Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive433

Comet (programming) attracting reverters after being ranted about in reddit.com

Someone posted a rant on reddit.com about the ongoing rewrite of Comet (programming) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), and this has attracted some vandalism as well as some tentatives to shortcut the ongoing rewrite discussion by reestablishing the old version.

For context, see

• WP:COI#Jacob Rus (User:Jacobolus) promoting his website and his friends at Comet (programming),
• Talk:Comet_(programming)#Advertisement
• Talk:Comet_(programming)#Destroy_and_rebuild
• Talk:Comet_(programming)#What_Just_Happened_Here.3F
• Talk:Comet_(programming)

Since the reverts were from Anons at first, I've asked for a semi-protection, which was declined. Anyway, not only anons are landing in the article, but long-inactive accounts as well.

Some admin overview may be good. I am repeadly re-reverting the article to the work-in-progress version, but I may be the wrongdoer on this case. Help needed. --Damiens.rf 15:20, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest opening a Request for Comment to try to get more eyes on the article. Right now consensus is not really possible, since we have a supermajority holding a particular opinion, but that opinion that is questionable due to canvassing, conflict of interest, and a lack of experience with Wikipedia policies.

I am not nearly qualified to comment myself, unfortunately... --Jaysweet (talk) 15:31, 16 June 2008 (UTC) Full disclosure: I am not an admin, but I feel I can help out here anyway.

I've semi-protected the article for 1 month. I'll let the SME's figure out the content issues. Toddst1 (talk) 15:44, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Considering that the issue here is not vandalism but edit-warring, I feel that full protection might be a better temporary remedy. I will apply it if there are no objections. Canderson7 ^(talk) 15:50, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Concur; IP editing here isn't really the issue - Tan | 39 15:51, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

(ec) There is a difference between edit warring and vandalism. The reversions by the Redditers to the article's longer version are the first, but not the second. Damiens.rf, you should also be aware that you have long since passed the customary three revert limit. I think you should limit yourself to talk page discussion for the time-being. I agree with Jaysweet that an RFC would be a good way to proceed. Canderson7 ^(talk) 15:46, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, unfortunately, it seems that full protection will be necessary. And maybe a rfc as well... --Damiens.rf 15:56, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I am in agreement that these edits don't constitute vandalism, rather a conflict over inclusion of content versus exclusion. I'd note that while I was writing this, there have been several more reverts. AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 15:57, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Non-admin Comment - in reviewing the discussion the consensus reached to essentially restart the article was largely based on the comments of Damiens.rf and Restepc, and largely opposed by jacobolus. Despite the appearance of this article on an external website, I think the discussion needs to be-reopened, and that the current consensus be re-evaluated. Disclosure: I am a regular editor, but became aware of this through Reddit. AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 15:47, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Of course Jacob opposed the rewrite, since he single handled wrote the version that raised the WP:COI concerns. Besides him, only his co-workers from cometdaily.com came up to defend the old version (that was a huge advertisement for comet and cometdaily.com. See the first link above). --Damiens.rf 15:55, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

The result of this “restart” however was to leave the article completely devoid of useful content for 2 weeks, with no visible rewriting occurring. I would very much appreciate renewed discussion by editors with fresh eyes. The original article has much room for improvement (most of all in increasing the number of sources), but the stubbified version is clearly unacceptable, so hopefully with new and wider attention, progress can be made by working on the page rather than blanking it. —jacobolus (t) 18:01, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Just to clarify the role of Comet Daily in this in case anyone cares... we started Comet Daily as a common place for people to write about Comet. I know many of the people involved with Ajax and Comet, and thought it would be a great venue for discussing Comet. The characterization of us as co-workers is a bit much, as we're really just a group of people that want to talk about Comet, that all work for other companies. Jacob's work on the WP page about Comet was originally done by his own desire to explain Comet. Obviously he didn't understand what is and is not acceptable content for WP, and that's ok, that's why we need editorial help. We get that. As far as the allegations of Canvassing go, we're very well connected in the tech community and know a lot of people. But we didn't actively solicit this community response. Rather, people asked us what happened to the WP page about Comet that used to be informative. We didn't start a campaign, rally the troops, etc., it just sort of happened as people interested in Comet saw what happened, and started to read through the talk page. Obviously we think Comet is an important technology, it is used in a number of places, and we think it's important enough to have a solid explanation at WP. We talk a lot about Comet because we care about the tech, we contribute to great Comet-based open source projects, and because we believe it helps make the web better. I'm not really sure why Damiens.rf has a significant grudge against Comet Daily, and my efforts to try and better explain Comet. If we're not a valid source, that's fine, but please don't use that as a reason to discredit every author that has chosen to contribute to our site to help explain Comet. - Dylan Schiemann

Yep. It's much more complicated than I originally thought. (Canderson7‎ and) I've fully-protected the page for 1 week. Take to RFC. Toddst1 (talk) 16:00, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Admin intervention needed?

Resolved

 – 1 edit, user warned, take to wp:AIV if persists Toddst1 (talk) 16:20, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

An IP marked as belonging to the Oregon Public Education Network User talk:198.237.119.80 has been the source of a lot of vandalism recently. Could an admin look into it please? Jasper33 (talk) 16:10, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

sockpuppets

Resolved

 – From what I can see, all the socks are in the wash. If not, just remove this "resolved" thingy. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 21:46, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

User:DIREKTOR and User:AlasdairGreen27 are sockpuppets for evidence: see their contributions. Now DIREKTOR/AlasdairGreen27 is on harassment against User:Luigi 28.--Ciolone (talk) 15:33, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

You'll probably want to file a suspected sock puppets report, as that's the best venue for this kind of thing (and it will probably get a faster, more appropriate response). RichardΩ612 Ɣ ɸ 16:06, June 15, 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Let me see if I have this right... You, whose account is a few days old, believe that DIRECKTOR - who has been on WP for 18 months - and AlasdairGreen27 (a 9 month old account) are sockpuppets harassing Luigi 28, an account of a week or so's experience? I didn't notice the same mix of articles on AlasdairGreen27's contrib history as I did on DIREKTOR's, Luigi's and yours, but a few comments on DIREKTOR's talkpage. Without probing too far, it seems to me that DIREKTOR and AlasdairGreen27 seem to be agreeing with something that Luigi (and you?) don't. Now, are you able to provide diffs that indicate sockpuppetry rather than two experienced Wikipedians agreeing with each other? Any comments regarding both you and Luigi's recent arrival on Wikipedia and concentration on very similar subjects may also alleviate any concerns that some suspicious minds might have regarding socking by yourselves. LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:11, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Luigi 28 has been claiming "harassment" because DIREKTOR believes he is User:PIO. See Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/PIO (3rd) and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive428#Personal attacks and incivility by suspected sock — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:26, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Anybody fancy taking a look at the contributions of Ciolone? I just undid a few - one a grammatical revert - regarding introducing "comparative sports" in articles which upon review were quite different. Does this appear to others good faith mistakes or subtle vandalism? LessHeard vanU (talk) 17:00, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

My invite to this party must've got lost in the post. For the benefit of 'Ciolone', I can advise him/her that DIREKTOR and I do not even live in the same country. For the benefit of Wikipedia, I can very confidently assert that Ciolone originates from the same hosiery factory as User:Agazio and User:Jxy, among others. Could a CU be done to resolve this urgently? Many thanks, AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 17:29, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

For User:Ciolone: please, don't use my name for your private issues.

