Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems. Before posting: Read these tips for dealing with incivility If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page Try dispute resolution Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly. Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight. When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough. You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)
Start a new discussion

User:Zahd, WP:UP

I wouldn't mind if at least one other uninvolved person took at this. I've protected User:Zahd for 24h because Zahd has passed 3RR on said page (as it's his userpage, I figured blocking would not be productive). Specifically, this was his last edit. Now, he is claiming that it's OK because he commented the worst parts out. I kind of, uh, disagree. Also, see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive494#User:Zahd. This disruptive editing is getting mildly annoying. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 05:56, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

The only thing left besides the "hello" on my userpage was the short, terse statement "There is a God." Sorry, but I fail to see how this violates any reasonable concept of rationality, decency, or personal boundary to express a concept in four words; as awful, depressing, and ominous though those words may be. -Zahd (talk) 06:03, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

It violates the neutral point of view rule. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 06:14, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

It's erm, my user page. WP:UP doesn't seem to support Crustacean in this notion that even "there is a God" should be viewed as offensive enough to blank. -Zahd (talk) 06:16, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Ummm, that was a joke, right? You forgot your smiley. Aunt Entropy (talk) 03:16, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Full disclosure, Zahd and I both edit the abortion article. That out of the way, Zahd probably should be slapped with a long term block in hopes that (s)he'll either get bored or learn to be a more productive editor. Zahd and Wikipedia are at cross purposes. Wikipedia informs its readers about a wide variety of topics (tries to anyway), Zahd wishes to sermonize on abortion and the right to life.--Tznkai (talk) 06:21, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

It's not an inherently offensive expression by itself. It's the way he's using it that's the problem - i.e. to "make a point", and as a direct connection with his contentious editing history. He's apparently also under the mistaken impression that he "owns" his user page. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 06:25, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

It's not "sermonizing" to be pithy and or exact, or to represent an under-represented side in the course of balancing articles in accord with concepts that people actually use. For example the word "murder" isn't even once mentioned in the abortion article, even though its the actual term my side uses to refer to abortion. It's absence is so because there's a sickening kind of bias going on here. NPOV might be something people need to read up on again. So, is the problem is that my editing is POV, or that the POV I openly state allegiance to does not need representation? I am finding only bias and disruption in my critics. -Zahd (talk) 06:34, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Seems quite pointy to me. I don't really care what goes onto his user page, if he wants to announce his POV and let everyone know he's here to push that way and to check his edits, it doesn't matter much. If he's crosses the line, he'll get booted. However, his edits seem to be pushing the boundaries to try and cause disruption. Am I forgetting something, or is this post [1] a reedit of something that was deleted? He seems determined to get his licks in. Dayewalker (talk) 06:39, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

What you seek, you find, Zahd.--Tznkai (talk) 06:41, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

... huh. Didn't even see that subpage. Can an uninvolved administrator delete or userify that?--Tznkai (talk)

I've marked it for speedy deletion - or at least I think I have, as I've never marked something for speedy deletion before. I think that's supposed to trigger it to show up on a list somewhere, and then an admin can decide its merits, so to speak. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 06:55, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Deleted. That is the second time, too. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 07:34, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Danke. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 07:38, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Murder is the unlawful taking of human life. Abortion (under some conditions) is lawful, therefore is not murder. Same goes for capital punishment and warfare. I happen to oppose all three, and I might want to label all three as murder. But the law rules. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 06:46, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Murder is exactly that, and you are right in that "the law" rules. But the reason abortion is called murder is that it is "unlawful" according to God's law. Man can do what he wants only to find out later that God disapproves. Now of course God may have no place in your life, but for the majority of the world that holds certain beliefs, His law is quite relevant. To repeat the point, it represents an unfortunate and despicable kind of bias that editors here remove that terminology from an article. That's not to say that the article should say "this equals that," but to simply report "these people say this is that." It's NPOV to attribute it. Yet that concept is still being removed by editors pushing their point of view. They just don't like it, because it goes contrary to their views, and nor do they like the simple words "there is a God" even on someone's own userpage.. -Zahd (talk) 07:01, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

(OD)Actually from recent memory, it seemed like your response to having your edits reverted was to post your personal beliefs on your talk page, which apparently most editors took as your rebuttal and dismissal of their edits based on your own POV. Dayewalker (talk) 07:06, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

They can 'take it' anyway they want to, as long as they don't in their quest to promote their atheism, go out of their way such as to stomp on an opinion or fact on my own userpage. They would not do so if they were not in fact acting out of bias, connected to their biased dislike of my editing. -Zahd (talk) 07:14, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Please read WP:USER. You don't own your userpage. It's not a blog. Furthermore, disagreeing with your POV is not pushing atheistic values, and assuming anyone who finds fault with your edits is biased isn't a really good way to start around here. Dayewalker (talk) 07:20, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I have read WP:USER. It still is not apparent how the simple statement "there is a God" is somehow improper, such that people have to go out of their way to abort it. -Zahd (talk) 07:23, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Because you're trying to make a point, which is against policy. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 07:28, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

As well, you're presenting it as fact instead of belief (as noted below), and further than that you were also including the two other obviously unacceptable statements, even if they were commented it. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 07:38, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

American law is the supreme law of the land. Religious doctrine is not. The statement "there is a god" is merely an opinion, not a fact. "I think there is a god" is a fact. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 07:09, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

"In God we Trust??" Some Wikipedians, one or two, don't actually live under "American law" and thus might be less interested in American law, and more interested in UN law or even higher law. -Zahd (talk) 07:12, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

AN/I =/= place to argue about God or abortion.--Tznkai (talk) 07:14, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

"In God we trust - all others pay cash". >:) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 07:23, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

• I don't see how the userpage edit was disrupting Wikipedia. This offtopic-leaning discussion here seems more disruptive to me than the userpage, but perhaps that's just me. Please, everybody, relax, policing userspace tends to inflame the situation, and is rarely productive. Kusma (talk) 07:41, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

• I've already stated why I feel it was, and the discussion is really only mildly off-topic. This user has attempted to provoke reaction with his userpage on multiple occasions, and it's getting tiresome. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 07:44, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

(e/c)The conversation has certainly devolved into this off topic nonsense argument about God's existence, but the userspace edits were disruptive, needlessly confrontational for an account working exclusively in an already controversial article. Furthermore Zahds insistence that good faith edits are done because of offense to assumed atheism is problematic, and potentially insulting to any of those editors are not athiests themselves.--Tznkai (talk) 07:47, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

There are many pages that contain references to the editors' religious beliefs. That's not the issue. It's the in-your-face that's the issue. It's a bit like a child who's told not to touch someone else, so they stand as close as they can to the one they're told not to touch, and proclaim innocence. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 07:49, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

In my personal opinion, we are supposed to be working on an encyclopedia here. If he wants to write offensive nonsense on his userpage, I don't care. List it for MFD or something and get it deleted in total. If he calls out a specific user or is otherwise generally disruptive with it, then that's different. All I want to know is 'how is he on the encyclopedia?' Frankly, if this section is typical, I'd say the drama he's creating isn't worth whatever good he's doing. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:26, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I suggested that Zahd try a good, old-fashioned, modest userbox instead of the polemic, and even helpfully gave him a link to the "political" userbox gallery--but he ignored my advice. The fact that he blatantly ignored five editors at User_talk:Zahd#Your_user_page (let alone violated WP:3RR) by reinstating the polemic strikes me as borderline uncivil. Cosmic Latte (talk) 10:24, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I don't see what the difference is if I say "there is a God" which is all I left on that page (and yet you somehow take offense), and a userbox which says the same thing. If formatting is the issue, I can put it in a nice little box for you. Finally, I'm glad to see people defending my ability to say something personal on my userpage "If he wants to write offensive nonsense on his userpage, I don't care," even if they are referring to a statement like "there is a God" as "offensive nonsense." Kuzma offered some common sense: "I don't see how the userpage edit was disrupting Wikipedia," which is correct. My statement on my userpage "there is a God" isn't so much "disruptive" as it is offensive to people who find God to be offensive. -Zahd (talk) 19:16, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

The funny thing is that the argument against my edits has changed dramatically. First it was "extensive discussion not related to Wikipedia," which it wasnt. Then it was "Extensive personal opinions on matters unrelated to Wikipedia" which it wasnt, as these were brief statements. Then it was "polemical statements unrelated to Wikipedia; in particular, statements attacking or vilifying groups of editors or persons" which it wasn't as "there is a God" isnt actually attacking anyone. Even the more "offensive" statement which I removed "choose life or eat death" wasnt attacking anyone, as the policy stipulates. The final argument, promoted by Baseball (above) is that the phrase "there is a God" is offensive or disruptive because of how it is phrased as a fact, instead of as an opinion. This criteria isnt actually mentioned on WP:USER, and well, that wraps up my summary of the critics. -Zahd (talk) 19:26, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Lets not pretend "there is a God" is the part that was causing the problem, the rest of the comment, about God hating abortion and eating death is what took a simple statement of belief "[I believe]There is a God to an anti-abortion polemic.--Tznkai (talk) 19:28, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Ah, but I removed that other stuff did I not? -Zahd (talk) 19:39, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

If you simply repost your userpage without the part that you've commented out, I'm sure no one will give a damn and this will fade away. But you've chosen to include that part regardless, even if it's hidden away. For what reason? And again, you don't own your userpage, and other editors can edit it if they take exception to it; if you decide to exceed 3RR, it's treated like any other 3RR violation. (And, as I asked before, and is not directly related to why I protected the page: would someone take issue if an atheist added "there is no God" to their userpage?) -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 19:41, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

CC wrote: "But you've chosen to include that part regardless, even if it's hidden away." If its "hidden away" from everyone's sight, why make an issue of it? And again, you don't own your userpage OWN is policy dealing with articles, not userpages. In fact its first statement "Don't sign what you don't own, makes it clear: We own comments on talk pages, and anything on our userpages is implicitly understood to be our own. "Other editors can edit it if they take exception to it" Ive explained how people have given varied and changing reasons cited from WP:USER, and how each one is false. "tak[ing] exception" to what's on my userpage isnt on WP:USER. I would not "take offense" if an atheist stated that. I would of course then regard them as an atheist, for what that's worth.-Zahd (talk) 20:20, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

(EC/OD)I think we've all gotten off track here, Zahd's comments about believing in God aren't the problem. Making it out to be so is missing the point. I doubt anyone would have even noticed if that were the only concern, as lots of wikipedia users have similar infoboxes. The problem is that you posted your belief as a statement to your POV on abortion, which you freely admit above you have. That's the part people seem to find pointy. Dayewalker (talk) 19:31, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Its unfortunate that stating my position openly is somehow considered to be a problem. It does'nt affect how I apply NPOV in editing articles. The issue was that people took offense at a concept of God, whether that view is expressed on my userpage, or stated in article talk, to remind people there is actually another side to abortion other than "do you want fries with that?"-Zahd (talk) 19:39, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Again, your belief in God is not the issue. ANI isn't the place for that debate. Dayewalker (talk) 19:41, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Again, you said "The problem is that you posted your belief as a statement to your POV on abortion, which you freely admit above you have." I took this to mean you are citicizing my openness, and are suggesting that closeted people are more successful on Wikipedia. I suggest closetedness serves the pro-abortion point of view, and that sunlight as always remains the best disinfectant. -Zahd (talk) 20:04, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Again, we're not arguing the merits of your POV. Wikipedia is not the place for this. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 20:11, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh, but you are. You are saying that the statement "there is a God" should be taken as an offense.-Zahd (talk) 20:22, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Even if it should, that's not an argument on the merits of the statement, but on its potential offensiveness. That is also not what I was responding to; I was responding to your comment (note how threading typically works in discussions). I will now cease communication with you through this thread, as it is clear that you are attempting to provoke reaction. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 21:34, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

(e/c)Zahd, you've accused every editor you've come into content conflict with on Abortion of being Pro-choice partisan hacks (feel free to correct me if I've overstated) Your POV and displaying your POV has most definitely affected your ability to edit, especially in your ability to get along with other editors and form consensus.--Tznkai (talk) 19:45, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Am I supposed to nod in agreement with every abortionist I run into on Wikipedia?-Zahd (talk) 20:04, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

No one cares about what your abortion position is on the wikipedia, and you shouldn't care about the positions of others may be. User space is supposed to be a simple, creative space to fill in information about yourself, as long as it doesn't become a soapbox from which to preach to the unwashed masses, as this clearly was. WP:UP#NOT is pretty clear here. Tarc (talk) 20:10, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Not every pro-choice person is an "abortionist", Zahd! That's the kind of language and attitude that is the problem here. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:29, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Again, with the misinterpretations. I did not use "abortionist" in the sense you are reading it. Read it again. -Zahd (talk) 20:36, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

(OD)If I may, I seriously doubt this is going to get anywhere. Zahd seems committed to making this discussion about his belief in God, and not about his admitted POV. His talk page has been protected, so the offending comments are gone. This seems like a good place to stop, and not keep the endless debate going. Dayewalker (talk) 20:41, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

There is a God. -Zahd (talk) 21:16, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

"There is a God" itself can stay. The rest needs to go. —kurykh 21:28, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Although it would be interesting to see, on his user page, some proof of that assertion. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:44, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

