appropriate for that block to become indefinite if Mbz1, supported by her claque, continues to assert that all her behavior has been wonderful and she should only continue to behave in exactly the same way? Is it appropriate for an indefinite block to be lifted if Mbz1 agrees to stop WP:BATTLEGROUND tactics that hurt the project. I would support all three of those. betsythedevine (talk) 16:00, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
    • Since canvassing was mentioned, I'll just make it clear that Mbz1 didn't contact me. (Given our prior history, it's hardly like they would.) Rd232 talk 18:47, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Support indef or at least support indef in the same way Tarc does. Unblock reviews like this just pave the way for Mbz1's very obvious cronies to come and sway consensus toward "blind miscarriage of justice!" (a case of trading favors whenever a wiki-friend goes too far). Fact is, user has 10 blocks in her block log and appears to regularly hound more than 5 users. What does someone have to do to exhaust community consensus these days? Bulldog123 17:33, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Agree with Rd232. Mbz1's vast contributions to this project require that she treated better then with an indef for this one incident. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 17:20, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Support indef. Not infinite, but until they get the all-important clue. Brewcrewer above refers to Mbz1's "vast contributions to this project," which seems to indicate that if an editor has added quality work in the past, they should get some kind of conduct pass. With all due respect to Brewcrewer and other editors using this argument, there's no (official) policy giving some kind of sliding scale that allows editors to reach a certain level, then ignore Wikipedia's rules. Dayewalker (talk) 18:19, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
if she were to be indef blocked it would not be under any specific policy, so no "sliding scale" exception is needed. It's a community decision that allows someone to be indef blocked via an ANI discussion. Thus it would only make sense that all editors offer their opinions on this user, and the overall contributions of this user be taken into account.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 20:07, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
I appreciate the clarification, but I still disagree wholeheartedly. If Mbz1's behavior is deserving of an indef block, the actual quality of her contributions shouldn't come into play. If they deserve to be gone because they're disrupting the project, they should be gone. Dayewalker (talk) 23:01, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
There is a distinct difference between policy not allowing for an editors overall contributions to be taken into account before an indef block and your opinion that an editors overall contributions should not be taken into account before an indef blocked. Now that you have apparently moved from the former position to the latter position, I believe we are on the same page. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 22:57, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
You seem to be under the false impression that good behavior excuses bad behavior. It hasn't, and it never will.— dαlus+ Contribs 23:42, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
If anyone is under any false impression, it's you, my dear. I never said good behavior excuses bad behavior. My position-and the position of most people, i think-is that an editors overall contributions are taken into account before she is indef blocked.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 23:47, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
You see, here's the thing; content contributions don't matter in a thread that explicitly discusses behavior in regards to other editors; you can argue semantics all you want, but you're clearly trying to use their content contributions as some kind of get-out-of-jail-free-card. You clearly said as much on your first post here, This was grossly disrproportional and misguided sanction against an estiablished and useful contributer. The admins should AGF like all of us. A misguided block? Really? She was on an interaction ban and forbidden from commenting on me. Fresh off of it, she does exactly that, then subsequently files an SPI on me.
In the perfect world, editors who are personally involved in threads should recuse themselves from commenting.. like you, some of Mb's other supporters here.. that have so far said nothing to explain why her behavior is okay. The only thing you've so far done is continue to mention their content contributions. Content, in a discussion on behavior, means zilch. Her content may have been great, but it doesn't excuse her behavior. I await your reply that finally addresses the behavior, and not the content.— dαlus+ Contribs 01:30, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
That makes sense to me. [|Retro00064|☎talk|✍contribs|] 01:44, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict; responding to Daedalus969); I did not want to clutter this long thread with any more comments, but at this point I feel compelled to clarify a few points (1) the above cited comment was from me, not from Brewcrewer; (2) I did not mean the original block was wrong, I meant indef without userpage access was disproportional (3) I agree that editors like you who are personally involved in threads should recuse themselves from commenting. However if you want to exclude all editors who have an opinion then there will be no one to comment. And finally, (4) and most importantly, it is my firm belief that content contributions do matter everywhere on Wikipedia. Sure it is not a free pass, but any conduct issues should be weighted against user's contributions (which determine the value of a contributer to the project). I understand that no explicit policy says this and that you disagree but I hope there are enough sensible people here who share my view. Cheers. - BorisG (talk) 02:00, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