For User:LessHeard vanU: my week is more than one month. Please, read better. User:DIREKTOR and User:AlasdairGreen27 harassed me, because they think I'm another one (User:PIO), and reverted many, many times my edits, without any kind of explanation. This is harassment.

For User:HandThatFeeds: the same.

For User:AlasdairGreen27: good luck.

For User:DIREKTOR: nemojte transformirati naše rasprave u borbi između Talijana i Hrvata--Luigi 28 (talk) 18:29, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

For User:Luigi 28: Speak in English or you will be blocked soon enough. It's quite clear that you are not attempting a civil discussion with DIREKTOR. Civility mean being civil, not being civil in a language than everyone here understands. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 18:32, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

For User:Ricky81682: User:DIREKTOR is Croat and I wrote in Croatian. However, my words in English are: Do not transform our discussions in a struggle between Italians and Croats.--Luigi 28 (talk) 18:41, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I forgot: I hope that words are considered sufficiently civilians.--Luigi 28 (talk) 18:45, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Apologies. A thread where someone claims is being harassed and then non-English language used has a pattern of being uncivil. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:52, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

LOL --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 19:46, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

That being said, this has GOT to be the most ridiculous report in months. Imagine: a sock and his sock reporting sockpuppetry. All concerned Admins, be advised: this is a (lousy) attempt at counter-reporting. See [1], this intentionally cluttered report is still awaiting Admin attention. I don't know for certain about User:Ciolone, but User:Luigi 28 is yet another sock of banned User:PIO. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 19:56, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

This is harassment! I'm a suspected sock (and I'm not a sock!). User:DIREKTOR reverted my edits only thinking I was this User:Pio!--Luigi 28 (talk) 20:35, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Sadly, I think you may well be right, Direktor... it would definitely not be the first time it's occurred on this board. Orderinchaos 09:55, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets

DIREKTOR (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
AlasdairGreen27 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Zenanarh (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Kubura (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
No.13 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by--Ciolone (talk) 13

32, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Now that Ciolone has helpfully brought himself into the limelight (I personally hadn't noticed him before he started this thread), I have opened Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/PIO (4th), and notified him of it on his talk page. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 14:04, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Ciolone is blocked indefinitely as a likely sock or meatpuppet of PIO. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 18:37, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

And Luigi28 is blocked indefinitely as well, same reason as before, please see Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/PIO (3rd) for reasoning. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 19:00, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

death threat on user page

Resolved

 – TOV deleted, user blocked, no further action necessary Toddst1 (talk) 21:13, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Silanthaler (talk · contribs) displayed a death threat on his user page against all inhabitants of FYROM which I have blanked. All his other edits are harsh uncivil exigences to comply with a certain nationalistic POV, see [2] --Enric Naval (talk) 21:00, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

User blocked indefinitely Toddst1 (talk) 21:05, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

69.17.100.99

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

This IP has made 6 revisions over the past several months, all linkspam to the same URL, and all have been reverted by editors. Please block as appropriate. Jkraybill (talk) 21:19, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Tim Russert Page, is full protection necessary?

On the last paragraph under Tim's death, please change following to followed (footnote 29). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.72.99.239 (talk) 05:56, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Someone put "liberal piece of Crap finally died" on the information about his death. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.121.112.15 (talk) 19:43, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

It has been removed. --Jaysweet (talk) 19:51, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

They should have called him a (attack removed) Cbsite (talk) 14:24, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

removed an attack that doesn't belong here. Nate • (chatter) 00:35, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Tim Russert passed away approximately 2 hours ago. His page is undergoing frequent vandalism. I wonder if you might soft-lock it for a day or so? 76.126.236.254 (talk) 19:51, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

• Obviously I'm not the only one... the above was posted while I wrote this entry. 76.126.236.254 (talk) 19:52, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
• Semi-Protection requested for this article. Thanks. - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} 19:53, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Someone wrote "ding dong the witch is dead" under the Early Life section. Please remove. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.6.187.244 (talk) 19:54, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Taken care of by Brian0918. Page Semi-Protected. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 19:55, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

yah he died. protect that topic —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.194.209.57 (talk) 19:58, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

• I don't think fully protecting this page is really necessary, and it seems to contradict what we normally we do with "breaking news" articles. I think this article could use a lot of improvement, and its likely to see most of it while this is still a big story. Can it be put back down to semi-protected, please? Avruch^T * ^ER 20:23, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
• FWIW, I don't think full protection is necessary either. I don't really see evidence of all-out edit warring in the history. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 20:34, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
  • ...and AndonicO just downgraded to semi as I was about to leave him a message. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 20:35, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

• Semi protection should be sufficient. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 20:59, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

There are some remarkably hate-filled people out there tonight. Sad. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:57, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Immature and looking for laughs is more like it. The sad thing is they are the only ones to find it funny. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 00:00, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, especially since MTP is one of the better Sunday current event shows. This really sucks... :-( --Dragon695 (talk) 01:29, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Somehow I knew this was going to happen. Good to keep the semi-protect up, might be enough for this scenario for the next week. Problem being, half of these vandals are procuring the stereotypes that contemporary conservatism apparently represents. They're looking for excuses to be immature. Sad, really. (Not that the left is any less guilty of it, but still) Brokenwit (talk) 08:35, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

User:84.134.65.233

Resolved

Please consider blocking this IP for persistent incivility following warnings, and in particular for this response to a warning: User_talk:AndrewRT#Tocino AndrewRT(Talk) 21:26, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I've had a bunch of these today, and blocked them. This is one already blocked 24 hours. --Rodhullandemu 21:33, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Gen IV reactor article needs moderation

Resolved

I'd like to request some kind of moderation in Generation IV reactor article to avoid an edit/revert war with User:Eiland. Nailedtooth (talk) 22:34, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Note: Both users involved have been notified of a possible WP:3rr violation. Dusti^SPEAK!! 23:24, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

sockpuppet dumping copyvio on user pages and articles

Resolved

 – Indef blocked sockpuppet

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:17, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Please indef-block User_talk:Adeebtanoli as vandalism-only account and sock. Look at the multiple other IPs and accounts that he used to dump the same content on multiple pages, including one wikiproject[3] and "Wikipedia:Citing_sources" which he keeps vandalizing for whatever the reason [4] --Enric Naval (talk) 01:21, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Also please delete user page and talk page as also having the ofending material --Enric Naval (talk) 01:24, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I was about to nuke 'em, but User:Gwen Gale got 'em about 10 minutes ago. I'm going to minimize the user and talk pages as a sockpuppet. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:17, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Stalking by User:Buckshot06

I would like User:Buckshot06 to stop stalking my editing. There are too many diffs to list, so please help yourself by using User contributions feature--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 12:58, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

This is not really a case of Wikistalking, rather than a dispute over the appropriateness of the category [[Category:Types of military forces in the Napoleonic Wars]]. mrg3105 (talk · contribs) has added this category to some 30+ articles or so, and Buckshot06 (talk · contribs) has removed it from each with the edit summary "Rmv overcat".

There is ongoing discussion of the issue here, and it's worth pointing out that Nick Dowling (talk · contribs) has observed that mrg3105 has had repeated problems with overcategorization, often in explicit breach of consnesus (diff of ND's comment). Quite troubling is that mrg3105's response to Nick's advice was met with "Nick, don't try to impress me with your admin status" (diff, it's a long read, but trust me the comment is in there).

mrg3105, can you show me where there is consensus for the inclusion of such a specific and awkwardly-phrased category? If there is consensus, I will warn Buckshot about the reversions. However, at present, I think his removal of the category tag was appropriate. --Jaysweet (talk) 13:10, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, its not just about this category, but an ongoing stalking of articles I edit by Buckshot06, often within minutes, for many months, and his constant opposition to virtually everything that I do, regardless of consensus being there or not.