How about if I just pray for you instead; "proof" requires faithlessness. You just might be someone who needs it. -Zahd (talk) 02:34, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Ignoring the religious implications, there is no restriction that only empirical facts may be shown on our user pages. It only restricts inappropriate and/or inflammatory content. —kurykh 10:42, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Let him put up whatever he wants, list his page for MFD and then block him if he edit wars to put it back. Otherwise, go do something else as he's probably more amused by this game than anything doing in article space. I frankly hate the idea that other editors can just go and say "ok, you can keep this language but not this one" on someone's user page. Someone could come by and tell me that I shouldn't have this section on my page but it may be offensive to the people I disagreed with, but that doesn't make it any less legitimate. If this doesn't stop, I'm going to archive this section under IAR or something. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:50, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

There is a God, just like there is a Santa Claus: purely in the imagination of children and those who hold on to childish beliefs. Spotfixer (talk) 01:18, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

It's true that some people need there to not be a God, because, well... He's bringing an ass-whooping with Him. -Zahd (talk) 02:31, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

While you're praying for me, I'll be praying for you also. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 05:04, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

:) -Zahd (talk) 18:38, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

When God gets a user page, he can feel free to announce his own existence on it. Until then, however, the problem with a statement like "there is a God" is that it is incompatible with statements such as "there is no God" and "there are twenty gods," either of which other editors may believe to be true. But the statement, "I believe there is a God" is perfectly compatible with "you believe there is no god" and "he believes there are twenty gods." It's fine to personalize your page within reason, but the statements that Zahd was adding, in the way he phrased them, are divisive and run counter to the communal and cooperative atmosphere of Wikipedia. They also do not communicate anything to the effect of, "I am here to help write a balanced, NPOV encyclopedia." Cosmic Latte (talk) 13:54, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

If God started editing Wikipedia, he'd be booted for WP:POINT, WP:V, and WP:RS. Of course he could just superuser the whole thing and take it over, but that's not going to happen. And while we're at it, I still can't find in WP:USER where it says that a statement on one's user page must be phrased in the opinion sense, rather than in the factual sense. In fact I'm sure you are taking a policy we use for articles, and misapplying it to user pages. Yes, I'm certain that must be it; you're misquoting the very policy you've insisted that I read. It's time to unprotect my userpage, as there's no valid or justifiable reason for it to remain locked. Fear of what I may write there, notwithstanding. -Zahd (talk) 18:38, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Uh, the userpage was only protected for 24 hours... -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 18:49, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Secondly, let me quote this for you, taken directly from WP:UP#NOT:

1. A weblog recording your non-Wikipedia activities
2. Extensive discussion not related to Wikipedia
3. Excessive personal information (more than a couple of pages) unrelated to Wikipedia
4. Extensive personal opinions on matters unrelated to Wikipedia, wiki philosophy, collaboration, free content, the Creative Commons, etc.
5. Personal information of other persons without their consent
6. Advertising or promotion of a business or organization unrelated to Wikipedia (such as purely commercial sites or referral links)
7. Extensive self-promotional material that is unrelated to your activities as a Wikipedian
8. Other non-encyclopedic related material
9. Polemical statements unrelated to Wikipedia; in particular, statements attacking or vilifying groups of editors or persons are generally considered divisive and removed, and reintroducing them is often considered disruptive.
10. Material that can be viewed as attacking other editors, including the recording of perceived flaws. The compilation of factual evidence (diffs) in user subpages, for purposes such as preparing for a dispute resolution process, is permitted provided the dispute resolution process is started in a timely manner. Users should not maintain in public view negative information on others without very good reason.
11. Games, roleplaying sessions, and other things pertaining to "entertainment" rather than "writing an encyclopedia", particularly if they involve people who are not active participants in the project. (cite as WP:UP#Games) (compare Category:Wikipedia games and Category:Wikipedia Word Association.)
12. Communications with people uninvolved with the project or related work
13. Images which you are not free to use (usually fair use images; see below)
14. Categories and templates intended for other usage, in particular those for articles and guidelines

I suggest you read the one that is bold and italicized, it's the one you keep failing to read. If you continue to edit war over something that is blatantly against policy, as noted above, I don't think we'll have to deal with you any much longer(*wink, wink*).— Dædαlus ^Contribs 10:38, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

A dissatisfied user's complaint

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Resolved

 – Malcolm very clearly edited contrary to a guideline. He has been warned that his continous pursuit of the matter is disruptive and that any further mention of it will lead to a block. --Smashville^talk 16:56, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Note: Malcolm has been blocked for 1 week for disruptive behavior and continuously violating WP:IDHT. Within an hour and a half of closing the discussion, I received this message on my talk page. --Smashville^talk 19:07, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I am now going to do some complaining about my 72hr block by Gwen Gale, which was overturned on review. The story is this:

Gwen Gale, gave me a warning for refactoring a comment made by PalestineRemembered on the VillagePump(policy). As far as I knew, the only thing I had done was change a subheading into regular text that was outdented, the reason being that I did not want it to appear that a thread I had introduced had ended at that point. When I denied refactoring, Gwen Gale blocked me for 72hrs.

There are a number of problematic factors in the block:

1. Gwen Gale did not explain to me what was missing; and, since I had not intentionally removed any content, and thought I had not, it was normal for me to deny the accusation.
2. She went from a warning to a block without my having done anything. Instead of explaining what was missing from PalestineRemembered's edit, so that I could correct it, she assumed bad faith and blocked me.
3. She said that the block was necessary because she "saw a risk of ongoing disruption to the project" [2]; although as can be seen from the VillagePump thread there had been no complaints about disruption from anyone [3]
4. Gwen Gale has edited against me on issues involving Israel/Palestine, so her intervening for PalestineRemembered by blocking me seems particularly problematic.
5. Even if I had refactored PalestineRemembered's edit, since that edit was completely off the topic of the thread, and since there is no particular WP rule against refactoring, there was no grounds for that block any how. Her claim of "disruption", without showing there had been any disruption, can in this case be an indicator of her having apparently developed a personal hostility toward me.
6. There is also an additional problem with the unfounded accusations made by Gwen Gale against me because I edit under my own name. That means that anyone who does a Google search will easily find these accusations which make me sound like some sort of god-damned wiki-criminal, perhaps no better than a common pick-pocket. I am not some weird vandal, stalker, or troll. I make rational edits that are sourced and verifiable. I have no objection to users using Wiki-aliases, but I would nice to get a minimum of consideration, and it is disgusting for users to make unfounded accusations against those using their real name, while they hide behind an alias. For instance, this is the edit by PalestineRemembered that Gwen Gale accused me of refactoring [4]. Although I did not intentionally remove any of this, I think it is a baseless and disgusting insult, that it no justifiable reason to be on the VillagePump, and think Gwen Gale would have been better advised to remove it, rather than protect it.

End of complaint. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 18:10, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I believe there is a specific rule against refactoring comments made by others. I don't have the link handy. Not commenting on anything else said here. // roux   18:27, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to defend Gwen here. Malcolm on his own talk page wrote, "I have said more that once that in a more perfect world someone as computer incompetent as I am would not be allowed to edit Wikipedia." After finally convincing him that he had actually removed content, Gwen continuously offered to unblock him immediately if he would promise to refrain from refactoring talk pages, since he is clearly not capable of doing so without causing disruption. Instead of simply agreeing, he dismissed the damage he caused as deserved by the editor whose comments were removed. It's easy to see that the same thing is likely to happen again in the future. (Obligatory disclaimer: Malcolm believes that I am biased against him.) Looie496 (talk) 18:29, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

The block has already been overturned, so what exactly do you want? --Tango (talk) 18:34, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

There are two things that come to mind. One is that I would like a promise from Gwen Gale that she not act in administrative capacity in issues that touch on Israel/Palestine disputes because there is reason to think that she is far from neutral. Another thing, which I think I made pretty clear, but which should perhaps go to the VillagePump also, is how accusations are directed at users who edit under their own names. It should be a little closer to WP:BLP, there can be criticism but not speculative or unfounded nasty accusations. It is common courtesy, something which many avid internet users tend to forget.

The thing is, unless it is either of a blatantly offensive/racist/ethnic/etc...nature or if it is your own user talk page, you have no right to alter the words of another user, anywhere at any time. Period. Not if they disagree, not if you think it is off-topic, or whatever. Other users can judge off-topicness for themselves, and choose to respond or not respond as appropriate. And this holier-than-thou attitude regarding people who use their real names vs. people who do not is getting very old, very quickly. Tarc (talk) 18:46, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

If someone makes a statement that's blatantly and extremely offensive, typically it is edited out with a signed comment explaining why. Other than that, besides simple restructuring of indentations to make the flow clearer, the standing procedure is that editing others' comments is strictly forbidden, even if it's merely to fix a spelling error. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 18:57, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

To defend Malcolm, he was only trying to unindent somebody else's comment, which is not forbidden. Neither is moving a comment that has been placed in the wrong spot. But he screwed up the edit and accidentally deleted material, thereby causing the problem. Looie496 (talk) 18:58, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Suggest that Malcolm Schosha in future pay more attention to doing things "by the book", otherwise you just leave yourself open to trouble. Suggest that admin Gwen Gale in future recuse herself from warning or blocking Malcolm Schosha; this latest overturned block means that the presumption of fairness, regarding this particular user, is impaired. As far as removing the so-called "Arbitrary Section Break" inserted by User:PalestineRemembered is concerned, doing so was exactly right, though the execution may have been faulty. Quoting from the edit summary by User:Werdna: "confusing and annoying section header. It doesn't actually achieve anything, and it's confusing because it's an h2 not an h3." In particular, removing or downgrading that insertion did not violate the prohibition against editing others' Talk page comments, being a matter of simple housekeeping.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 19:08, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, if all he had done was take away the section header, that would have been OK. Section headers don't belong to the commenter, and are subject to change. He should have left it at that. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 19:13, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

The block was unnecessary, since the warning seemed to be sufficient (he didn't understand he had removed content, so he denied it, but I think its clear that he was just not seeing what he'd done). I don't see any need for Gwen to recuse from issues involving the IP conflict or Malcolm, I just wish Gwen would be slower on the block button in all cases.

To Malcolm - people don't get blocked multiple times in a few months period for no reason at all. You need to start being more careful. Learn to edit Wikipedia as it is, and not as you'd like it to be. Change in this community takes time and effort, like anywhere else, and things don't improve via demands and protests. Avruch ^T 19:22, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Avruch, no matter what some users may think, in the real world reverting a WP edit more than three times in a day is not a crime, nor does it indicate moral depravity. It is true that some users do not fit in here very well, and since I have decided that is so of me I do intend to cut back my editing here, if not end participation all together. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 19:29, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

You did refactor talk page comments. If you find this "disgusting"...you need to find a new hobby. This is just an online encyclopedia. --Smashville^talk 19:33, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I removed talk page content that was clearly off the topic. If you think I am going to apologize for doing that, you are very wrong. The rules clearly stated that the talk pages are not to be used as discussion boards, they exist only to discuss improving the article. As for my needing to find a new "hobby", you are certainly right, as I said above. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 19:41, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

You did it and you admit to doing it. So why do you have a problem with getting in trouble for it? --Smashville^talk 19:57, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I think it's meaningful that Malcom didn't agree to stop refactoring comments, when I offered to unblock him. Malcolm has been warned before about refactoring talk pages. He does this to muddle and blank negative comments about his behaviour. Given his background with other editors and long experience with edit windows, I don't believe he deleted the content by mistake. I believe he tried to mislead me after the warning. After the block, he put up help tags and more posts saying he had not removed content. When at last he couldn't deny the diff, he called the content he'd deleted "bullshit," which I think speaks for itself. By the time his block was reviewed, that thread on Malcolm's talk page was a tangle. Going by an email reply the unblocking admin later sent me, I think the unblocking admin misread Malcolm's talk page and misunderstood what had happened. I think the unblock was a mistake. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:49, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

This is just trying to change the subject. If you were bothered by my accedentally deleting some of PalestineRemembered's rant all you had to do was

1. restore the material and give me a warning (which you did), or
2. explain what was missing and then wait to see if I restored it (which you did not do).

The promise you wanted, after you blocked me anyhow, was a stipulation you added later, and in my view it was just an added requirement intended to cover your own problematic action. Also, in what you write above, you have assumed my bad faith. This exactly what I was complaining about in my original statement. What gives you the right to speculate about my motives, and make such accusations against an editor using his real name, while you hide behind your wiki-alias?