I don't see how you can argue that; by your logic, if a user had created 10k featured articles, they would be able to call people rapists and get off scot-free. Content is only relevant in issues about content. Not conduct. The only type of contribution that should be weighed in a conduct discussion is conduct with people she hasn't gotten in fights with, who are already uninvolved.— dαlus+ Contribs 02:27, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment I've had some interactions with Mbz1, some positive, some negative, some neutral, and she's definitely a more productive editor than I'll ever be. That said, content production can only outweigh so many behavioral infractions before the balance goes into the red; disciplinary actions, edit warring, etc., suck up editor/admin time. Given the problems in the I-P area, I think a very long topic ban/interaction bans would be appropriate but looking at the block log . . .is that going to work? The ban's been imposed and broken on multiple occasions. There's been no acknowledgment from Mbz1 that the original 1 week block had any basis, something it's pretty clearly got. If someone doesn't acknowledge/understand why their actions are problems and has broken the same rules after promising not to in the past, I'm less than hopeful that topic/interaction bans will work. If they can work then I'm all for them. Sol (talk) 18:14, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
  • There will need to be an indefinite ARBPIA topic ban should the user be unblocked, with respect to which I voice no opinion at this moment. T. Canens (talk) 18:44, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
this brouhaha did not arise from anything related to the A-I conflict, as far as I can see.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 20:01, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Unblock after a week. He/she is a good content contributor. Give him/her second chance, please. As about ARBPIA topic ban, this needs to be properly filed and discussed at AE, but it was not. Biophys (talk) 00:09, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Support blocking, but start out with a week first. We should do a week's block right now, not indef, to see if Mbz1 will get a clue and quit the harassment. If that does not work, then we should consider longer blocks or a long-period interaction ban, etc. Some people are defiant and just refuse to get it and stop. If Mbz1 is one of those people, then she may be asking for us to do something about it. [|Retro00064|☎talk|✍contribs|] 01:28, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
You do realize that she just came out of an interaction ban? and upon re-initiating interaction she was asked to refrain by prodego, yet she continued still? I don't think there is any good reason to set a time period on this, it could be within the hour as far as I am concerned, if she shows some understanding of why people are concerned and states that she will seek change. So far her talkpage reads like a WP:NOTTHEM best-of. I want her to come back to the project and work in a constructive manner, so far we seem to have failed in letting her understand there are limits - we will continue to fail in this manner if we just let it expire without her taking responsibility. I have previously asked for someone to mentor her - but no one seems to want the job, I urge those of you that argue for clemency to consider taking on that post. unmi 02:15, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
Whatever, as long as Mbz1 learns to leave people well enough alone, as far as the harassment, etc. goes. ;-) [|Retro00064|☎talk|✍contribs|] 02:47, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment While Mbz1 does not admit she has committed a blockable offfence, she does promise she won't file AE, AN/I, and SPI reports in the future. On this ground, there appears to be a good prospect of maintaining her productive contribution to the project without those actions that the community considers disruptive. I see no faults in I/P article space but I have not done extensive research. - BorisG (talk) 03:54, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
Given your message near the top of this sub-section, it's difficult to not take your comment with a grain of salt; promising they won't file reports doesn't solve the problem of their treatment of others in general, and refusing to admit, or understand for that matter, why their actions caused them to be blocked only promises one thing: it will just happen again.— dαlus+ Contribs 06:04, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
Failure to admit wrong doing is a big part of this. If she doesn't think she did anything improperly and uninvolved editors are coming out to say "Yeah, the original offense is block worthy" then there's a disconnect between community standards and her's. Judging by the block log over sanction violations, it's been a problem. The talk page section in which she offers her terms (a good move) isn't helping; it's largely a glutinous mixture of accusations, flat-out denials, wiki-lawyering and cringe-worthy statements. If she'd just said "I'm sorry, I know what I've done and I won't do it again, etc, etc." then great, we could move on. Threatening to WP:TROUT your banning admin if you ever get unblocked may be the least helpful thing to say in this situation closely followed by indulging in the same behavior that got you blocked in the first place. If Mbz1 doesn't understand why all of this is a problem then it doesn't matter what sanctions are in place, we'd still wind up back here. Sol (talk) 06:30, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
Since Mbz1 continues to discuss my behavior and that of others on her talk page, I will re-post here a response I left there, which she immediately undid with the summary "reverted without even reading . stay off my page".