In this particular case the category name was taken from the higher level category with the addition of the Napoleonic Wars to the higher level category name, so not exactly inventing anything here.

The troop types, all present in the period, but uncategorised as such, were then gathered so I can work on them from one central category since many use same sources. In at least one case this is currently the only category being applied to the article, and in the cases objected to by Buckshot, Infantry, [[Cavalry] and Artillery, there are currently only 4-5 categories. What Buckshot06 objected to this time is the possible overcategorisation of these articles if every period in military history was to adopt the same category name. However, no one has done so in the many years these articles exist. Most of the troop types cover only three centuries, so overcategorisation is highly unlikely. The plan is to create dedicated articles for the period to cover the Infantry, Cavalry and Artillery, as Infantry of the Napoleonic Wars, Cavalry of the Napoleonic Wars and Artillery of the Napoleonic Wars, and subsequently removing the current category from the more general articles (however something is needed now). Buckshot06 as usual would not enter into a discussion, and I felt that I have as much right to create a category as anyone. If anyone thinks the category inappropriate , by all means use the category talk page.

What I did find inappropriate was Nick suggesting that I am asking for "some kind of block". This is actually before a blockable action has been found. Sounds rather like a threat to me. Administrator rites are not there to be invoked every time an editor doesn't do what the administrator desires. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy.

There was no consensus because the category did not exist. So far as I'm concerned the entire categorisation of the Military History is a mess. I have taken several efforts to bring the matter to discussion over a period of months, and every time has found apathy and Buckshot06's opposition that lacks argument. My last effort to achieve a discussion received interest from less then 1% of the group of editors officially signed on to the subject area, so what I decided is to be bold and create the category and start working on the articles. I rally do not wish to waste more time in fruitless discussions because aside from new article patrolling, occasional salvage and de-stubisation I also actually contribute articles that are not stubs, and they also take time to research and write.

I do not see why I should have to be shadowed by Buckshot06 continuously correcting and reverting my contributions. Previously he claimed that we edit in the same are. This was only partly true, but is completely untrue now. Since I begun new article patrolling, he has been a shadow to me despite there being lots of other editors and bots quite up to the job, and lots of articles that he can be destubing even within the Project that has 196 pages of stubs.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 16:22, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay, if I got the core issue wrong, then provide diffs. You said "please help yourself by using the User contibs feature". Frankly, most people who patrol these noticeboards will just ignore a request like that (notice that nobody else has responded other than me). I decided to go the extra mile and check the contribs, and that was the conclusion I came to.

If there is a longer term issue, you are going to need to provide diffs, e.g. show multiple examples where you started editing an article that was entirely unrelated to your past interactions with Buckshot, and which he had not previously participated on, and how he showed up to thwart you. Given this mediation case, I am more inclined to guess that you two just have a shared interest in military history, and that's why you butt heads so much. But maybe I am wrong. If so, you need to prove it to me with diffs. --Jaysweet (talk) 16:29, 16 June 2008 (UTC) Full disclosure: I am not an admin, but I feel I can help out here anyway.

Jay, that would take more patience and time then I have. Pick an article, any article I created. It would be hundreds of diffs, thousands even. I appreciate you taking the time to respond, and its true that we do share the Mil Hist interest. Originally I offered to collaborate, but that soon came to a conflict off-wiki. Currently I rarely edit the articles Buckshot06 is mostly concerned. So far as I can tell he has never edited the Napoleonic Wars articles, which is why I decided to go there to see if he would follow, and he did. Besides that I have tagged and did minor (and occasionally extensive) edits on new articles from random areas of the Project and Buckshot06 is always there. What is more, his apparently gnomish behaviour is sometimes accompanied by biting remarks which are only a hair's breath away from being personal insults. I am not going to sit here amassing diffs. So far I am not aware of having done anything wrong in regards to any Wikipedia policy (except occasional loss of temper).

Guidelines and conventions are just that. Given an option of rigid guideline observance and waiting another 6 months for consensus, or getting 20-odd articles to a higher quality of content, I have no problem doing the later. My previous experience with Buckshot06 is that he is not able to offer a reasoned discussion backed by constructive suggestions that focus on improving Wikipedia as a reference work, but is more concerned with strict observance of what are usually not policy issues, but his own sense of what is correct.

As far as consensus-building is concerned, for example I recently brought up another issue on categorisation two days ago which to me is at once essential and obviously in need of a consensus, but have not receive any comments, not even from Bucksot06, so its not like I have not tried. Strange that of 100 editors on the task-force not one was logged in over the weekend. Stranger still that no one seems to mind using two category syntaxes for at lest a year now, and not doing anything about it.I guess I'm just a lot less willing to sit here and wait for someone else to do the work--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 16:59, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Heh, if it would take more patience and time than you have to present the case, dunno if I'll be looking into it too much ;p BTW, if you have not already done so, it is customary to notify Buckshot06 and any involved parties using the {{ANI-notice}} template. This will give us a chance to hear both sides of the story.

If I may try to paraphrase your complaint: The thing that specifically bothers you is that you butted heads with Buckshot over WWII-related articles, so you switched to Napoleonic Wars-related articles in order to resolve the conflict, and you feel he followed you there? Is that the gist of it? --Jaysweet (talk) 17:17, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but decided to go to sleep finally so did not respond.

I sent Buckshot06 the notification almost immediately

Its not just to do with Buckshot06 following me to the Napoleonic Wars area. He persistently follows me everywhere by watching my posts and interludes in my discussions with others, invariably in opposition, but usually lacking any supporting sources, and basing himself in guidelines and conventions while failing to appreciate that they are not policy. My academic background is strongly predisposed towards factual evidence to support statements, an I find lack of this in Wikipedia (despite policy) quite unsettling. How much more so when aside fro having to dig up reference for articles, I am forced to do so on talk pages also. Being gnomish is one thing, but from my perspective Buckshot06 is as close to being disruptive towards me personally as I think is possible without actually crossing the line. I have no problem if his activities in respect to my edits were gnomish, but they are not just that--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 00:32, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your attention to this matter Jaysweet. Might I encourage you to contact user:Kirill Lokshin, user:Roger Davies and user:Woody. All three are coordinators of the Milhist project, all administrators, and are in a more neutral position to comment on Mrg3105's actions, which I believe are harming the encyclopedia (though most recently Roger issued him a block warning). Mrg has been involved for months in a string of bitter disagreements with Milhist and religious editors on article naming, categorisation, deletion debates, WP:RMs, article introductions, and other matters and has usually been in a 1 versus all other users position. WP:Consensus appears to have no meaning for him whatsoever. I started monitoring his edits because he was working on subjects I was interested in; now I do so because he's warping wikipedia and usually doing so without regard to anything anyone else thinks. Buckshot06(prof) 01:23, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, everything Buckshot06 says is completely true, with one significant omission. All these disputes were, and are centred on the non-use, use and mis-use of sources. As a reference work, Wikipedia can not include in its articles information which is not referenced properly, and in each and every case that has been the issue. It is still the issue. Lets be clear about what Wikipedia is supposed to be - a work of reference that has public trust. Currently most academics tell their student not to use Wikipedia. One can not add content to a reference work by consensus. Consensus is only required to evaluate the validity and verifiability of sources on which that information is based. One can not for example establish by consensus that 2+2=7.43, or that the capital of Australia is Alice Springs.