Moreover, you claimed I was being "disruptive", when no one at the Village Pump, where this happened, complained about that at all....not even PalestineRemembered. So where did that come from? Who was it that complained I was disruptive? Malcolm Schosha (talk) 20:20, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Someone sent me an email. When I saw you had removed a negative comment about yourself, I warned you. When in reply to the warning, you denied having removed content and told me to back off, I blocked you as a disruption risk. I then exchanged posts with you in which you carried on denying you had removed content. When you at last acknowledged that you had removed content, you called it a "bullshit edit" but at least having gotten that acknowledgement, I became hopeful and offered to unblock you if you'd agree to stop refactoring comments. In answering me that you would not agree to stop refactoring comments, you said, "You are asking me to make this promise to hide that you have blocked me improperly," which is when I left the discussion. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:35, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

"Someone" sent you an e-mail. Well. Hmm. Of course, I knew that there is nothing about this on your user talk page, because I looked. Was this via Wikipedia user e-mail, or is this someone you are in direct e-mail contact with? And, why was this done in a way to hide the discussion, instead of by the usual way on talk pages? Malcolm Schosha (talk) 21:27, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

By the way, just what was this risk of disruption? Anyone who looks at the thread of discussion [5] can see that I remained civil in every case, including when I took some very uncivil comments. Why are you presenting me as being on the verge of going out of control, when anyone who reads the thread can see that was far fro the case? Malcolm Schosha (talk) 21:51, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

That's about enough of this. Does it matter how she found out about it? The fact is that you did it. There is no need for you to come to ANI and cause drama when the situation was already mostly resolved. It's time for you to back away from this matter because it's clear you have no intention of doing anything constructive with this thread. --Smashville^talk 21:41, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

The fact is that I was blocked for "disruptiveness", and I have yet to see any indication that there was a disruption. All that happened is a small part of an edit got removed. I had no idea. You, as well as Gwen Gale, are assuming bad faith, but that was not put to the test. Well, why not. The situation was not dire. I gave the link to the discussion, above. The situation was calm. PalestineRemembered made some accusations against me, and I replied calmly. More calmly, I think, than him. I would like to get some specifics from Gwen Gale about her accusation. But it was done by e-mail. Why by e-mail? She has made a lot of accusations. What is that based on? Malcolm Schosha (talk) 22:02, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Dude, it's really simple:

1. Did you remove comments made by someone else? Yes, by your own admission.
2. Is that forbidden by WP practice and policy? Yes.
3. Did Gwen Gale have a reasonable belief that you would do it again? Yes, because you refused to acknowledge that you'd done it, and then admitted that you had.
4. Given the above, was it a reasonable block to prevent disruption? Yes.

Gwen isn't going to lose her sysop bit, and she's smart enough that she has taken any valid criticism out of this situation and internalised it for future events. So..

5. Is any further admin intervention needed? No, this should be marked resolved.

// roux   22:12, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Basically, what you just said. Can I also point out that when you admit to doing it, it's not assuming bad faith for anyone to ignore the fact that all of a sudden you decide to deny doing it? You are very clear on what happened - you admitted to it, you mentioned it in your initial complaint, you've mentioned it on other user's talkpages. The fact that you now decide to play dumb is not going to be tolerated. Drop it. --Smashville^talk 22:39, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand your point. Sure later I saw that I some stuff got lost when I reverted an edit, but not for a long time. I thought it was a mistake. Actually, I still don't understand exactly what happened. When Gwen Gale said I had refactored an edit, I denied it because I had no idea that it had happened. I denied it because I was sure I had not removed anything. I thought she was wrong. Its called a mistake. If she had assumed good faith, and showed me exactly what was gone, I would have restored it myself. I had, in fact earlier, changed a subtitle to outdented text, and was careful to make sure nothing was lost. It seems that later, when PalestineRemembered reverted to the subheading he also added a paragraph. When I reverted again, that got lost. I did not realize that even could happen. Why would I be careful to keep everything the first time, and remove something the second time? Malcolm Schosha (talk) 23:03, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

No. You have it wrong. In fact, so far, no one has shown a rule against refactoring talk page edits. But that is not even the issue because I was blocked for "disruptiveness." But where was the disruption? In fact the editing situation was calm. All I have heard from Gwen Gale is that there was an e-mail. Why an e-mail? Moreover, since she did not point out the deleted material to me, I I had no way to understand the problem, or to fix it. She just made a flat statement, without showing me the problem. I had no idea. I denied it because I thought that was correct. But if I was blocked for disruption, I do not think it too much to ask to see what she thinks was disrupted. The editing situation was calm. Where was the disruption?

I am saying to this too: I did not come here to edit Wikipedia so that I could get my name dragged through the mud. I do not think I am asking too much that other users not make speculative negative accusations, defamation, accessible to anyone doing a Google search. The WP guideline is WP:assume good faith, and this whole issue involves a failure exactly there. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 22:43, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

WP:TALK#Behavior that is unacceptable. You broke a rule. Deal with it. No one is dragging your name through the mud. In fact, the only reason we are still discussing it is that you refuse to drop the matter. --Smashville^talk 22:48, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

What rule did I break? Editing a comment? I was careful not to do that. Was there a mistake? It seems so. Why did I get a 72hr block for a mistake? If Gwen Gale had explained, I would have fixed it. But the block was for "disruption." Where was the disruption? Look at the thread. Show me disruptive behavior. Everything was calm.

There is this, that applies to PalestineRemembered's edits, not mine [6]:

* Keep on topic: Talk pages are for discussing the article, not for general conversation about the article's subject (much less other subjects). Keep discussions on the topic of how to improve the associated article. Irrelevant discussions are subject to removal.

* Be positive: Article talk pages should be used to discuss ways to improve an article; not to criticize, pick apart, or vent about the current status of an article or its subject. This is especially true on the talk pages of biographies of living people. However, if you feel something is wrong, but are not sure how to fix it, then by all means feel free to draw attention to this and ask for suggestions from others.

Not a word about the problematic nature of that. Go figure.Malcolm Schosha (talk) 23:32, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

(out)You broke a rule--you removed comments made by another person. Something you have been warned about doing before, so you cannot pretend you didn't know it wasn't allowed. Doing things that you know are not allowed is de facto disruptive. // roux   23:40, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

• There has been the unsupported accusation that I broke a rule by removing comments. The users who have been repeating that should either show me the rule that forbids removing off topic material from talk pages, or stop stop making unsupported statements. As I have said, what was removed was an accident; but, because the material was off topic, removing it was (in any case) specifically allowed, as is stated on WP:Talk page guidelines#How to use article talk pages. I am copying the most relevant item from the WP:Talk page guidelines:

* Keep on topic: Talk pages are for discussing the article, not for general conversation about the article's subject (much less other subjects). Keep discussions on the topic of how to improve the associated article. Irrelevant discussions are subject to removal.

• The material that was deleted was a small part of an edit by PalestineRemembered on a thread on the VillagePump. Article talk pages are for discussion to improve the article. VillagePump discussion is for improving Wikipedia. The material in question was PalestineRemembered's criticisms of me, and has absolutely nothing to do with improving WP, and they should be removed. However, since Gwen Gale asked me not to remove it, I did not. But its removal would not have been a violation of WP rules even if I had done it intentionally. That did not stop her for blocking me anyhow, for 72hrs. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 12:54, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

A gentle reminder to all: Be civil toward each other. Kingturtle (talk) 19:52, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder, Kingturtle. Who has been uncivil? Gwen Gale (talk) 19:55, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I think, at best, this block was a clumsy bit of overkill, aggravated by a lack of communication. "Risk of disruption?" Okay, any admin who thinks that is a good reason to block should probably be desysopped for the exact same reason -- risk of disruption. Gwen, if you have had content disputes with Malcolm before (and I don't know if that's true), you should refrain from blocking him, for any reason. I can't tell you how harmful it is when admins use their powers for that purpose. I also find people's insistence that any kind of refactoring of comments is somehow a major wiki-crime. It isn't generally encouraged (though there are debates about what is an isn't acceptable), but a 72 hour block for it is far from sensible. "Improper" is putting it mildly. Yeesh. IronDuke 21:50, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I haven't had any content disputes with Malcolm. Rather, I helped him get his account re-established after he had been blocked for sockpuppetry. He removed negative comments about himself which had been made by another editor and then, when I warned him about it, Malcolm denied having removed the content. He had been warned before about his highly misleading refactoring of discussion pages. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:08, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick reply. Do you have any idea what Malcolm is talking about, in terms of content disputes? As for the refactor, I don't see any good reason to doubt that MS simply made a mistake and removed more than he wanted. And it appears (correct me if I am wrong) that you blocked him before he could explain it was a mistake. IronDuke 22:20, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

There was this [7] in which she argued against an article I nominated for deletion, and which had exactly to do with issues in the Israel/Palestine dispute which was a factor in the block also. (By the way, the article she argued in favor of does not have a single thing in it to establish notability.) There was [8], just before the block, this -- in which she was arguing against me, and made it clear that she also wished I would go away and not get involved in the Israel/Palestine dispute in the Hummus article. There is also that she actually blocked me for disruptiveness, but could not produce a complaint against me because she said it was an e-mail communication....which I consider problematic. As far as I could tell everything on the Village Pump (where this happened) was calm. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 22:40, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

(ec) I've been trying to mediate, off and on, for months on the talk page of the black hole of lame edit wars which is hummus. More lately, Malcolm has dropped by to make some comments there, but I'm not aware of having ever gone back and forth with Malcom over edits to any article in the main space. As for his removal of the negative comments about himself at VP, I've gotten to know his editing history over the last five months and I still don't believe it was a mistake. My take is, he got caught the other day making a misleading muddle by refactoring and removing content from a discussion and has tried to make a further, misleading muddle out of what happened ever since. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:48, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

By the way, having different views in an AfD is hardly a content dispute. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:52, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, people do get pretty sensitive over I-P issues, so I think it's best to avoid even the appearance of COI. And it seems pretty easy for you to have simply said, "Malcolm, here is the comment you deleted, please put it back," and waited to see if he would. I can't see any actual disruption to the project of any measurable significance to what had been done up until his block. FWIW, I do agree with you about the sinkhole of lameness that is the Hummus edit war. Wouldn't touch it with a ten-foot pita. IronDuke 22:56, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

The time when I was warned previously about talk page deletions was on the Anti-Zionism article, when I removed some chat that had nothing to do with the article; and in that case too I was warned by Gwen Gale. Truthfully she had always been very helpful to me, but when I became involved in articles having to do with Israel/Palestine issues, she started to oppose my editing. (I am logging off now, so anything further from me will have to be tomorrow.) Malcolm Schosha (talk) 22:58, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

As I said, I've never had a dispute with Malcolm over article edits. As I've also said, many times, Malcom repeatedly denied having removed the content from VP. It was hours before he admitted having done so. When he had done, I offered straight off to unblock him if he'd agree to stop re-factoring talk pages, but he answered by saying I was only trying to cover up a bad block, so I left the discussion. By then, the thread was such a mess, I truly believe the unblocking admin, all in good faith, misread it and misunderstood what had happened. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:03, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, I do see content dipsutes on articles in this area. You seem like a reasonable person, so I'm sure you meant no harm. But the effect of this kind of thing can be harmful. I've taken a closer look at the sequence of events, and it gets a bit more disturbing, as I read it (correct, please, any errors of fact I may have made). You opened a new section on refactoring here, where you say "You've been warned before about refactoring comments, if you do this again, you will likely be blocked from editing.." The next edit is the one you link to above. AFAICT, it is not MS "repeatedly" denying it, but denying it once. The next edit on his talk page is you blocking him. Note that he did not violate your warning -- he didn't refactor anything else, merely stated (in error) that he had not removed text. If you really felt that strongly, you could have posted again, "Malcolm, I insist that you acknowledge/reverse what you did, or I will block you." I'd be uncomfortable with that, as refactoring talk page comments is rarely a blockable offense. But it would be better than what you did, which was to block him without warning. IronDuke 23:20, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Removing other editors' good faith comments from project pages isn't allowed. Malcolm got caught doing this and is now stirring up whatever kerfluffle he can, to make editors forget this happened, it's what he does, it's why he re-factors talk pages to begin with. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:34, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Removing off topic comments from talk pages is allowed, even though I did not (in this case) remove anything intentionally. That VillagePump page is for discussing possible changes to WPpolicy, not for discussing what some editors think are my editing deficiencies. That is off topic discussion in that context. That sort of complaint should have been brought here, or to one of the other AN pages. In that edit PalestineRemembered put material that I wanted to reply to, but did not because the VillagePump(policies) is a bad place to argue disputes between editors. Basically, what he wrote in his edit was just one more cheap shot that I could not even reply to because that was not the place for such an argument. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 12:42, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Appalled

Someone just came here wih a valid complaint and got treated like crap. All he wanted was an apology, nothing more. The edit he was blocked for was constructive; all he wanted to do was keep the discussion together, but he messed up. This is why WP:IAR exists, so people can do minor constructive things like moving someone's comment into the right place to improve wikipedia in spite of what the rules say. I've had comments on deletion discussions moved below the comment they were in response to. Roux and Smashville, you guys should be ashamed of yourselves, your behaviour was appalling.--Patton123 16:54, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

No it wasn't. You showing up on my talkpage to harass me--when you had absolutely no idea what you were talking about--was appalling. Doing it again after being explicitly told not to was even worse. My behaviour here was fine--believe me, had there actually been a problem with it, someone who actually knows what they're talking about would have said so. // roux   21:31, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

^This^ PXK ^T /_C 17:07, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

What valid complaint? LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:28, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Also wondering what valid complaint...? --Smashville^talk 21:58, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Equally surprised. The removal of an ===arbitrary section break=== is not within the spirit of "refactoring another's comment" that is discouraged by the Talk page guidelines. There was not real removal of content. Moreover, the "break" did seem a bit unseemly considering the discussion was not that long prior to the section break. Moreover, the editor who added the section break had been blocked around a dozen times and coincidentally the section break seemed to give greater prominence to his (comment) critique of Malcom's editing habits. A block was wrong, a fortiori for 72 hours. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 23:28, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Real content was indeed removed, which is not allowed. After being warned, Malcolm aggresively denied removing any content. The block was based on this utter lack of acknowledgement, which I saw as a likelihood the disruption would carry on. The length of the block was drawn from Malcolm's block log. After being blocked, Malcom carried on denying he had removed any content. When Malcolm at last acknowledged he had removed content, he called that content a "bullshit edit". However, having at last gotten that acknowledgement, I became hopeful and offered to unblock Malcolm (having already offered to unblock once before), if he would agree to stop refactoring comments, but he didn't want to agree to that. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:19, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Gwen Gale, first of all, deleting of off topic content is allowed as I have shown WP:Talk page guidelines#How to use article talk pages. I am copying the most relevant item from the WP:Talk page guidelines:

* Keep on topic: Talk pages are for discussing the article, not for general conversation about the article's subject (much less other subjects). Keep discussions on the topic of how to improve the associated article. Irrelevant discussions are subject to removal.