From WP:BLOCK: "A usual block prevents users from editing all pages except their user talk page. Users are allowed to retain editing access to their user talk page, in order to have a chance for appeal, and so that they are not shut out completely and are able to participate at least to some degree in Wikipedia, while the block is active...A minority of editors who are blocked use these privileges poorly, for personal attack or to play games and make a point. Inevitably the response to such actions is simple – editing access is blocked in its entirety and without further discussion, whereas if the user had been responsible and reasonable, an entirely different result might well have happened." I did not assert you were not within your rights to edit your own talk page, I merely listed a few of the many actions you engaged in there that A) were far in excess of your claim in the canvassing email to Sandstein that you "only added the template" and B) might lead a reasonable admin to feel you were using it "for personal attack or to play games and make a point" and thus were by policy likely to be blocked from using it further.

I have little doubt that she will sooner or later wheedle somebody into unblocking her without any promise of change in her behavior. betsythedevine (talk) 15:25, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

    • From that (immediately reverting someone's commenting on her talk page, with the edit summary "reverted without even reading . stay off my page" (!!)), it is pretty obvious that she has not chilled out yet. We need to wait until it is obvious enough that she has gotten the point about all this before unblocking her. Right now, it could well be just another case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, so it may very well be a waiting game until she gets the point and cools off. [|Retro00064|☎talk|✍contribs|] 23:54, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose indef per Elen. Mbz1 has issues, sure; deal with them. But per WP:Boomerang consider that Dae is here for the 'hunt' as he clarified to me, recently (the latter part of the thread, specifically). This is part of all this; it's 'toxic-wiki' shite. Deal with all *that*. Cheers, Jack Merridew 16:21, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
    Nice lie there. I told you I hunt sockpuppets because it's the only thing I'm good at, and that has absolutely nothing to do with this at all.— dαlus+ Contribs 20:57, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
Comments made after thread archived, and better placed on user talk page, where discussion continues. Rd232 talk 09:27, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
  • Dae, have you read Wikipedia:Here to build an encyclopedia? Hunting sockpuppets is *not* about being here to build the encyclopedia. If you are here only to hunt sockpuppets, then you you should read the other sections of that essay by a former arb. Merry Christmas, Jack Merridew 04:31, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

    I'm going to paste what I did at your talk page(you may delete it after all, and it would not be seen by anyone else):

    For the last time, I am not here 'only to hunt sockpuppets', 'hunting sockpuppets' is just 'the only thing I'm good at'. I never said I only hunt sockpuppets; I do other stuff, I browse for random articles and make minor fixes when I see them, I remove original research that's been unsourced for a year or several months, I keep watch over several BLPs to counteract vandalism, as well as several highly-vandalized articles. I sometimes new page patrol, tag for deletion, or approve. If a source is brought up on an article I watch concerning a specific bit of information, and just the url doesn't look reliable to me, I do check it out, and if I can't find something that signifies a RS, I take it to RSN.

    How many times do I have to say that I am not here to only hunt sockpuppets, but hunting sockpuppets is the only thing I'm good at. Large, very very large, distinction.— dαlus+ Contribs 06:29, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

    Can't drop teh stick, huh; ok; I'll paste my reply here, too. Sheesh.

“You want a pig,” said Roger, “like in a real hunt.”

“Or someone to pretend,” said Jack. “You could get someone to dress up as a pig and then he could act — you know, pretend to knock me over and all that —”

“You want a real pig,” said Robert, still caressing his rump, “because you've got to kill him.”

“Use a littlun,” said Jack, and everybody laughed.

Ch. 8: Gift for the Darkness
Lord of the Flies by William Golding

  • only
  • “hunt”

You're not listening. You're good at “hunting” *people* — sure a lot of socks are disruptive, are trolls, but they're all human beings. This is an encyclopedia, not a fucking game. See also: s:The Most Dangerous Game.