If I contribute to Wikipedia, I want my contributions read. If I want them read, the quality of Wikipedia needs to be brought to a level where it is not just trusted, but recommended. If I, and other editors, have to drag the others kicking and screaming to a level of higher quality of produced articles, so be it. If this does not happen, than Wikipedia has no right to existance. It is just that simple. I am not liable for actions or inactions of others. I answer for my own actions, and so far, with one exception, I have nothing to be sorry about in my participation in Wikipedia. Buckshot06 can not seem to fathom that beyond the daily grind of editing there is a strategic goal for Wikipedia we are all supposed to be focused on

Roger's block warning was directly related to Buckshot's activity. Most of the bitter disagreements have been with Buckshot06, and several groups of highly nationalistic editors, something I will address elsewhere.

It is true that I am "warping" Wikipedia...into shape! Currently the coverage by the Project is out of sync with other Projects within the area of Humanities and the discipline of general History. Its articles are disconnected, uncategorised properly, many core articles are unreferenced and unsourced and the subject areas badly organised. This is largely because there is a lack of awareness of the big picture, and a lack of direction. I accept this to be the nature of Wikipedia participation, but that also allows me to contribute in the way I see best fit and within the policies of Wikipedia as they relate to editing. So far my only cardinal sin has been in in being uncivil to people who usurp these policies and stack consensus discussions to really warp the process by which Wikipedia is created. If Buckshot06 can't see this, I suggest he is not really paying attention--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 05:29, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Core damage frequency

Resolved

Core damage frequency articles also needs moderation to avoid an edit/revet war. Nailedtooth (talk) 22:23, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Note: Both users involved have been notified of a possible WP:3rr violation. Dusti^SPEAK!! 23:24, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Is three reverts (total, by two people) in 18 days really a 3RR violation? --Kralizec! (talk) 00:09, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

By definition, no it isn't. However, its still an edit war that isn't beinfiting the project. Dusti^SPEAK!! 04:28, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Stalking by User:Buckshot06

I would like User:Buckshot06 to stop stalking my editing. There are too many diffs to list, so please help yourself by using User contributions feature--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 12:58, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

This is not really a case of Wikistalking, rather than a dispute over the appropriateness of the category [[Category:Types of military forces in the Napoleonic Wars]]. mrg3105 (talk · contribs) has added this category to some 30+ articles or so, and Buckshot06 (talk · contribs) has removed it from each with the edit summary "Rmv overcat".

There is ongoing discussion of the issue here, and it's worth pointing out that Nick Dowling (talk · contribs) has observed that mrg3105 has had repeated problems with overcategorization, often in explicit breach of consnesus (diff of ND's comment). Quite troubling is that mrg3105's response to Nick's advice was met with "Nick, don't try to impress me with your admin status" (diff, it's a long read, but trust me the comment is in there).

mrg3105, can you show me where there is consensus for the inclusion of such a specific and awkwardly-phrased category? If there is consensus, I will warn Buckshot about the reversions. However, at present, I think his removal of the category tag was appropriate. --Jaysweet (talk) 13:10, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, its not just about this category, but an ongoing stalking of articles I edit by Buckshot06, often within minutes, for many months, and his constant opposition to virtually everything that I do, regardless of consensus being there or not.

In this particular case the category name was taken from the higher level category with the addition of the Napoleonic Wars to the higher level category name, so not exactly inventing anything here.

The troop types, all present in the period, but uncategorised as such, were then gathered so I can work on them from one central category since many use same sources. In at least one case this is currently the only category being applied to the article, and in the cases objected to by Buckshot, Infantry, [[Cavalry] and Artillery, there are currently only 4-5 categories. What Buckshot06 objected to this time is the possible overcategorisation of these articles if every period in military history was to adopt the same category name. However, no one has done so in the many years these articles exist. Most of the troop types cover only three centuries, so overcategorisation is highly unlikely. The plan is to create dedicated articles for the period to cover the Infantry, Cavalry and Artillery, as Infantry of the Napoleonic Wars, Cavalry of the Napoleonic Wars and Artillery of the Napoleonic Wars, and subsequently removing the current category from the more general articles (however something is needed now). Buckshot06 as usual would not enter into a discussion, and I felt that I have as much right to create a category as anyone. If anyone thinks the category inappropriate , by all means use the category talk page.

What I did find inappropriate was Nick suggesting that I am asking for "some kind of block". This is actually before a blockable action has been found. Sounds rather like a threat to me. Administrator rites are not there to be invoked every time an editor doesn't do what the administrator desires. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy.

There was no consensus because the category did not exist. So far as I'm concerned the entire categorisation of the Military History is a mess. I have taken several efforts to bring the matter to discussion over a period of months, and every time has found apathy and Buckshot06's opposition that lacks argument. My last effort to achieve a discussion received interest from less then 1% of the group of editors officially signed on to the subject area, so what I decided is to be bold and create the category and start working on the articles. I rally do not wish to waste more time in fruitless discussions because aside from new article patrolling, occasional salvage and de-stubisation I also actually contribute articles that are not stubs, and they also take time to research and write.

I do not see why I should have to be shadowed by Buckshot06 continuously correcting and reverting my contributions. Previously he claimed that we edit in the same are. This was only partly true, but is completely untrue now. Since I begun new article patrolling, he has been a shadow to me despite there being lots of other editors and bots quite up to the job, and lots of articles that he can be destubing even within the Project that has 196 pages of stubs.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 16:22, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay, if I got the core issue wrong, then provide diffs. You said "please help yourself by using the User contibs feature". Frankly, most people who patrol these noticeboards will just ignore a request like that (notice that nobody else has responded other than me). I decided to go the extra mile and check the contribs, and that was the conclusion I came to.

If there is a longer term issue, you are going to need to provide diffs, e.g. show multiple examples where you started editing an article that was entirely unrelated to your past interactions with Buckshot, and which he had not previously participated on, and how he showed up to thwart you. Given this mediation case, I am more inclined to guess that you two just have a shared interest in military history, and that's why you butt heads so much. But maybe I am wrong. If so, you need to prove it to me with diffs. --Jaysweet (talk) 16:29, 16 June 2008 (UTC) Full disclosure: I am not an admin, but I feel I can help out here anyway.

Jay, that would take more patience and time then I have. Pick an article, any article I created. It would be hundreds of diffs, thousands even. I appreciate you taking the time to respond, and its true that we do share the Mil Hist interest. Originally I offered to collaborate, but that soon came to a conflict off-wiki. Currently I rarely edit the articles Buckshot06 is mostly concerned. So far as I can tell he has never edited the Napoleonic Wars articles, which is why I decided to go there to see if he would follow, and he did. Besides that I have tagged and did minor (and occasionally extensive) edits on new articles from random areas of the Project and Buckshot06 is always there. What is more, his apparently gnomish behaviour is sometimes accompanied by biting remarks which are only a hair's breath away from being personal insults. I am not going to sit here amassing diffs. So far I am not aware of having done anything wrong in regards to any Wikipedia policy (except occasional loss of temper).