I did not delete anything intentionally, but if I had, The rules allow that.

Then there is the accusation of "disruption." This was on the VillagePump, with many experienced editors and administrators watching, but there was no comment from any one about my causing a disruption. Rather, you claim that "someone" contacted you by direct e-mail. That seems very strange. Why were they too shy to say anything directly to me? Moreover, I do not see how the criteria for "disruption" applies to what happened. Instead WP guidelines state [9]:

In order to protect against frivolous accusations and other potential exploitation, no editor shall be eligible for a disruptive editor block until after a consensus of neutral parties has agreed that an editor has behaved in a disruptive manner. This consensus can be achieved through requests for comment, third opinion, wikiquette alert, or similar means. This does not include editors whose edits constitute violations of probation or other edit restrictions, who may be blocked for such edits independent of this guideline.

So I still see no justification at all for your action. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 14:30, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

"The block was based on [...] which I saw as a likelihood the disruption would carry on". So Malcolm was blocked for likelihood of disruption, but not for disruption itself? Where did I see it before? Anyway, I don't think people should be blocked for future offences.M0RD00R (talk) 00:57, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Although you may not like it (and that's certainly your right), you might read WP:BLOCK which says "Blocks are used to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, not to punish users" So yes, blocks are based on the likelihood of future disruption (based on past behavior and statements). If there's little liklihood of future disruption, why block? It wouldn't accomplish anything.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 01:03, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

(ec) By policy, blocks are preventative, not punitive. Malcolm had been disruptive and his unwillingness to acknowledge that he had removed the negative comment about himself meant there was a strong likelihood this disruption would continue. Gwen Gale (talk) 01:04, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Can we stick a cork in this topic now, or do you think this can be simplified further? HalfShadow 01:10, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if any good will be accomplished discussing further. That said, it's pretty clear that this was a troubling block, made more troublesome by a lack of acknowledgement that there could be anything wrong with blocking a user one had prior dispute with without warning for an unusually long block. Some sense that patience would have served the situation better and led to less drama would be good. IronDuke 01:15, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Very little good in discussing further; at what point do you think the arsonist requires apprehending? When they are buying petrol, bottle, cloth and matches? When they put the petrol in the bottle and stuff the cloth into the neck? When they light the cloth? When they throw the molotov cocktail?

Or when the house catches fire? What part of "preventative" are you having difficulty with? LessHeard vanU (talk) 01:28, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, your analogy is extraordinarily apt, of course. What MS was doing was the exact wiki equivalent of arson. </sarcasm> He was warned, did not violate the warning, but was blocked anyway, on a pretty flimsy pretext. I'm getting a good sense of your ability to write with rancor, but perhaps you could take some time to focus on what I actually wrote -- all of it -- and less on over-the-top sneers. As for "preventative," given that GG was wrong and doesn't admit it, would that require an emergency block to keep her from doing it again in the next 72 hours? (Hint: the answer is "no.") IronDuke 04:43, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

IronDuke, since you seem to love defending this obvious disruptive user, and you keep asserting there was a content dispute, despite the fact that there wasn't(disagreeing in an AfD is not a content dispute, if it was, we would be to our eyes in RfCs). So, since you keep asserting that their was, why not you go bring us some nice and helpful evidence that you're right. Otherwise, you might just stop. No one here is backing up your arguments, as currently, they don't hold much water. Have you even bothered to read the evidence presented in the diffs?

Maybe you should look over WP policy a little more closely, also, you should read the block policy, and stop saying WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT every time evidence is shoved in your face, but, to re-iterate:

The user deleted negative comments from a talk page that was not his own, he then denied that he did this when called on it multiple times, after that, when he finally couldn't refute the obvious fact that he did indeed remove the comments, he called the edit bullshit, and made no indication that he would stop.

Now that we have that out of the way, I really, really suggest you read WP:TPG, where you will find that refactoring comments, or deleting them, is prohibited. This this user has engaged in this behavior, and done so in the past, and has been blocked for it, and made no indication that he was going to stop, a block was definitely in order, to prevent him from refactoring comments again, as he made(and I know I'm repeating myself here, but I want to make sure it's stated enough times that Duke doesn't have a chance of missing it) no indication that he was going to stop breaking policy.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 10:53, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm happy to read WP:TPG... again... right after you get done with it. Removing a talk page post is not forbidden, and the page itself isn't even policy, and also admits to exceptions, right on the page. I'm not sure why you're getting so hysterical over this, but I hope you can dial it down a couple notvhes, should you choose to post here again. IronDuke 15:34, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

(I don't know why I am bothering, since this editor cannot even understand the principles of analogy...). If someone assembles a molotov cocktail and I say, "Don't throw that molotov cocktail!" and they reply "I don't have a molotov cocktail", but when I get them to agree that what they have in their hands is really a molotov cocktail and their further response is "Well, I was only going to firebomb those who really deserve it!" and I then remove the ability to commit arson, then you think that the petrol bomber is being harassed by me? I can only imagine that you are not concerned with the facts, for reasons I have no interest in determining. In short, it doesn't matter that they didn't repeat the policy violation - they first denied they had, and when faced with the evidence said that they felt they were right to violate policy. Faced with that mindset I think Gwen Gale exercised great good faith in only blocking for a few days, as I don't see how such a fundamental misunderstanding toward policy is going to change in that short time. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:33, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

For the record, I had to read the above post a number of times for it to make any sense - that's one hell of a convoluted analogy. With regards to your edit summary, please rememeber to remain civil. _TalkIslander 12:41, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, though it's obviously the case that I cannot even understand the principles of analogy, the cystal clarity of the prose in the above analogy -- its unassailable logic, really -- leaves me with no reply. IronDuke 15:38, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

• I am not at all satisfied in the way this is going, particularly by Gwen Gale's method of defending her actions by continuing to make unsupported accusations against me. Could someone explain to me how I can take this problem up the the next level of dispute resolution? Malcolm Schosha (talk) 12:51, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

• • You have still never said what it is exactly you are disputing, as you are now unblocked anyways. Seeking some sort of punitive measure or censure to be taken of Gwen Gale? She made a judgment call on your current action, that it was the same as the previous actions that have led to being blocked, and blocked you again accordingly. We can all see quite plainly on your talk page where your argument morphed from aggressive denial to aggressive dismissal of what you deleted when you finally owned up to doing it to the refusal to simply say "I won't refactor the comments of others ever again". Protip; you're in a hole, Schosha. Stop digging. Tarc (talk) 13:03, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
    • I was about to say this to the complainant: How about just dropping this whole deal, and just going back to normal editing? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:06, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Well, sure. Gwen Gale is one of those administrators whose actions show up at ANI a disproportionate number of times, so it should only take somewhere between six to eight hours of your life to put together enough diffs and log entries for a Request for Comment. You’ll have to find another disgruntled editor to certify the dispute, which should not be too hard. Then people will bicker over the RFC for a few weeks, and then in a month, after everyone’s forgotten about it anyway, someone will “close” the RFC with no action, no recommendations, and no remedies and you’ll be right back to where you started. Nothing will change because of this RFC, but you’ll still file it because in another few months, after you’ve collected more diffs (and if you haven’t GoodbyeCruelWikied by then), you’ll rinse and repeat at arbitration! You’ll be disappointed to find that arbitration is just like RFC but with fancier clerking; nothing will come of your complaint there either.

Thanks for the reply. In that case, I will just continue to argue here, there is plenty more that needs to be discussed. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 13:49, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Tarc, refactoring off topic comments is not forbidden, and there I no reason why I should promise that. At this point the issue is, in addition to administrator misconduct, violations of WP:CIVIL, and WP:no personal attacks. Gwen Gale has chosen to defend herself by extending her accusations against me. But, nevertheless, the only "punishment" I want is that she admit that she acted in error. If you find this process too painful for your delicate sensibilities, I would be better if you did not watch. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 13:15, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Refactoring the comments of others, unless it is a blatant personal attack or WP:BLP violation, IS forbidden. But hell, even if it wasn't, it would still be the height of incivility, rudeness, and extremely bad manners to wipe the words of another off of a discussion page just because it was a section/discussion you happened to start and you felt it was off-topic. And no, my sensibilities are not delicate. Watching this is painful though, in the sense that watching someone speeding a car down winding road, and lacking either the ability or the desire to apply the brakes to save themselves is painful. Tarc (talk) 13:28, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Tarc wrote: Watching this is painful though, in the sense that watching someone speeding a car down winding road, and lacking either the ability or the desire to apply the brakes to save themselves is painful.

Tarc, you have no idea how touched I feel over your show of concern for my well being.

Once again, could someone explain to me how I can take this problem up the the next level of dispute resolution? Thank you. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 13:42, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

You broke the rules and were short-term blocked for it. If you continue to pursue this, which appears to be a vendetta, you risk a longer block for continued disruption. Drop it and go back to editing. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 15:06, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Deleting of off topic content is allowed as I have shown WP:Talk page guidelines#How to use article talk pages. I am copying the most relevant item from the WP:Talk page guidelines:

* Keep on topic: Talk pages are for discussing the article, not for general conversation about the article's subject (much less other subjects). Keep discussions on the topic of how to improve the associated article. Irrelevant discussions are subject to removal.

Bugs, you keep saying I broke the rules, but not which rules I broke. If you persist in doing that it might seem that you are engaging in deception. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 15:19, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

You are not supposed to mess with other people's comments. If you have a problem with so-called personal attacks, you bring them here, you don't try to "take the law into your own hands". Furthermore, your short-term block is over, yet you continue to harrangue about this. You appear to be engaged in a personal vendetta, and if you don't stopy, you will likely be blocked again. Or is that what you want? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 15:25, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Malcolm is right, deleting one comment (apparently accidentally) should not result in a block without warning. Nor should he be threatened with blocks for complaning. That's just wrong. (NB: Bugs, I see you on this board a lot, and agree with you much of the time (even if silently), so please don't take this personally.) Malcolm, I will agree with many of the posters above when I say there is nothing you can do about this. Yes, Gwen should have been contrite, but she wasn't. If this behavior persisted, maybe you'd have something, but one thing Wikipedia rarely provides is catharsis. IronDuke 15:43, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I am not an admin, so I have no authority to threaten anyone with a block. I'm giving him good advice based on past observations of the result of this kind of behavior. He needs to just walk away from this and go back to editing instead of trying to get someone to punish the admin, who may have overreacted, but no real harm was done. And he should take a lesson to never again mess with other people's comments. Somewhere in his harrangue he's making a claim of bias against the admin. That also sounds like a personal attack. It's a two-way street, ya know. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 15:52, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

It's hard to find the trigger of this megillah anymore, so here it is again: [10] The complainant here messed with other people's comments. He shouldn't have done that, period. Maybe the block was improper. The block was removed and the editor can edit again. If there is an issue with the admin's behavior, it should be noted and logged for future reference in case there is a larger case to be made. But this ain't it. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 16:10, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Malcolm, for the last time, you broke a rule. The fact that you selectively read the WP:TALK guidelines and specifically avoid WP:TALK#Behavior that is unacceptable, which says, "As a rule, do not edit others' comments, including signatures." The following portion includes exceptions, none of which apply here. If you continue your vendetta on a rule you very clearly broke, you will be blocked. There is no excuse for your continued disruption. This matter is closed.

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Disruption from User:Bayrak along ethnic lines

Most of this user's edits so far appear to have a pro-Arab, anti-Iranian slant that does not work entirely within the framework of Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Here are some examples I can pull up:

Trying to edit articles along original (and frankly, incorrect) viewpoints [11] (that if a man is a Seyed then he must be an Arab): see Talk:Ruhollah Khomeini#Isn't he Arab!! In that section he was warned [12], yet he decided to try it again on December 5th Talk:Ruhollah Khomeini#the fake sayed...

Patently absurd attempt to deny that Azeris can have Iranian nationality: azeris are not iranian/persian. That he chose to attempt this on the article about the Supreme Leader of Iran (who is a prominent example of an Azeri with Iranian nationality) suggests that Bayrak is just trying to cause trouble.

Sometimes he removes tags without adding a source [13][14][15] Other times he will tag and/or remove material without any attempt to look up the issue, usually in order to remove claims about people being Persian faaaaaaaaaaaakeeeeeeeee that is not translete & all his works in arabic he is not persian. He might add "arabic" without providing a source they were arabs. It is curious how his double standard organizes itself along ethnic lines...