Jack Merridew 08:30, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

How about you drop the stick? You only commented in this discussion to snipe at me. Give it a rest, you know nothing about me.— dαlus+ Contribs 09:12, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
You're not listening either, you seem to be stuck on the false assumption that I think wikipedia is a game; I don't. You also are again, assuming bad faith as usual; you're assuming I don't think they're human beings, despite the fact that I've never said anything close to that. Yes, they're human, but that's rather irrelevant in the scheme of things. I call them sockpuppets because that's the terminology used on this website, just as a homicide detective tracks down a serial killer; calling the committee of the crime a 'serial killer' doesn't make them any less human, it simply groups them into a category of similar traits, such as killing in a recognizable pattern, like the Zodiac Killer for instance. It's the same with alternate accounts, 'sockpuppets'. This account that you now edit under is a sockpuppet, so I'm quite sure I don't need to explain to you the name semantics. Do I really need to explain to you why I call a sockpuppet a sockpuppet? Its easy for me to type out, I don't always know their real name.. not like they would give it out, and even if I did, more often than not, 'sock' is much shorter than anything I've seen. Jaraxle.. something. I don't remember his last name, the first 'vandal' of wikipedia, operating through page-move vandalism by moving various titles to 'x on wheels'. Either way, sock, being only four letters, is easier and quicker to type than 'Jaraxle', every single time they are referred to, or even WoW(Willy on Wheels, etc).
To using 'hunt' to track down socks.. again, assuming bad faith, and too much bad faith on a single word. It's a word, it isn't some easily identifiable trait that you can use as an excuse to assume bad faith. I didn't put much thought into using it, it seemed rather natural. I'm sure you know what hunting is... finding your quarry by tracking down the evidence that it was there, the eating habits, the foot prints, the behavior.
I know they're human, but what I know most of all is that they are mentally children, at least by my standards of what an adult should be, such as learning when to drop something.. and on that note..
In various discussions in which you were not involved, you have told me to 'drop the stick'. Well, I have an all-resounding question for you: Why haven't you dropped it. Again and again you bring up your bad-faith, false assumption that I think wikipedia is a game. Why don't you give it a rest and drop it yourself.

..Further, for again, someone who tells others to 'drop the stick', or tells others they are 'treating wikipedia as a game', you are doing both of these things. You are first of all continuing with the bad-faith assumptions on myself, instead of assuming good faith, so why don't you drop that stick. On the subject of 'games', in a discussion that has absolutely nothing to do with you, you make a comment that has naught to do with the topic at hand, by a snipe aimed directly at myself. Perhaps aimed to 'get my goat', to 'piss me off'.
You should try taking your own medicine sometimes; drop the stick, and stop commenting in issues which concern me, only to snipe at me without addressing the real issues at hand. Your bad faith assumptions about what you think I do, and why you think I do it really don't have any place in a dispute that has nothing to do with you.— dαlus+ Contribs 09:14, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
  • I am not comfortable with an indef. Mbz1 may need to change their approach, true, but indef? No, this seems a hasty rush to judgment to me. Support 1 week and some work to try to modify behavior. ++Lar: t/c 16:50, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
Indef is not the same as a community ban etc, it simply means that they are asked answer to the concerns raised prior to being unblocked, hardly a too onerous imposition. Setting a set time on the block seems to have the effect of giving the user the impression that they were treated unfairly by people who are 'out to get her'. unmi 22:12, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
I'm aware of that, yes. Nevertheless I'm concerned. Mbz1 at this point has gotten a reputation that will be hard to overcome, they need to be on their best behavior all the time even if others get away with stuff. Is that fair? No, but it is how things are. First impressions are hard to shake. ++Lar: t/c 23:39, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
What exactly have I gotten away with Lar? I haven't mentioned her, before she mentioned me some days ago, in close to a year. I didn't message her, I didn't email her, I didn't mention or comment on her, I didn't edit any pages she did.. I didn't have anything to do with her, and yet, when the interaction ban finally ends, she immediately jumps into a thread that has nothing to do with her to only comment on me, and then subsequently files an SPI on me. Tell me, what precisely have I gotten away with here? I left her alone and she comes out to attack me, and I've gotten away with something? I really can't wait to read what that something is.— dαlus+ Contribs 02:04, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

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

Era warring[edit]

Earlier today I found a series of edits by Scoobertjoo (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) at Hanukkah in which he changed the era style from BCE/CE to BC/AD first diff, second diff, third diff. I checked his contributions and found a few other examples of the same thing, so I reverted them all. He responded by reverting all my changes to his preferred era style (diffs:Hanukkah, Begging the question,Yemenite Jews, Rainbow, Humanism) and leaving this unhelpful dissertation on my talk page explaining why he's right and the guideline is wrong. I've dealt with this kind of disruptive editor before and nothing ever convinces them to stop, short of an indefinite block only to be lifted upon a promise to stop chan