Guidelines and conventions are just that. Given an option of rigid guideline observance and waiting another 6 months for consensus, or getting 20-odd articles to a higher quality of content, I have no problem doing the later. My previous experience with Buckshot06 is that he is not able to offer a reasoned discussion backed by constructive suggestions that focus on improving Wikipedia as a reference work, but is more concerned with strict observance of what are usually not policy issues, but his own sense of what is correct.

As far as consensus-building is concerned, for example I recently brought up another issue on categorisation two days ago which to me is at once essential and obviously in need of a consensus, but have not receive any comments, not even from Bucksot06, so its not like I have not tried. Strange that of 100 editors on the task-force not one was logged in over the weekend. Stranger still that no one seems to mind using two category syntaxes for at lest a year now, and not doing anything about it.I guess I'm just a lot less willing to sit here and wait for someone else to do the work--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 16:59, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Heh, if it would take more patience and time than you have to present the case, dunno if I'll be looking into it too much ;p BTW, if you have not already done so, it is customary to notify Buckshot06 and any involved parties using the {{ANI-notice}} template. This will give us a chance to hear both sides of the story.

If I may try to paraphrase your complaint: The thing that specifically bothers you is that you butted heads with Buckshot over WWII-related articles, so you switched to Napoleonic Wars-related articles in order to resolve the conflict, and you feel he followed you there? Is that the gist of it? --Jaysweet (talk) 17:17, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but decided to go to sleep finally so did not respond.

I sent Buckshot06 the notification almost immediately

Its not just to do with Buckshot06 following me to the Napoleonic Wars area. He persistently follows me everywhere by watching my posts and interludes in my discussions with others, invariably in opposition, but usually lacking any supporting sources, and basing himself in guidelines and conventions while failing to appreciate that they are not policy. My academic background is strongly predisposed towards factual evidence to support statements, an I find lack of this in Wikipedia (despite policy) quite unsettling. How much more so when aside fro having to dig up reference for articles, I am forced to do so on talk pages also. Being gnomish is one thing, but from my perspective Buckshot06 is as close to being disruptive towards me personally as I think is possible without actually crossing the line. I have no problem if his activities in respect to my edits were gnomish, but they are not just that--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 00:32, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your attention to this matter Jaysweet. Might I encourage you to contact user:Kirill Lokshin, user:Roger Davies and user:Woody. All three are coordinators of the Milhist project, all administrators, and are in a more neutral position to comment on Mrg3105's actions, which I believe are harming the encyclopedia (though most recently Roger issued him a block warning). Mrg has been involved for months in a string of bitter disagreements with Milhist and religious editors on article naming, categorisation, deletion debates, WP:RMs, article introductions, and other matters and has usually been in a 1 versus all other users position. WP:Consensus appears to have no meaning for him whatsoever. I started monitoring his edits because he was working on subjects I was interested in; now I do so because he's warping wikipedia and usually doing so without regard to anything anyone else thinks. Buckshot06(prof) 01:23, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, everything Buckshot06 says is completely true, with one significant omission. All these disputes were, and are centred on the non-use, use and mis-use of sources. As a reference work, Wikipedia can not include in its articles information which is not referenced properly, and in each and every case that has been the issue. It is still the issue. Lets be clear about what Wikipedia is supposed to be - a work of reference that has public trust. Currently most academics tell their student not to use Wikipedia. One can not add content to a reference work by consensus. Consensus is only required to evaluate the validity and verifiability of sources on which that information is based. One can not for example establish by consensus that 2+2=7.43, or that the capital of Australia is Alice Springs.

If I contribute to Wikipedia, I want my contributions read. If I want them read, the quality of Wikipedia needs to be brought to a level where it is not just trusted, but recommended. If I, and other editors, have to drag the others kicking and screaming to a level of higher quality of produced articles, so be it. If this does not happen, than Wikipedia has no right to existance. It is just that simple. I am not liable for actions or inactions of others. I answer for my own actions, and so far, with one exception, I have nothing to be sorry about in my participation in Wikipedia. Buckshot06 can not seem to fathom that beyond the daily grind of editing there is a strategic goal for Wikipedia we are all supposed to be focused on

Roger's block warning was directly related to Buckshot's activity. Most of the bitter disagreements have been with Buckshot06, and several groups of highly nationalistic editors, something I will address elsewhere.

It is true that I am "warping" Wikipedia...into shape! Currently the coverage by the Project is out of sync with other Projects within the area of Humanities and the discipline of general History. Its articles are disconnected, uncategorised properly, many core articles are unreferenced and unsourced and the subject areas badly organised. This is largely because there is a lack of awareness of the big picture, and a lack of direction. I accept this to be the nature of Wikipedia participation, but that also allows me to contribute in the way I see best fit and within the policies of Wikipedia as they relate to editing. So far my only cardinal sin has been in in being uncivil to people who usurp these policies and stack consensus discussions to really warp the process by which Wikipedia is created. If Buckshot06 can't see this, I suggest he is not really paying attention--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 05:29, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Core damage frequency

Resolved

Core damage frequency articles also needs moderation to avoid an edit/revet war. Nailedtooth (talk) 22:23, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Note: Both users involved have been notified of a possible WP:3rr violation. Dusti^SPEAK!! 23:24, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Is three reverts (total, by two people) in 18 days really a 3RR violation? --Kralizec! (talk) 00:09, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

By definition, no it isn't. However, its still an edit war that isn't beinfiting the project. Dusti^SPEAK!! 04:28, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Cosprings user page and piracy

User:Cosprings keeps linking to blatant sources of copyvio on his user page despite being warned. The last time he was advised by an administrator here, he removed a slew of bit torrent links. I just deleted two of the music piracy blogs from his user page, but even his own personal blog ("Silentsprings, the official blog of Sybylys") is nothing but links to torrents containing complete discographies of musical artists. Someone stop this guy from flaunting his user page as a one-stop illegal download hub. Also, his personal music he's linking there is admittedly in violation of copyrights via sampling. 72.66.80.133 (talk) 22:54, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I suspect this user is using Wikipedia as somewhat a webhost, and the history of his userpage is full of torrent links. I'll crosspost this to WP:AN/I which is probably a better venue. x42bn6 Talk Mess 00:29, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Cross-posted from WP:VPP#Cosprings user page and piracy x42bn6 Talk Mess 00:31, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. I was one of those who advised him to ditch the torrents in the first place, but in light of this latest info I believe more aggressive action may be appropriate. I'm tempted to MfD it, but I figure waiting for comments here first is better. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 00:35, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I've removed the torrent links and the link to his torrenty blog. If he readds any links, I suggest a short block. Neıl 龱 01:01, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Seems he disagrees. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 06:17, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Blocked for 24 hours. Neıl 龱 07:26, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Does anyone suspect that page is almost like webhosting or advertising, links or no? x42bn6 Talk Mess 01:42, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Yep, and some hours before your post I deleted the redirect from his userpage to that page for just that reason.[5] The subpage should probably be AfDed or MfDed or whatever. (IP editors can't AfD for technical reasons relating to the article creation "experiment".)