He might even repeatedly remove sourced material without sound explanation if the material asserts that something is Iranian:[16][17][18][19]

AGF violation with regard to original images: fake......... He remove the image (of Iranian girls in Kuwait) because he happens to doubt its veracity but makes no attempt to contact author or otherwise give the benefit of the doubt. It seems bad practice, and that it is also applied against an Iranian presence (since he denies that there are many Iranians in Kuwait) fits into a troubling pattern of ethnic warring.

This list is hardly exhaustive. The apparent ethnic motivation for much of this disruption is quite a manner of concern. It seems unfair on constructive editors that this behavior can continue unchecked from a user who has shown little desire to become a constructive editor. 67.194.202.113 (talk) 21:02, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't really have much to add to this, he said everything perfectly. Let me just clarify one thing. He does go on the talk pages. He is never persuaded from the view he took before going to the page. He ignores arguments and points we make sometimes, doesn't even acknowledge that we made them. And last but not least, he persistently pushes his views if we disagree. The entire thing is frustrating. --Enzuru 21:13, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

And even so, he only goes to the talk page in some of the cases. At Ossetians, for example, where he repeatedly removed the multiply-sourced (and fairly uncontroversial) fact that they are an Iranian people, he never took the issue to the talk page, even after being asked: questionanswer. But as you have pointed out, his participation at the talk page yields no fruit anyway. 67.194.202.113 (talk) 21:23, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Aside from the diffs of tag removal, which I agree are a concern, some of the other complaints here are pretty vague, without clear evidence, or citing very old evidence (those diffs about removing sources are from months ago). For example, can anyone provide a diff that shows a recent case where there was a clear talkpage consensus, and Bayrak editing against that consensus? If not, this really isn't a matter for ANI. I'd recommend some other step in dispute resolution, such as starting a thread at the Ethnic/Cultural conflicts noticeboard. I'll also have a word with Bayrak about the tags. --Elonka 21:52, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

This is rather recent. --Enzuru 22:52, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

The Khomeini situation is also recent, particularly his decision to continue the same ridiculous thread even though he was warned against it. The Khamenei edit was also within the last few days. The disruptive behavior is evident in both older and recent edits; you might say that it is characteristic of his Wikipedia career, unfortunately. It hardly seems reasonable to go to whatever instruction creep noticeboard over a lone wolf. He obviously he knows the rules, since he cited them when removing information he didn't like. That he then violates them for his own ends betrays an underlying lack of respect for Wikipedia rules, not a lack of understanding; having witnessed his repugnant double standard it is difficult to accept claims of innocence or misunderstanding. I emphasize that we should not be misled by these tactics, as it only prolongs the disruption and the frustration of genuinely well-meaning users. We have tried discussion, explanation, and warning to no avail. 67.194.202.113 (talk) 05:28, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

in arabic wikipedia we do not Accept the complaint from I.P i dont know here if they do because behaind the I.P always plots --Bayrak (talk) 21:45, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

This isn't Arabic Wikipedia. WP:AGF --Smashville^talk 22:35, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

It is amusing when a user provides an example of his own inappropriate behavior by his response to a thread about his inappropriate behavior. Bayrak, you might consider actually presenting a defense to the charges against you, instead of attacking me (or any other user) without sound reasoning. 67.194.202.113 (talk) 05:28, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I've got the relevant articles (Khwārizmī, Ruhollah Khomeini) added to my watchlist, have added a couple comments to the talkpages, and will keep an eye on the edits of Bayrak (talk · contribs), 67.194.202.113 (talk · contribs), and Enzuru (talk · contribs). If other admins agree, this thread can probably be marked as resolved, perhaps "Situation is now subject to admin monitoring, no other action required at this time." --Elonka 06:08, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

You are the only admin who has opined on this matter so far, and your response (asking for "recent diffs" even though they were already presented) suggests that you do not fully understand the case at this time. It is important that we do more than we have already done for he has not responded appropriately to our reactions so far. We could use a few more administrative opinions on how we should respond differently to this case depending on what direction it takes from now on. 67.194.202.113 (talk) 06:23, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

What exactly is it that you would like administrators to do? --Elonka 18:37, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

You need to be harsher with him than you have. Your message on his talk page treats him as if he just doesn't know any better, which is hardly the case. Do not give him the benefit of the doubt. It is wrong to assume good faith at this point, since he has shown understanding of the rules only when they were convenient to him; this precludes a genuine misunderstanding of the rules and reveals that he does not care for the rules but rather is advancing an agenda along ethnic lines, using the rules when they help and disregarding them when they do not. Any words he may now try to hide behind (blaming poor English skills or newness) should be taken with a grain of salt because the evident double standard speaks against his claimed innocence and ignorance. What you need to communicate is that the ill nature of his editing so far is now clear to all, and thus any further transgressions will be met with a block since he knows better. I've already warned him to this end but he, of course, did not care, and even boldly continued the very disruptive thread that I had warned him against. As an administrator, you may be able to scare him into compliance, but it must first be clear that you are not misled by his attempts to dodge around the true nature of his misbehavior. 67.194.202.113 (talk) 20:19, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. It seems as though those who are resisting the rather absurd edits of editor "Bayrak" have received far more of a "tongue lashing" of sorts, than the actual culprit at hand. Bayrak very well understands the rules and purpose of Wikipedia, and only claims ignorance when the situation suits him. The bottom line is that Bayrak has an agenda that is clearly anti-Persian/anti-Iranian in nature, and is attempting to use the English language Wikipedia to advance that said agenda. He will no doubt continue this behavior until some action is taken. The Scythian 21:17, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

It is frustrating to see nothing is done, and I'm sure he's quite emboldened that an administrator is asking us for a consensus on an article that has historically had a strong consensus against what he wishes. --Enzuru 02:15, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

• Hmm, amusing. Particularly since the Azeris are partially Iranian, at the least. I'll keep an eye on this fellow. If he doesn't make any productive contributions he'll be banned before too long. Moreschi (talk) 23:06, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

OK, enough is enough, he has decided to push the disruptive Khomeini thread further [20]. Just block him at this point; there is no point tolerating further trolling and stupid games from him. 67.194.202.113 (talk) 09:01, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Hey 67.xxx -- I don't edit much in such articles, but saw this thread here and since i have an interest in these matters have kept an eye on it. I was leaning towards your views on bayrak, based on what i was reading here. But that dif you point too from a talk page doesn't seem particularly bad. I don't know about Khomenei, but many millions of Iranians (including khamenei, right?) claim decent from the prophet's tribe. Claiming such descent doesn't make them less Iranian; there's been lots of intermarriage and big families in the past 1,400 years. I'm not weighing in on whether that guy's talk page assertion about Khomeini and the Quraysh is true (that content issue should be dealt with over there -- should be easy to answer given the shared Iranian and Arab interest in geneology). Just pointing out that comment doesn't come close to out of bounds.Bali ultimate (talk) 15:50, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Ok, read the whole talkpage. Bayrak is clearly pursuing an agenda (basically his argument is that Khomenei had an arab ancestor in the distant past and that this makes him "Arab" rather than "Iranian"). Various attempts have been made to point out why this is wrong. He's bullheaded. So, i can see why one would feel he's disruptive and pushing an agenda. Why not just ignore him as long as he's confined to the talk page? If he starts pushing this content into the article against conensus, then come back?Bali ultimate (talk) 16:13, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Bali is correct. Bayrak's comments may or may not be tendentious, but I'm reluctant to block someone simply for speaking their mind on a talkpage. If he were pushing inappropriate edits into the article against talkpage consensus, that would be something different, but if he's just trying to present his point of view on a talkpage, that's what we want people to do in a dispute. If no one agrees with him, well, ignore him. --Elonka 19:59, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

The disruption is not confined to the talk pages. Please actually read the diffs presented as evidence; must of this starts in the article. A quick survey of his contributions will also demonstrate this point further. It usually begins with some absurd anti-Iranian/pro-Arab change to the article (at Khomeini, at Khamenei, at Ossetians, at articles about some medieval scholars, and so on). Eventually he may go to the talk page, but as we have seen his participation is not constructive and is often akin to trolling, and is persistent. With disruptive article edits and disruptive talk page edits, with knowledge of the rules (which are respected only when convenient to him), I am completely boggled by the drive to protect him and extend the benefit of the doubt to him in this thread. Even if there hadn't been disruption on the articles, since when is talk page trolling even after warnings an acceptable Wikipedia career? If he had stopped after warning, then maybe we could say we misunderstood him. If he stopped after this thread, then maybe we could still say we misunderstood him. But he has continued some of the very same threads that he was warned against; that this provocation has been tolerated by administrators is quite unfortunate. 67.194.202.113 (talk) 21:47, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I am not seeing trolling here, I am seeing someone with a limited grasp of English. I imagine that if I tried to participate on the Arabic Wikipedia, my own posts would be fairly unintelligible, and if someone gave me a long thoughtful reply back, I would just see it as an indecipherable wall of text, and I would probably miss all the philosophical subtleties of what they were trying to say. So I would reply based on what I did understand, and then if they got angry that I wasn't responding to the rest of their post, and responded to me with more stuff I didn't understand, the situation would spiral. My recommendation is to try a bit more patience. Speak to this editor in short and simple sentences. Use small words. When he ignores you, don't assume that he's deliberately ignoring. Instead, assume that he couldn't understand what you just said because you may have used words that were not in his vocabulary. Now, I do agree with Moreschi below that there's a limit to how much patience we need to show to someone who doesn't have enough English to effectively participate in this project, but let's not make things worse by using the "troll" word. --Elonka 23:03, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I actually can see this guy is moving in the direction of a block (i appear to disagree with Elonka on this -- his grasp of english appears strong enough to understand the substance of the issues). However, Elonka, an admin, appears to have promised in good faith to keep an eye on this guy. I'm sure she will and you should continue to do so, and if more of the same behavior emerges in article mainspace, other steps might be taken. You may be back here soon. When you come back, frame it like this UserX did y, was warned, did y again. Was warned about similair problems in the past. Provide diffs for it all. He might end up getting blocked. But continuing to insist he get blocked now is not going to help your later case, is not going to get what you want now, and just might lead to your position being taken less seriously (in a volunteer project, sometimes squeeky wheels get less grease, however unfair that might seem).Bali ultimate (talk) 23:24, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I'll be sure to bring it to attention if the behavior continues. Hopefully then the correct decision will be taken, instead of the coddling and delay seen so far. 67.194.202.113 (talk) 23:48, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

• DFTT, people. He can rant on talkpages, just ignore him. If it's offtopic remove it per WP:TALK. Otherwise just don't feed. Obviously if he starts putting this stuff into articles in the future it's a much more serious matter and we will deal with that proactively.
• Although frankly this guy's English is so poor I question the point of him editing here. Wikipedia is not language school. That needs to improve as well. People with broken English need to prove they are worth taking time over. If they don't contribute worthwhile content...

• A long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away I spent many long days copy-editing the works of a Russian editor whose articles contained many instances of...idiosyncratic...grammar. But, as the result was outstanding Russian opera articles, everyone was really happy. It's not that hard to show us you're worth the trouble. Moreschi (talk) 20:49, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Orangejumpsuit

Resolved

 – Noise has drowned out signal here; thread about one editor's misbehavior being hijacked by political argument. -- llywrch (talk) 07:38, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Orangejumpsuit (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), recently blocked, engaging again in tendentious editing, incivility, edit warring, etc.

A quick review of his recent edits should make it clear, but if you want a summary...After being warned many times by me and others for this behavior, comes off block to immediately edit war to remove material he sees as negative from Henry Hyde,[21][22] he claims as retribution for the Barack Obama article being too full of praise. Responds to warnings on talk page with accusations of me being a "THUG" and such on my own talk page[23] and his. Please be careful in reviewing his talk page because he has been manipulating it to remove warnings, retitle headings to make them accusations against me, etc.[24][25][26][27][28][29] In principle he can do what he wants on his talk page so that is not the problem behavior itself, only a showing that he is on notice of a possible block, he has vowed to continue, and all attempts by me and others to reign this in have failed. If I fix the Henry Hyde article again he will revert again, or carry on his pointy disruption somewhere else. Also, he is a new WP:SPA created in August to disrupt the Barack Obama / Sarah Palin articles and by all appearances a possible WP:SOCK. Wikidemon (talk) 03:09, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

This is example of thuggery, in which wikedemon does not agree with me, so he threaten me with banning with this [30] Sad, you can't win argument here [31] about equality of political bios so you threaten and harass me instead.