Since his October block for "disruption",[6] this user has a history of incivility, failing to communicate, inserting plagiarism of copyrighted text into articles, making changes without consensus, removing AfD and speedy tags from articles he created, removing "no rationale" tags from his images, and repeatedly misusing CSD G7 in his speedy deletion requests. Have a quick scan of his talk pages since January. [7] [8] Really a problematic editor. 86.44.27.243 (talk) 04:11, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

User subpages deleted as advertising (G11). Userpage selectively deleted to remove copyright infringement. — Werdna talk 08:51, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

user Cardiff123098

Resolved

Hello,

This user Cardiff123098 is an habitual vandal. If you check his edits on many topics you will see his edits mostly get undone pretty soon. We have tried to help him but he just takes it personal and carries on regardless. Thanks harris 578 (talk) 22:56, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

cardiff123098 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Dusti^SPEAK!! 23:25, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

If it is ok, I would like to work with this editor to see if I can possibly steer him on the right path? Dusti^SPEAK!! 23:25, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes OK. No problems. harris 578 (talk) 09:26, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Lotte Motz edit war

• Lotte Motz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - edit war restarted between previously warned editors. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 08:50, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Disruption by Sahyadhri

Sahyadhri (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), a single purpose account, is continuously making disruptive edits in the article The Hindu and repeatedly violating WP:NPA. This user is continuously inserting non-RS and WP:SYNTH which I have described in detail in Talk:The_Hindu#Inaccurate_edits.

Edit-warring by this user:

• [9]
• [10]
• [11]

Another IP Special:Contributions/59.145.142.36 is probably a sock of this user. Administrator Nishkid64 removed the non-RS and SYNTH in this edit. But the IP reverted admin Nishkid64's edit. I said to discuss the issue in Talk:The_Hindu#Inaccurate_edits, but they are not willing in any discussion, blindly reverting others' edits. The user was warned two times - first by administrator Nishkid64 and then I issued a warning for repeated insertion of non-RS. But the warnings are ineffective. This user repeatedly called me "eulogist". I request a block of this SPA. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 10:32, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Colors8 to report on material

Resolved

 – no admin action needed, taking to talk

Carolyn Purdy-Gordon is listed on Wikipedia in the movies she's been in, so why would my submission of her be considered useless information, she's an actress just like Drew Barrymore or anyone else.

Also, The Initiation is a film listed under list of horror films, I even put an external link proving that it was real, I've seen it, and now I've reviewed it, only to have it be deleted, why?

For one thing, "reviewing" a film on Wikipedia violates WP:No original research. — 151.200.237.53 (talk) 11:58, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Plus, the actors or actresses I create a page for, may not be considered big time movie stars to you, but they're still actors, what if there are curious people out there who don't know who Cooper Huckabee, Michelle Joyner, Carolyn Purdy-Gordon, or any of the other people I listed are, and would like to know who they are?

• Colors8 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Colors8 (talk • contribs) 20:52, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll explain on the user's talk page. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:17, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

User:WLRoss

Hey guys, what do you think of this user page? It's a bit over the "couple of pages" of personal information specified in WP:USER but it's not so obviously excessive as to warrant deletion. I haven't looked at enough User Pages to form a definite opinion as to whether this is excessive so I figured I'd ask here first. So... whaddya think? Is this actionable or am I just being too rules-conscious? --Richard (talk) 04:48, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

A bit too pedantic rules-conscious, in my opinion. Kevin (talk) 06:08, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

He's not hurting anybody. — Werdna talk 08:52, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

It's a bit much for me but otherwise looks like nothing to bite over. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:59, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Fonez4mii

Following a checkuser user:Fonez4mii was found to be preteding to be two seperate people is a block not in order?--194.217.118.50 (talk) 09:03, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

It looks like the checkuser only uncovered his IP and the user has said he had already acknowledged this and was not trying to pretend he was two people. The account has only been editing since 18 May and this all may have owed to making some posts while not logged-in, then not handling the outcome whilst clued-in to the community's take on WP:SOCK. I'd AGF for now. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:05, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

EvilWendyMan

EvilWendyMan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is, according to his userpage, 9 years old. Or so it said before the older versions (containing birthdate and school, among other things) were deleted and hopefully by now oversighted. (just looked - they have not been oversighted) However, at this tender age he doesn't seem to understand copyright, and has been uploading logos, tiny photos from the web, and huge blurry photos that add nothing to an article, all without any copyright information whatsoever. He's been warned and bugged about this, with zero response, and just continues reuploading the files (sometimes two or three times on the same filename... and sometimes before they're even deleted)

Normally, I'd hit a user like this with a 24 hour clueban to give them time to respond or read the policies, but in this case, I'm hoping someone more familiar with how to deal with young kids has either a better answer or response. Any ideas? --Golbez (talk) 12:02, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I guess taking their toys away and sending them out of the room is the appropriate response... which translates around here as a 24 hour clueblock. I would suggest that they are advised of the block by something other than a templated message, with some friendly pointers toward the help and policy pages but with a clear message that repeated behaviour means they will be told to leave the room for longer next time. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:50, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

After the flock of warnings on his talk page, he seems to have stopped for now. I'd suggest oversighting the deleted edits on his userpage though, they went way too far. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:52, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Just because he is a child doesn't mean he has to be treated any different to anyone else. He should be blocked, yes, 24 hours for the first time as is usual. However, if this user is as we think, 9 years old, then LessHeard vanU has made a good point. Instead of the blocking template, maybe a much friendlier message, and some help. Thats as much as we can do - he may not even read those if he takes no notice of repeated warnings. But a block should be used all the same, for Wikipedia's sake. Lradrama 13:54, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

If he's really 9 years old, then I'm the Easter Bunny. Which I ain't. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:05, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Lol, far too many people lie about their age on this website when pretending to be children. I'm sure of it. The amount of vandals who say I'm only a kid is frequent. He is an extremely bright 9 year old if he has developed internal link & other wiki-skills in only a matter of days, I might add... Lradrama 14:08, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

If we take a look, and this is just an assumption on my part, at his contribs, I don't know of a 9 year old with this form of vocabulary, but maybe I'm just not out there enough. Dusti^SPEAK!! 14:32, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, he did edit Spongebob Squarepants, after all. I highly doubt this is another nine-year-old, based upon the contribution history... pretty damn good English skills. seicer | talk | contribs 14:45, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok, all this could be true. Either way, I wouldn't want to block this user myself, for now, since he's stopped after the final warning on his talk page. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:52, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes OK, well we'll wait. But if he continues.... Lradrama 18:09, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Sticky & Sweet Tour

Resolved

There seems to have been a large amount of vandalism to this article and it has now been semi-protected. Could someone who is familiar with this subject please take a look and correct any errors, as I am definatley sure that there are some. :). Thanks and Happy editing, Dusti^SPEAK!! 16:01, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

In related news, there are definitely errors on the other 2,476,328 pages. Can someone take a peek at those too? Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:40, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Um....Keeper, I believe your wrong there. 2,576,327 as I'm sure one was just deleted :). Dusti^SPEAK!! 17:41, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

So, you added 100,00 articles, and then took away one? (look at your number again...) :-). My point is really that the article is only semi-protected. Any autoconfirmed editor can edit it/improve it including you. Not really an "ANI" problem, as admin rights aren't needed to edit it. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:51, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Agree, not appropriate for ANI - Tan | 39 17:55, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Martinphi and ScienceApologist

After a long discussion (and much drama), I am closing a thread about Martinphi (talk · contribs) and ScienceApologist (talk · contribs). The result is a restriction on both editors that is intended to force them to disengage from their long-running dispute, by specifically sanctioning certain problematic actions. It would be sincerely appreciated if a few uninvolved administrators could provide a cluecheck for the resolution, and indeed it's almost certainly needed. See: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents/User:MartinPhi#Closing. Vassyana (talk) 16:11, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

ScienceApologist has been reminded about the disengagement restriction mentioned above and Martinphi has been reminded about his ArbCom restriction. See: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/User:MartinPhi#Enforcement. Vassyana (talk) 17:47, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I recommend that restrictions be put on Vassyana from discussing anything about MartinPhi or ScienceApologist because Vassyana is being unfair and should leave both Wikipedians alone. Thanks. QuackGuru 18:47, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

The undertow and related dispute

Following events today and arbcom list consensus, The undertow (talk · contribs) has been blocked for 9 months. Because the matter has gained some communal interest, a brief summary of what's gone on in the background follows. A lot will be common knowledge.

A dispute primarily between two administrators (the undertow and Swatjester) boiled over a few weeks ago on the wiki, over discussion and accusations against the undertow. (A few others were swept up in it somewhat, especially two other users (one of whom was at RFA at the time) who also had similar accusations made against them, by others close to the case.) None of the parties was in the right in their conduct. Roughly speaking:

• Undertow had tried to make a point in a contentious area, and wanted others to agree with definitions he felt correct on the topic, which he knew in the real world were often viewed with hostility and would often be rejected. It backfired badly.
• Swatjester (and others) felt the definitions in question were unacceptable, personally, and stated on-wiki (rather than taking note that personal issues should be left off-wiki) that the undertow should be desysopped.
• Undertow responded by parody and such [12]
• Others created WP:POINTy userboxes and made comments that caused them problems in turn, at least one user reimported comments from an off-wiki blog to build a like case against another user.

The matter was dropped on-wiki, but off-wiki Undertow stated intent to take action against Swatjester for his words. Most times, WP:LEGAL ("If you must take legal action, we cannot prevent you from doing so. However, we require that you do not edit Wikipedia until the legal matter has been resolved to ensure that all legal processes happen via proper legal channels") is the best guidance to follow, especially since in most cases, claims are unlikely to have substance, and are "puff" by persons who weren't able to get their way. In this case by contrast, and exceptionally unusually, both parties were deliberately keeping the matter largely off-wiki, it was not likely to be an ongoing cause of on-wiki disruption (Swatjester had pledged to keep it off-wiki, the undertow at that time was also doing so), and talk seemed more likely to resolve the matter for the benefit of users and the project, than the possible escalating effect of a block.

The undertow had also emailed Arbcom that he would probably need up to six months to sort out some personal matters contributing to the situation (he gave considerable detail in private), and that his tools would be given up voluntarily for the good of the community; if in six months he was able to act effectively as an administrator once more, he proposed he could ask for them back.

Over the course of the last few days, a number of developments have taken place that make us feel we are less likely to make headway in resolving it. Separate to this, the undertow has escalated the matter. It was off-wiki; today it was brought back on-wiki specifically to further the dispute. If ignored it may fade; equally it now looks like it may not. There's a difference between ignoring a dispute when it isn't impacting the wiki, and when it is. A large amount of detail was given by all parties in private which I'd as soon not make public unless they wish it, and which would fill in the gaps in the above - please respect their privacy on this - but it may be that dialog cannot do much more. This dispute should not have been brought back on wiki, and that decision to keep it off-wiki -- now gone -- was what was holding off the block last time. An arbitrator consensus therefore now exists, that todays events have led to an extended period of blocking, with regret.

Our hope is that in time he will understand our action as an attempt to balance the needs of the community, the needs of other editors to not have off-wiki disputes imported, and compassion for the undertow himself, that his off-wiki stuff sorts itself out, and understand we have tried our utmost, and strained matters at times, to try and find a resolution that was better for the project and for all even if non-standard. It should be stressed that a number of people acted poorly, all parties recognize things they did wrong, and the situation escalated quickly enough that perhaps no realistic handling could have really prevented it. We hope he will read into this block, that we have not used the normal arbcom ban period of 12 months, nor banned him, and understand we mean it. Private dialog will continue if wished. Should the undertow handle this well, and resolves the personal off-wiki matters he describes in his email (not related to the dispute), and it becomes clear this is all "old stuff" at the time, then he would be welcome back. It's entirely up to him.

Given the privacy and legal issues, this is not an easy one to write up - if it is vague or ambiguous in part, or some stuff is completely missing, that's why (as happens in many cases these days), and hopefully for the same reasons speculation can be avoided where possible.

Finally, be aware that we have had to check a number of purported points and claims made by various parties and users in the course of this case, both in private communications, off-wiki, and on-wiki, and verified a number are/were not reliable when examined in depth (though some might appear to be without careful investigation). No details, more just caveat lector. Also there are a number of other factors and minor issues that arose in the dispute, and a few other users who acted in a problematic manner - not everything has been gone into. It may be that some aspects will need addressing further.

As a personal comment on a block and the prior dispute, rather than a formal Arbcom statement.
FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 19:03, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for documenting the full rationale here: this is a very complex dispute, and I think it's appreciated that the arbcom have handled it (I for one do). It's an unfortunate set of circumstances, and not the outcome everybody would have hoped for, but it's now apparent that it is a necessary course of action. I am simply disappointed that these are the thoughts of a single arbcom member, rather than a statement from the committee as a whole: one would hope an en banc statement would be offered in a situation like this, sealed and agreed upon by the committee as a whole. Anthøny 19:43, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

The block summary or subsequent messages, I can't remember which, state that the block was agreed upon by the unanimous consent of the ArbCom. I think they just leave it up to FT2 to write the long tedious emails.

I'd first like to say thanks for posting this. I'd rather these types of blocks be posted right after though, as ex admin blocks could likely always get communal interest. I'd also, for clarity, like to point out that the events that transpired today were not made with any effort to escalate a dispute (as far as I've seen). But once again, thanks for the post. — _Maggot^Syn 20:10, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

The actions of the arbitrators were not made to escalate the dispute, but to defuse it. The actions of The undertow specifically were to escalate it. Please have faith that the arbitration committee has more information about the whole of what his actions were than you do. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 20:15, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I didn't imply they didn't know more or that they escalated the matter. I just happen to know exactly why he created an article on you (off wiki communication), and seen the article (as I edited to it). Upon seeing the article, I did not notice one thing that could resemble anything defined as a dispute. I am of the opinion that he should not have created the article, but it was written with neutrality. I don't wish to drag this on any longer than it already has on other talk pages SWAT. :) — _Maggot^Syn 20:24, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I never questioned the neutrality of it. Did you watch his video he made in which he articulated his reasons for the article's creation, punctuated with a remark to the effect of "It would be a shame if someone's kids found out their father died on Wikipedia."? ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 20:33, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes I've seen it (its on facebook for anyone to see I believe). What he meant was, we have set up precautions such as WP:BLP in the event, and in his example, in case a child finds an article on their father and reads it as saying he is dead and its possibly wrong. I'm wondering why you would bring this up, as it doesn't appear pertinent here (if you'd rather discuss it on my talk maybe, you're welcome to it). I'd like to request an outside viewer archive this now. Thanks. — _Maggot^Syn 20:59, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Riiight, it was unrelated. Just like how for the Mafia its unrelated when they say "It would be a shame if someone were to wake up with cement shoes on the bottom of a river". Implicit threat is implicit. Considering the entire rest of the video was directed at me, what makes you so sure that it wasn't, keeping in mind that he's made implicit threats to me before?⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 22:31, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Why is this being directed at administrators rather than the editing community at large? I'd like to echo Anthony's suggestion for en banc statements and further suggest a dedicated page for explanations of non-transparent Arbcom actions (i.e. at an WP:ARBCOM subpage). Sincerely, Skomorokh 21:03, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Clarification: the above question is seeking a normative rather than descriptive answer. Skomorokh 21:28, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I think this would be better addressed at arbcom's talk, citing this specific thread. — _Maggot^Syn 21:34, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Duly addressed, thank you for the suggestion. Skomorokh 22:09, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Quick answers: 1/ The drafting took a lot longer than I thought (due to privacy/non-escalation/"real-world" concerns balancing with "being useful to the community"). The problems moving back on-wiki needed attention sooner and was addressed as soon as consensus was clear. An "agreed draft" would have taken longer and added little. 2/ The purpose of the article is fairly transparent given recent directions in the dispute. There was no good-faith reason. It was created for no reason whatsoever beyond serving a targetted personal agenda, and using the wiki to do so. 3/ Those interested are likely to be either admins themselves, or aware of ANI and rapidly hear about posts on it. They'll see it wherever it's posted. AN/ANI is fairly usual for arbcom actions. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 21:33, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity, is there a link to the facebook video for those who havent seen it? :D Dusti^SPEAK!! 21:36, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I support this action or maybe I would've said an indef block until he showed signs of recovery at least, as his actions have been a bit random recently to say the least and I found the video disturbing. Dustihowe, I will email you the link, assuming no-one already has- well you can have the pleasure of it twice if so lol:) Sticky Parkin 21:51, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I thought we had made it pretty clear at WP:NLT that off-site legal action didn't matter as long as the user didn't discuss the matter on-wiki. And unless there's a case involved, it doesn't matter what arbcom thinks about this. -- Ned Scott 03:07, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