This guy is on a power trip and should be stopped.Orangejumpsuit (talk) 03:29, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Obviously, my warnings are not helping the situation so I won't issue any more until we deal with it... to avoid inciting an edit war I'm also avoiding reverting the edits (I'll clean it up once we're done).Wikidemon (talk) 03:36, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Its obvious your "warnings" were just bold face threats, bulling, and harassment. What every you like to call them, the net results is to chill those who disagree with you when your augments not strong enough to stand discussion so you revert to ad homuium, and threats, which you so kindly have cataloged.Orangejumpsuit (talk) 03:42, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

They are warnings, like the sticker you see on the top rung of your ladder not to stand on it. I cannot stop you, but the warning puts you on notice so that if and when you do get on trouble for your edits it is not without fair warning.Wikidemon (talk) 03:49, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

What you simply call "Warnings" are in reality uncivil threats and incivility in order to chill the augment and attack me ad humiuim. I presented an augment and you personally attack me. That very uncivil and to have the gaul to say I attacked you.. thats a bold face lie and you know it.Orangejumpsuit (talk) 03:55, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

This is certainly troubling. I think Orangejumpsuit needs to avoid these sorts of edits which do appear to be clearly about making a point. He directly claims to do so in his edit summaries... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:26, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I guess treating all the Political biographies, equally, is not a wikipeidan concept. Should only some Biographies be treated with different in terms of Style, content, and tone??? Or are you against this concept and whikpedia should be war ground where the Left gang should war with the Right gang and the one who has the numbers, admins on their side should win??? does MIGHT make right? Is it the gang that wins get the spoils??? Or, should all protect the fairness of the political bios, not because you like me or hate me or like or hate the subject of the bios but it's the right thing to do? This is the issue I stand on and wikidemon and others like them want it to be a place of political attack and those that stand in the away of this agenda shall be harassed and baned?Orangejumpsuit (talk) 03:38, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

The jumpsuited one has reacted to disagreements on edit questions with incivility; he repeatedly characterizes warnings about inappropriate language as "threats"; etc. His summaries and posts to talk pages display a lack of assumption of good faith and a failure to maintain a neutral point of view on the political topics which seem to be his only interest. --Orange Mike | Talk 03:41, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Putting words in my mouth is not very nice... The question I am aruging is that all political biographies should be treated equally. If you are against that, then wikipeida is just a bias political blog, with out the value of fairness and balance which all the people of the political biographies deserve. This drama is proof that this may not be the ultimate goal of wikipeida, but only a place where political gang war flourish , un checked and enabled by thos like you... Orangejumpsuit (talk) 03:47, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

PS to Orangemike, your cheeky "the jumpsuited one" is more poof of incivility and you chilling the agument. Whats good for you is not good for me? oh well? Orangejumpsuit (talk) 04:00, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I think he was trying to clarify he was talking about you, not himself, as your usernames are somewhat similar. \ / (⁂) 04:15, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I blocked him for 1 week. What I haven't seen mentioned anywhere is that OJS was just released off of another block just a few hours ago and began this editing again. I figured the fact that he started so immediately warranted a longer block. --Smashville^talk 04:54, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Good block. I endorse it fully. He's just trying to pick fights... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 06:15, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

The editor's talk page is an interesting read if you want to see a flame-out. Block is now extended to indefinite. Wikidemon (talk) 21:41, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I blanked it and protected, per Wikidemon's suggestion...if nothing else, he made a legal threat at the end...can someone stick a template on there...I know there's one, but I can't find it...--Smashville^talk 21:42, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

{{indef}} on the user page. It is a pretty good flameout. Did he eventually rid wikipedia of its "bios"? Protonk (talk) 00:38, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

uptight and a bit pugnacious perhaps. But his points were well-taken. On the Henry Hyde page he found at least one blatant example of NPOV. The Obama article is a campaign mailer. The difference between the treatment of Republicans and Democrats here on wiki shows a bias bigtime for the Dems. The Republicans have their scandals amplified while the Democrats have their idealism amplified. I think someone should mentor him in Wiki civility etc, not just block him. We could use one or two more Conservatives on wiki. Tundrabuggy (talk) 03:59, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

The difference between the treatment of Republicans and Democrats here on wiki shows a bias bigtime for the Dems. Uhhuh. You might be interested in Conservapedia. They don't care about NPOV. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 05:18, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

No, we don't need "one or two more Conservatives on wiki", what we need are honest editors with the ability to be impartial while editing. Cries of "their side is treated better than my side" ring hollow, and false. Tarc (talk) 13:06, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

really not so hollow if you listen with an open mind. I don't get too involved with politics, but the sense that the pres-elect is messianic is inescapable. You certainly won't get that impression reading the bios of the conservatives, ;) Tundrabuggy (talk) 16:47, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Nobody of any serious consideration is calling him a messiah, except the ones on the right who want to mock him. Maybe the public is just excited to get a President who won legitimately. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 16:50, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Of course not. Most liberals mock religion and particularly Christianity. Perhaps that's why they find it difficult to see that they are approaching this new legitimate president-elect with the same uncritical fervor and support that a Christian might reserve for his messiah. I celebrate the fact that America is mature enough to vote for a "black" man for president; however, I am not uncritical of this particular, inexperienced and singularly unknown man, Barack Obama. For all our sakes, however, I certainly hope for the best. Tundrabuggy (talk) 04:09, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

"Most liberals mock religion and particularly Christianity" ? You pretty much invalidate yourself from the discussion with inflammatory BS like that, IMO. Tarc (talk) 04:12, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

So this is resolved, then? Jolly good. Perhaps someone could add a note to that effect. // roux   04:16, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Adding original research, edit warring, personal attacks

I wonder if someone could have a word with anon editor 4.182.234.226 (talk · contribs). He/she has repeatedly added original research and (I believe) synthesized research to I Am the Walrus (here, here, and here) despite the policy being explained in both edit summaries and on his/her talk page. In doing so, he/she has also edit warred. He/she also made a personal attack in this edit summary. He/she is also adding POV to the same article. Thank you. Ward3001 (talk) 06:15, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh, poor baby. Did Daddy and Mommy Wikipedia make your hurt booboo better?

grow up, asshole. get a a life ... and get out of your wheelchair.

Hey, everybody, look!: -- it's the Church Lady!!

Oh can we mister, mister please, can we please, mister .... sorry we hurt your field, mister

Here are the very dangerous and horrible, most horrible TWO SENTENCES that this asshole dickhead is trying to censor (what fun he would have been under Zhdanov ...) (look it up, O ignorant one):

"In an amazing coincidence, Lear IV.6. is the only scene in all of Shakespeare (out of more than a thousand) that features both English homonyms for "Beatle." In other words, the Beatles randomly added, in "real time" "found art," the only scene from Shakespeare that features both the words "beadle" and "beetle"."

THAT'S IT!! Yep, that's it -- that is ALL that this crybaby dickhead WikiNazi is putting himself out to PREVENT. And you have to ask: WHAT THE FUCK IS WRONG WITH THIS GUY?? I mean, seriously: WHAT IS WRONG WITH HIM?? WHERE DID EVERYTHING GO WRONG FOR HIM?? HOW DID HE END UP BEING SUCH AN ASSHOLE THAT HE ACTUALLY PRODUCES EFFORT TO CENSOR MY TWO INNOCUOUS SENTENCES ABOUT A SONG??

Please, wikipedia -- IGNORE assholes like this guy. THIS GUY tried to prevent TWO SENETNCES from being posted on an ENTIRELY IRRELEVANT SUBJECT. He is suitable for Stalin, not for THE USA. Enough. Buh-bye, Ward 3001. our day is done. We are tired of you. You contribute nothing.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.182.237.70 (talk) 11:30, 6 December 2008 (UTC) 

Above editor's day is indeed done for 31 hours. I haven't blocked the first IP address but if it gets used for the same purpose it should be blocked (IMHO) dougweller (talk) 12:51, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Let me add a couple more points:

• First, I think 4.182.234.226 (talk · contribs) and 4.182.237.70 (talk · contribs) are the same person. They edit from similar IPs, from the same city, and with the same ISP. Both have edited only a single passage from I Am the Walrus. And now 4.182.237.70 (talk · contribs) has made his second personal attack in this edit summary (the first attack is linked above).
• Secondly, this/these editors are using a Shakespeare concordance to identify statistical data, which he/she then uses to reach a novel conclusion: "In an amazing coincidence, Lear IV.6. is the only scene in all of Shakespeare (out of more than a thousand) that features both English homonyms for "Beatle."" That seems clearly to be original research; the citation is not to a source that discusses any coincidence between Shakespeare and I Am the Walrus; it is only to the search engine's statistical results. This has been pointed out to the anon editor(s) without any response other than reverting and personal attacks. I also consider the uncited phrase "Amazing coincidence" to be original research. I hope this helps clarify. Thanks. Ward3001 (talk) 16:23, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

As I've indicated, I agree that they are almost certainly the same editor. I've blocked the one who posted most recently. dougweller (talk) 17:04, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

And the author left out another amazing coincidence - that in the very same scene, the Bard has the players saying "Loveth me doest", "I am want to holdeth thy hand", and "Why doth we not doest it in the road?" Eerie, ain't it? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:18, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

• We really, REALLY need a new block reason: "Personal attacks IN ALL CAPS made on a page full of administrators. Diagnosis: lack of clue, possibly fatal. Recommend high-speed transcortical ball-peen therapy." Or for the Shakespeareans amongst thou: "Bangeth, bangeth, Maxwell's silver banhammer".GJC 20:40, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
  • After him, fellows; bring him to the block. (Measure for Measure, act 4 scene 3.) – iridescent 20:15, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

#####alk.com

Resolved

Just a heads up - an IP was blocked this morning for spamming links to #####alk.com - I first thought that it was just run of the mill spam but it's actually a GNAA browser hijack site - if you see it, as well as reverting it, please warn people not to check out the URL. --Cameron Scott (talk) 11:28, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

More than one - #####ot net. Is it on the blacklist yet, and should we contact oversight o'er this? -Jéské Couriano ^{(v^_^v)} 11:33, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Both now on the blacklist. Black Kite 12:38, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

You only get the GNAA thing if your ip has been added to their ban list. Second, in instances where someone's clearly attempting to promote visibility of their website, it helps not to post it on the most visible part of ours— ANI. :P --slakr^\ talk / 12:40, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I've removed the link; this oldid has it if you really want to find out what it is. Stifle (talk) 12:46, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Why was the reason more than 1 IP was blocked bowdlerized? -Jéské Couriano ^{(v^_^v)} 20:19, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

My guess would be that it had something to do with vegetable matter.GJC 20:30, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth there used to be a Last Measure article. I don't recall whether or not it listed other urls to avoid, but if so this could be a rare case where deleting the article caused a site's traffic to increase. Once upon a time everyone knew better. If you edit at work or in any other non-solitary environment, the best approach might be to disable javascript by default and then turn it back on for trusted sites on a case-by-case basis (and only if you can't get by without it). — CharlotteWebb 20:55, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Also see the section below. --Rschen7754 (T C) 20:33, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

JIDF Talk Page Being Used for General Discussion

• Resolved
  - sock blocked Spartaz ^Humbug! 13:57, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Seems like many editors (Peter cohen, Hans Adler) and others are using the JIDF Talk Page for general discussion about the JIDF, various sockpuppet cases, and even sharing private emails there. Strange to see such behavior among well-established editors. At the top of the page, there is a banner announcing that the area is not a forum and that all discussion should be limited to actual improvement of the article. Also of interest is the fact that Peter cohen is on the JIDF's "attack page" --HD90853 (talk) 13:33, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

See above post by Hans Adler. I have already reported this user as a sockpuppet of ED.--Peter cohen (talk) 13:36, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Now if you could please stop using the JIDF Talk Page for general discussion (as it is not a forum), it would be appreciated.--HD90853 (talk) 13:46, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

It would be even nicer if you and your mates stopped sending me (and other editors) harassing emails, the mention of which you were trying to remove from the article talk page. Something, surely, which editors need to be aware of.--Peter cohen (talk) 13:50, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm shocked at the size of the JIDF article, especially when compared to the paltry size of the article on the respectable HonestReporting.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 12:30, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

###### a l k. c o m

I and at least one other editor have had "Have you bookmarked ###### a l k. c o m yet? It's sort of like Wikipeda's refdesk, except it doesn't suck.<!-- ��B8��#� �P�ou��-->" put on our talk page, under the heading "AT," with the edit summary "Reverted vandalism. 932c". Note that I made the HTML comment visible, it is not visible to the naked eye on our talk pages.

Examples: User_talk:Davidwr, User_talk:Genemod

Is there a way to blacklist this text? davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 04:06, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Here's another I saw [32]. Grsz¹¹ 04:09, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

You can try $wgSpamRegex (requires developer intervention), one of the anti-vandalism bots or wait until the abuse filter. MER-C 04:12, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Grsz11: Do you mean another 4, all since undone. These 4 had different edit summaries. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 04:16, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

It showed up on my talk page twice last night.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 04:14, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Got two at my talk page just a couple hours ago. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 04:18, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Keep an eye on Wikipedia:Open proxy detection - that's where they will show up. MER-C 05:17, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Here was another one, blocked by an admin: [33] Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 08:28, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I had the dude post twice on mine. :) —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 17:35, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

If it, or they, are not already blocked, try posting them to WP:AIV, or take them directly to User:Redvers, who had already blocked a couple of them. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:42, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I recall blocking one of these within the last 24 hours: Special:Contributions/189.19.229.15. --Rschen7754 (T C) 20:31, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

They are spoofing the url with fullwidth letters. Is there any way to blacklist [\uFF00-\uFFEF] but still allow them to be used in the articles discussing this character set? (Actually there are probably people who use this in their damn sigs…) — CharlotteWebb 21:39, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Dynamic IP question: blocking?

I've filed a sockpuppet case involving several IPs (plainly a dynamic IP) and placed notes on the various talk pages. Today, an IP of the same series — 12.76.154.63, see its contributions— that hadn't edited previously blanked all the talk pages that I'd notified, and it participated (along with several other IPs of the same series) in making productive edits to Roxbury, Wisconsin. Because 12.76.154.63 has been blocked for vandalism (by blanking those talk pages), and because one of the 12-series IPs has stated that it is the same person with a dynamic IP, is it right to block all the other IPs from editing until the block on the first one is finished? Nyttend (talk) 15:28, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

The IP was blocked for blanking its own talk pages after it had read the messages? That doesn't sound like the best reason for continuing the block. What action would help improve the encyclopaedia most? -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 15:44, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

WP talk page guidelines clearly state: "Users may freely remove comments from their own talk pages, though archiving is preferred. They may also remove some content in archiving. The removal of a warning is taken as evidence that the warning has been read by the user. This specifically includes both registered and anonymous users." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.76.155.139 (talk) 20:06, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

One IP was blocked for removing sockpuppet notices from the talk pages of other IPs in the same series. Is it really permissible to remove sockpuppet notices? The block was administered by Tanthalas39, while its sock-notice-removing was undone many times by Jeff G.. Nyttend (talk) 22:20, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Is it really necessary to edit-war over notifications and instructions for someone suspected of sockpuppetry, after they have obviously been read by the person they were intended for? The answer to your question is probably to ask whether the blocks are preventing damage or disruption to the encyclopaedia. You are instead making them sound punitive and disruptive. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 22:38, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I've always thought sockpuppetry tags were meant more for the community as notification that all is probably not as it seems. // roux   22:45, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, whatever you think of restoring such notices, don't look at me as the one who did it: all I did was leave them in the first place, just as I was filing the case. My opinion is more like Roux's view; are you, zzuuzz, saying that you believe we're wrong? I'm not objecting to the idea of you disagreeing, of course :-) but would prefer that you say yes or no on Roux' idea, so that I could understand better. Nyttend (talk) 04:45, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I thought I was being fairly clear - whether it's right to block a dynamic IP user who is contributing constructively to the encyclopaedia is really a matter of common sense. It's not a matter of agreeing or disagreeing with you - I'm asking you what would be more constructive and less disruptive. I would wager some other course of action would. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 10:18, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Commercial book

Resolved

 – User already blocked. --Smashville^talk 17:01, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Most of this person's edits are linking to a commercial book, in dozens of sites. Please look at their logs. They were blocked twice for 24 hours by someone, but are back again, spamming away. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/68.156.159.10 Dream Focus (talk) 15:49, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

They've already been blocked at 13:45. --Smashville^talk 17:01, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

"expiry time of 24 hours" That's isn't really a block, that is just telling them to take a break and start up again tomorrow. They exist only to spam(over 90% of their edits). They got a warning before, but after their 24 hour block wore off, they went at it again. Do you have a list of places formerly linked to by spams, which a bot can then search wikipedia for, and determine if a lot of new links to those sites has been added, especially by unregistered users, which might be worth investigating? I think that'd be a useful feature to have. Or if someone has linked to the same site at a dozen different places, they should send up a flag, for someone to look into and determine if they are spamming, or if they found a book so helpful it had information they felt useful in a dozen different articles. Dream Focus (talk) 17:42, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

We don't apply excessively lengthy blocks on IPs because, while right now it's being used by a spammer, they might not be using it in a few days. The IP has made constructive edits before.[34][35][36] EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:15, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Kuebie/Emperor Wu of Han

Kuebie (talk · contribs) has been removing Chinese transliterations and replacing them with Korean ones from Emperor Wu of Han (on names/places of disputed Chinese/Korean origins) and refusing to discuss the matter further. (I've requested that instead of removing Chinese, that he adds Korean; he/she refused.) I'm requesting that someone else review this, protect the article if necessary (I do not believe it necessary at the moment), and, to the extent necessary, block Kuebie for a short duration. (He/she is also fairly frequently incivil and also edit wars/warred on a number of other articles.) I am not doing these myself because I believe that it may be inappropriate for me to do so. --Nlu (talk) 17:12, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

User:I B Wright

I B Wright (talk · contribs) has had a history of arguments and insulting another user. This was pointed out and when this was escalated to a personal attack and harassment, a warning for personal attacks was given. I B Wright has today repeated the same behaviour,[37] and I've blocked him for 3 hours for harassment / personal attacks with a suitable explanation.[38] A review of this block will be welcome. . . . dave souza, talk 19:21, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Only three hours? Tan | 39 19:28, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Since I'd given the previous warnings, it seemed a good idea to stop immediate harassment and hopefully prevent future incidents. If you think the diffs warrant a longer block right away, feel free to amend it, but my hope was to stop the misbehaviour with a minimal block. . dave souza, talk 19:40, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I B Wright? No, U B Wrong. Endorse block. GJC 19:42, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Badagnani‎

User Badagnani (talk) has shown consistent disregard for etiquette principles on Wikipedia with his interaction with other users. The latest incident involves violation of Wikistalking guidelines and User space harassment guidelines against user Jeremy. As I have previous interactions with Badagnani, my enforcing any proper warning beyond what I have done would constitute a conflict of interest. I have asked him to remove the comments and he refuses.

Examples of the edits are:

• Edit added to WikiProject Food and drink with example of personal information added to another article
• Example of personal information added to Cuisine of Bangladesh article
• Example of personal information added to Cuisine of Cambodia article
• Example of personal information added to Georgian (country) cuisine
• Example of personal information added to Cuisine of Burma

I would appreciate some assistance in the matter.--Chef Tanner (talk) 19:32, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any personal information, stalking, harassment, or incivility in any of that. Complaints about your editing practices do not constitute personal information. If you are referring to something else, please clarify. Looie496 (talk) 19:45, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Looie496. I have interacted with Badagnani before and I know s/he can be rude, but I don't see any policy violation in the above edits. —Politizer ^talk/_contribs 19:50, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Taking information from another user's talk page (Jeremy had deleted it from his talk page and Badagnani had to go back through Jeremy's edit history of his talk page to get the information) and placing it on numerous other articles is not a policy violation based on Wikistalking? It is being used in order to defame Jeremy so that the constructive project he is undertaking can be dicreadited.--Chef Tanner (talk) 19:55, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Please bear in mind that the people reading this probably know little or nothing about the history of these articles or editors. Anything we need to know to understand this, you have to tell us. It's nice that you're keeping it short, but you're keeping it too short. In particular, how does this defame Jeremy, who isn't named in any of that? Looie496 (talk) 20:12, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I will add that the above user has also engaged in what I perceive is disruption in AFDs by repeatedly calling for the banhammer on users for "disrupting our project" (see [39], [40]) and has been warned about it repeatedly (see [41], [42], [43], [44]). —Preceding unsigned comment added by MuZemike (talk • contribs) 00:01, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I would like to comment:

Badagnani and I have a history. On several occasions we have butted heads over several proposals, changes and moves that I have made or things he has done in the time I have been working on WP. While he has made significant contributions to the project, many of them very productive and of a high quality of work, too many times he has allowed his passion to overrule his better judgment. In these instances I learned that he has a unique set of behaviors that he falls back on during these instances:

1. The language he uses in his summaries and postings is often misleading in its nature, he attempts to portray himself as a victim of abuse or correcting aberrant behaviors of rogue contributors. He uses words such as blanking and consensus freely in these postings, often when other contributors are correcting his changes or simply editing an article he is taken to. A prime example of this is the Korean cuisine article where he had placed a great deal of inline commentaries into the body of the article. Several editors, including me, removed this commentary and warned him against restoring it. The result was a 72 hour block on him for edit warring.
2. He is very aggressive in maintaining the status quo of articles and templates, often to the detriment of change. He will pursue his point of view even when there is a clear consensus against him, often to the point of edit wars.
3. On several occasions Badagnani has resorted to wiki-stalking those whom he disagrees with. I was personally one of those individuals on the subject of Herbs related articles and templates this July. In this case he repeatedly attacked my work on the {{Herbs & spices}} template for two days, attacking my changes to the format of the template, inclusion and exclusion of articles, and ignoring request for an RfC if he did not agree. This dispute became rather heated and I admit I was not on best behavior either, using harsh language, making snap decisions, and venting my frustration with him in a way too public manner.
4. He uses passive aggressive behaviors that often end up angering those dealing with him.

I have seen some really great work from him, and have even praised those contributions. It is incidents like this one that really piss people off. He posted an accusation of me canvasing on half a dozen talk pages, launching a spurious argument that had many holes and half truths. When these problems were pointed out to him, he changed the argument, or ignored them all together. The so called canvasing was me notifying other individuals who had commented on similar articles of the ongoing discussion at Talk:Cuisine of Cambodia regarding the proposed move as well as posting the discussion on the WP:FOOD project page. The notification was neutral and I posted to all of the individuals that had not commented on this article, regardless of the position they held. The problem is that Badagnani was the only dissenting voice in these discussions.

Chris is sick of this, I am sick of this and so are dozens of other contributors all of whom have been the recipients of his attacks. I know I am not perfect and have made some mistakes, some of of them doozies, how ever I have never done the things he has accused me of.

I will admit this is a vent and is rather biased due to the negative interactions he and I have had in the past. Please view his behavior in context and also consider how his behaviors diminish the good work he has done. --Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 09:31, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Personal attacks from blocked editor using public IP

Resolved

The temporarily blocked editor and sock puppeteer Kikbguy (sock report here) is using the public IP address 104.174.9.7 to make personal attacks against ZimZalaBim and myself at this AfD discussion (specifically, saying that that user and I are "threatened" by his information and are abusing him). I didn't want to report this at AIV because it's a public IP, but could a schoolblock or something be arranged? —Politizer ^talk/_contribs 19:46, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

• Note: the editor has also started using 140.174.9.14, another public IP. —Politizer ^talk/_contribs 20:31, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
• Indeed, user has admitted to using an open IP to evade the block here. Also see sockpuppet case. User is also erroneously accusing me of abusing my admin powers, yet I've gone out of my way not to use any of my privileges in this case once he started insulting me as well. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 21:10, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Never mind...the user has already moved on to other IPs. Given how frequently he is changing locations, there's probably no merit in pursuing a block; instead, I'll just continue to keep my eyes open and revert him when necessary. —Politizer ^talk/_contribs 22:03, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

• I have adjusted my initial block of Kikbguy and blocked them indefinitely as a Sock Puppeteer. If you continue to see new accounts or anon IP's that are certainly Kikbguy feel free to come back to my talk page for assistance. Please also come to my page if you wish me to consider blocks of the current list under the Sock Puppet thread detailed above.--VS ^talk 00:03, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Associated press

See here DriedOut (talk) 19:50, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Allegedly "fake and slanderous" userpage

Resolved

 – Page speedied per G10. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 00:16, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Kenneth Sikes and my talk page. Perhaps this should be speedied instead? — CharlotteWebb 21:01, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

• Already speedied. Probably rightly so. Bucketsofg 21:29, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Users Nigh8, 2legit2quit2, 68.252.29.46

Resolved

 – For now anyway - an admin blocked the IP for a week

• Nigh8 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was recently indef-blocked.
• A sock called 2legit2quit2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was blocked today.
• A sock IP address 68.252.29.46 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) had been short-term blocked recently for being a sock of Nigh8, and is back today.

A small but growing hosiery farm. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 22:15, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

From, I suppose, a close-knit community. PhGustaf (talk) 22:25, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Darn it all anyway! Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 22:26, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Sock puns? Say it ain't sew... HalfShadow 02:38, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

• I reported the IP to WP:AIV. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 22:20, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Probably related [45]. cygnis insignis 08:53, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

User:Raven in Orbit block

Following up on this discussion. Basically, after he attacked others with "LOL, yeah! You pedo POV-pushers are really having a good time here! LOL, cool! Glad you people like Wikipedia! Hehe, LOL!", I warned him to strike it out and not do it again. In response, he added it back twice plus on his user page. I have blocked User:Raven in Orbit indefinitely. I would hope that nobody lets him return without demanding that he not do it again. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:36, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Ah but is there a grain of truth in it? Sticky Parkin 23:06, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Can we stay away from that? I mean, really. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:16, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I was wondering, is there a way we can unblock after a while, and just topic restrict him or something? Only he has been blocked on the swedish wiki for similar problems, but these are not the articles he usually edits. He has over 11,000 edits to various quite high-brow articles [46], and doesn't make a habit of this paedo malarkey until recent months. Sticky Parkin 04:13, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I would gladly. I just want him to first acknowledge that he shouldn't do that. It's indefinite not permanent. If he apologizes right now and says he won't do it again, he should be unblocked. Totally. However, when he admits it was done as WP:POINT violation and starts playing the "I was making fun of the type of contributions you give not you personally" bit, I was not amused. If he had something just as uncivil but probably not as controversial, I think I would feel the same way. If someone else wants to unblock him, go ahead but make certain he understands that insulting others (regardless of what) isn't appropriate. If you want to topic restrict him, fine, but make sure he agrees to it. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:39, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

removal of sourced text Child sexuality

Resolved

 – IP blocked 24h for WP:3RR violation--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 06:21, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

At Child sexuality they are two editors, that keep removing sourced material from http://www2.hu-berlin.de/sexology/index.htm. This is from Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin http://www.hu-berlin.de/ .It's full of ph'ds and awards. Basicly the problem, is that it sais that haitians, where very liberal about sex .... and plus some stuff about how sexuality was going on with there children. They comme up with some lame excuses, that "remove self-published source" "This is based on self-published materials that have not been corroborated. www2.hu-berlin.de is open, and anyone case purchase space on it". Very little digging demonstrates, that it's reliable source. It's an obvious case of prudism and bigotery--217.112.178.113 (talk) 22:54, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Turns out the lame excuses aren't that lame. The server's entry page [47] states clearly that any institution of Humboldt University, including students' organisations and political organisations, can purchase space on the server. The main page of the archive seems to identify it as self-published by Prof. Erwin J. Haeberle. Please make your case on the talk page. You might want to point to this page which identifies the directory in question as being web space rented by "Magnus-Hirschfeld-Zentrum, Archiv für Sexualwissenschaft". Your case seems to rely on the scientific reputation of Haeberle and the Magnus-Hirschfeld-Zentrum. This is a content dispute. --Hans Adler (talk) 23:19, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

PS: The website may be a red herring anyway. The material is from a book: Janssen, D. F., Growing Up Sexually. Volume I. World Reference Atlas. The publisher (Books reborn) seems to be very obscure. Perhaps it is self-published? In any case I would only take such old ethnological reports with a few drachms of salt. --Hans Adler (talk) 23:32, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for checking into this - report continues:

3RR violation by dynamic IP

I request admin help to revert the IP's violation of WP:3RR in regards to the above report. Two editors who have reverted him so far do not want to be seen as edit-warring.

• Four reverts today by the IP: [48] [49] [50] [51]

• Version reverted to: [52] - that was in August when another established editor correctly removed the unreliable source and related content.

The IP clearly has some sort of non-neutral agenda and no interest in collaborating. Since the IP is dynamic, the 3RR violation can't be stopped with a block.

I request that the Child sexuality page be semi-protected for a while, and that the IP's latest edit be reverted by an uninvolved editor (unless someone has already reverted it).

If the IP is willing to register for an account, we can debate the reliability of the source on even ground. But with a dynamic IP engaging in edit-warring, there's nothing we can do without admin help.

I don't want to clog this page with more detail, but if anyone is interested, I can provide further information upon request showing that the source is self-published, not notable, and not reliable.

Thanks for your help. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 02:18, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Hello

Resolved

 – Mattsayshola indef. blocked for disruptive editing by PhilKnight. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 00:15, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Hey I'm Dean West. A user of the name of Mattsayshola[53] keeps making the sandbox say really rude things and making personal attacks within it. Please help me ASAP. Here are some examples:[54]

[55]

--Dean West (talk) 23:21, 7 December 2008 (UTC)Dean West

User:Consist/83.254.21.226

Consist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is (claiming to be) an author who has published on the subject of Cladistics. He was reminded of the issues with original research and that his work was not discussed in secondary sources, but he persisted in edit warring until it got him blocked. He's been back as 83.254.21.226 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log).

He'd been generally benign lately, other than a few personal attacks today. However, in his latest talk-page comments, he's admitted his intent to edit war, saying certain editors "have to be defeated by brute force. In this battle..." [56] He's also declared his intent to edit the article with a series of IPs from "a mobile internet connection." [57]

As a result, I'm expecting a flurry of activity to Cladistics and related subjects in the next few days. I'm debating whether a pre-emptive protection of the article is in order. (I have no qualms to protect it reactively, of course.) —C.Fred (talk) 02:18, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

That IP looks like it's static--I'm inclined to indef it, but want a second opinion on whether or not it's static before doing so. Only edits are to cladistics-related topics. Blueboy96 02:36, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

User:Kikbguy

Resolved

Could someone please put me out of my misery and review the unblock request by Kikbguy (talk · contribs). (see also Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Kikbguy and WP:ANI#Personal attacks from blocked editor using public IP) --ZimZalaBim ^talk 02:47, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

• Please note I have protected Kikbguy's talk page because he is intent on breaching the unblock process. I have left a message to that extent at the talk page and also within the protect sub-page. Best wishes.--VS ^talk 03:03, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

(placing resolved tag, as block was reviewed. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 04:24, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

• Ooooooohhh. "Duck line". Now I get it. lol. Protonk (talk) 05:29, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Concerning user talk comment

Resolved

 – User indef-blocked by Aitias.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 07:36, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Adzlcfc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Another user mentioned this comment at a WP:EAR thread, and I thought requesting administrative eyes might be prudent. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 05:58, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Wow. Warned as {{uw-npa3}} because.. wow. I'm thinking block per 'uttering death threats is kinda not at all okay in any way whatsoever, really.' // roux   06:05, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Blocked user indefinitely. —αἰτίας •discussion• 06:15, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

No kidding. Wow, someone needs a Christmas hug.. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 07:34, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

BiH ethnic maps and data

Can somebody,please, take a look on the things which goes on onto the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Rjecina/Bosnian_census . It is about few ethnic maps and data of BiH in a discussion between me and user Laz17.
There exists 3 maps without valid copywrite rights [58] [59] [60] and which should be deleted [61][62].
Also there are 2 another maps, which I made and which user Laz17 thinks they should be deleted. He has some data which differs from BiH 1991 census [63]and calls on "cadastar map" which is not avabile to check. In this long discussion [64] I think that I showed good intention and will to cooperation to change any possible error on those maps. However that is going in circle with user Laz17. The guy even claimed that one color is reserved for one side on those maps. Can somebody check discussion and give some advice? --Čeha (razgovor) 09:28, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

So wait, you guys are taking probably one of the most hostile nationalistic area of fighting I've ever seen and going to make your own maps of the ethnics groups in Bosnia and Herzegovina? Ok, I'm really not sure how this isn't original research but I'm game. First, I'm extremely concerned about the idea that this is being done on a user subpage involving it looks like only three editors (based off this subpage, in which I see none of the main editors at Talk:Bosnia and Herzegovina involved in). There are some serious concerns about real consensus. Second, I wish people would indent properly. That thing is a mess to read. Third, I really can't see anything good coming out of that mess. What's the reason? To create an single image that will fought over forever. I really don't get the need for delineating the exact ethnicity boundaries (which I guess change over time). I'm make a note on the Bosnia page as that should give you some people who would have interest. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:14, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Ok, let me be somewhat useful. First, I would suggest moving the thing basic into articlespace somewhere as people are going to want that history (do not just delete it). Second, I would suggest just using basic dispute resolution. Having a third opinion would probably do the trick. I don't really want to get involved as I can't imagine any way you are going to make a consensus, let alone one that's going to stay for any period of time. This is a content dispute of epic proportions. Last, those images are at Commons. No one here (not literally, but figuratively) can do anything about them. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:24, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Alright, FYI, is anyone is interesting, the prior history is at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive494#Bosnian_maps_dispute. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:38, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks.It is about a history maps of 1991 BiH. Ethnic borders have already change (prewar maps).

There is a official census of 1991 [65] which the other user does not acknowledge (claiming that has other data which differs from it). Because of official data it can not be original resurch.

Of those 3 maps, 2 are on en.wiki [66] [67] and those can be deleted, no?

Other maps which are in question was made by me (but unfortunately some of the data included data from map which was recently deleted due to copywrite issues (it seems it also had some bad data).

Main issues of discussion were deletion of those 3 maps and corrections on mine (the other user wants to delete it as well). Original map [68], map with corrections [69].

That would be in summry. To you know what else can be done with this?

Thanks in advance

--Čeha (razgovor) 12:02, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Sheikh Mohiuddin Ahmed

Can someone please look into this article: Sheikh Mohiuddin Ahmed. It was deleted because it was a hoax with no google hits at the time. It has been removed because I was called a vandal and my actions were closely watched - I was the one who had it deleted in the first place. Even if he did excist, which I still doubt (unreliable sources?), I do not think he is notable enough and hereby request a thorough searcg for it or a permanent deletion. I redirected it for now - feel free to restore it if you like. Jouke Bersma _{Contributions} 09:51, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

First of all: how reliable are the given sources?

Second: how notable is he, as a unknown, seemingly unimportant candidate, who was not even succesful in the first place? Jouke Bersma _{Contributions} 10:06, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I undeleted it, with permission of the deleting admin. The person would seem to exist (the article is sourced). The sources aren't great by Western standards but don't seem to be unreliable. The article has an assertion of notability (perhaps a bit thin). The article doesn't qualify for speedy deletion and the redirect doesn't seem useful (so I've cancelled it). Admins can't adjudicate on non-speedy deletions here, so you should follow the standard AfD steps and make your arguments in the appropriate forum. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ a sweet and tender hooligan 10:12, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

That is fine to me. The thing is: the only reason I think the page has been undeleted is because I was envolved in it's deletion. Because some editors have made me look like a disruptive vandal, editors started digging up every singly edit I've done here and they came across a perfectly well done article deletion and undeleted it just because I was envolved - if anyone else would have got this article deleted (and many others would have, eventually), it would remain deleted and nobody would give a damn. That is the point I am trying to make here. Jouke Bersma _{Contributions} 11:20, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I see your point; however, the article doesn't appear to be a hoax and there's an assertion of notability in the article, so the nomination for speedy delete was incorrect in the first place and the deletion was probably wrong too. It's not going to be speedy deleted again, so AfD is the place to go if you're convinced it needs deleted. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ a sweet and tender hooligan 11:23, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

It has eventually been deleted by speedy deletion, correct. But iniatially, the article went trough a proper AfD procedure. Because there were no hits and Mgm and me were convinced it was a hoax, the article got speedied. Jouke Bersma _{Contributions} 11:28, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Seriously, it was not a hoax. If it was a hoax, then the Bangladesh Electoral Commission was in on it. This seems unlikely. :) Given that, it wasn't (and isn't) a candidate for CSD. I'm sure your initial nomination was done in good faith, and I have no hassles with that. At this point AfD seems like an option, but I'd recommend letting the article sit for a bit and let the discussion on the talk page proceed, as it is likely to end up being a merge/redirect to Liberal Party Bangladesh, once it is confirmed that there are no Banglaesh sources that can be drawn upon. - Bilby (talk) 11:47, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Bilby, I must agree with you on that. I will continue watching the page and its discussion regulary. I will not go to AfD until january 2009, that I promise. I have no objections to a merge\redirect in the way you suggested. Thank you for your time, I am sure this whole mess is solved now. I'll be working on articles I make on my pc now - I'll post them as soon as I think they fit. See ya! Jouke Bersma _{Contributions} 12:06, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Jouke, why did you make this quite uncivil and completely incorrect edit (summary)[70] when you were by now well aware that the person definitely exists and that pictures are potentially available? See e.g. [71] or even better [72]. Wouldn't it be smarter to just say "oops, not a hoax after all" then to attack the person who corrected your "rror" and then to go after the same article with incorrect claims again? Fram (talk) 12:15, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Okay fram, I was wrong and it was no hoax after all, just unkown and not notable. And maybe he turns out to be notable after all, wouldn't that be great? I will continue watching the article closely but and I will not go to AfD for it until january 2009, agreed? Jouke Bersma _{Contributions} 12:19, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Urgent - Page move vandalism needs cleaning

Resolved

 – All cleaned up --Chris 12:09, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/Rainroller - D.M.N. (talk) 11:30, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/Father_Grigori - D.M.N. (talk) 11:31, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

How can we fix this kind of stuff? (See User talk:Gwen Gale too)Verbal chat 11:34, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I know: bann the bastards! Jouke Bersma _{Contributions} 11:36, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Also User:Doctor Rosenberg Verbal chat 11:36, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

What did he do? Jouke Bersma _{Contributions} 11:37, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/Colette_Green - D.M.N. (talk) 11:51, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Why do you keep posting here? It's coming up on everyone's watchlist. We can all see it, and it will be dealt with. Posting every hagger vandal here serves no purpose. Vandals go to WP:AIV in any case. – Amicon (talk) 11:53, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

AIV does not deal with vandals who have not had a full series of warnings - and in page move vandalism of this sort it is essential to alert admins as quickly as possible. DuncanHill (talk) 12:11, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure the admins there would block any page move vandal, regardless of how many warnings. I think it's quicker to deal with it there. – amicon 12:13, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Do you want to rewrite the intro on AIV which says that vandals must have had sufficient warnings? DuncanHill (talk) 12:15, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

We will act on one or no warnings to protect Wikipedia. But if we say that, many of our younger brethren will report all vandals after one or no warnings. This already happens to an extent, but the notice gives us something to remind people with. What's required in this case is a bit of commonsense. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ a sweet and tender hooligan 12:18, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. As far as I understand it, our admins have a dose of common sense. They just aren't going to reject a request to block a page move vandal because it didn't have enough arbitrary warnings. Are you suggesting any admin that does not allow for sufficient warnings is violating WP:BLOCK? The text at the top is just a guide, remember. – amicon 12:28, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

• It could be edited to say "unless it's high-speed page move vandalism, but if the person reporting it is clear about it, I don't know any admin who wouldn't act on the report. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:25, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Any admin that declined to block a page move vandal "because it didn't have enough warnings" would be unfit to be an admin, in my opinion. – amicon 12:28, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

That is a horrible thing you say there - everyone should be given warnings first, then 24 our block, then 41 hour block, then 48-hours (2 days), then weeks or months and only bann someone permanently as a last resort. Jouke Bersma _{Contributions} 12:34, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

WP:AIV is a good place to start with it. They typically apply a degree of flexibility based on experience and the given situation. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 12:33, 8 December 2008 (UTC)