My mistake, seems this isn't "arbcom authority", but simply it was those on the arbcom mailing list that were trusted with the personal information. -- Ned Scott 03:11, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

From what I take of it, and trying to not say too much, I take it Undertow did do something on-wiki related to the legal actions. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but I wasn't sure on this at first form the summary above. -- Ned Scott 03:22, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. There was an escalation of the trouble with posts made on-wiki. And that's when arbcom though it was necessary to issue the block. Samuel Sol (talk) 17:27, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Could someone explain, for the benefit of those not clued in to the jargon, what is meant by "off Wiki" in the above comments. IRC channel communications? U.S. mail? E-mail? Postings on a blog somewhere? The court system? Stepping outside and duking it out man to man? Thanks. Edison (talk) 17:10, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

In this case, Off-Wiki refers to any communication that takes place in any venue or form other than the editing of a Wikimedia project such as Wikipedia, including its articles, talk pages, project pages, or any other type of page, and edit summaries associated with same. Off-Wiki communication includes (but is not limited to) personal contact, phone calls, postal mail or e-mail, IRC or other chat communications, Skype, blogs, and most specifically discussions on other websites. I suppose a fistfight would also qualify. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 19:17, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Block Review Please

Amacmunn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Allisonmacmunn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

more about the timing than the actual blocking. I blocked User:Amacmunn for repeated copyright violations. She requested unblock which Sanstein declined. Then User:Allisonmacmunn popped up, editing the same accounts. I filed a Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Amacmunn (although Twinkle hiccuped on the puppet), indef blocked the 2nd account and upped the block time on the primary. I *think* this was what I was supposed to do, but I'm not certain. Thanks! _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 20:56, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

ETA: I'm also headed offline so if anyone wants to keep an eye on the favorite articles for other edits, it would be appreciated. _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 20:57, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Curious, I was cautioned against biting, however is blocking a sock created to evade a block really a sock? I've also asked [[User:Smith Jones] for his input. _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 00:33, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Your actions look correct to me, both the indef on the sock and the extended block on the main account for evasion. EdJohnston (talk) 02:04, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

it just sems harsh to indefinitely block someone without even talking to them to try and ifnd out if they are a sock or not. thats why i gave the welcome so the user if she is not a sockpuppet wouldnt be compeltely discouraged from editing consturcitvely in the future. Smith Jones (talk) 03:17, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Ed Johnston. SmithJones, did you look at the master account and second one? I don't think there's any question about it not being a sock, the last name is the same and it's just a question of first initial or full first name. As far as editing constructively, neither account has so far done anything other than copy paste from their own website and has not shown that she's understood the related copyvio issues. _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 15:05, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I have another one

Resolved

Currently unblocked but a whois of 38.104.69.46 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) shows it to be the Titan offices. Continued to edit Titan Worldwide after I blocked Titan 2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for repeated spam. I'm not sure about protocol of blocking what appears to be a static IP in this case if it's enough for block evasion. Thanks! _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 21:06, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Deleted and salted Titan Worldwide. seicer | talk | contribs 22:49, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, that's what I was leaning toward. _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 00:33, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I noticed the protection will expire next month. If you're going to lock an article into deletion, it's best to put an expiry so that someone else can write Titan Worldwide (according to the guidelines, of course) after the protection time is up. –BuickCenturyDriver 20:39, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Excessive edit warring

Pardon me if I'm a bit short, but the last three times I have posted to ANI, I have been wholly ignored. It concerns Dr.enh (talk · contribs) - see the post here. I have repasted the contents below:

Some input: Does the above user warrant a block? The user has edit warred a lot on John McCain against several other users, including past a final warning on the bottom of his talk page. This is ignoring a bit of POV pushing that went on too with all the edits the user wished to put in: (e.g., [13] [14] [15]).

The Evil Spartan (talk) 00:35, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

User has NOT edited past the "final warning". -- Rick Block (talk) 04:26, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I thought I gave a final warning, though I forgot to put in the word "final" (the editor has been warned several times already). I've removed the resolved put up by a non-admin tag because in my experience a "final warning" from a non-administrator is not a final warning at all because it's impossible to ever get an administrator on this damned board to look at one of these cases unless it's been looked at before. (I near guarantee any successive postings would result in another warning or be ignored). The Evil Spartan (talk) 04:34, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

User has been warned. If he/she edits again in an inappopriate way, he/she should/will be blocked. Resolved? Not much else that can be done here. Dusti^SPEAK!! 04:38, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Wow. Since this editor is clearly edit-warring against consensus with a side order of snide personal attacks in response to attempts at engagement ([16], [17]), I think the last warning has been given. If he continues edit-warring or attacking people on the talk page, you can let me know directly for a potentially faster response. MastCell ^Talk 18:53, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Possible Sock

On Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jet_Delivery. The article's creator Bbarbata (talk · contribs) and Jbarbata (talk · contribs). 5:15 05:11, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

• Well, the usernames seem similar, and possible meat puppetry or sock puppetry, both users only edits are to that AFD, however, the arguments given for keeping the article are rather different. I'd say a checkuser would be needed here, but what do you admins think about this? Steve Crossin (contact) 05:21, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

It looks like definite meatpuppetry, realtives of some sort. I assume barabata is their last name. No sockpuppeteer would be so stupid to create usernames so similar. - Icewedge (talk) 06:05, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Given that Michael Barbata is the CEO of the company, meatpuppetry seems likely. Kevin (talk) 09:04, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Just to point that she replied and admited a bit of COI. Article wrote by her brother and CEO of the company. If the claim about findinding the seconday sources is valid it could work. Although with major rewrite due to the intense [[WP:COI}}. [18] Samuel Sol (talk) 17:10, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

• Wow, this community is pretty sharp! Like Icewedge said, if I was trying to create a sockpuppet, then why would I use names that are identical in syntax and differ in only one letter? The truth is, we are brothers and share the same last name. Jbarbata and Bbarbata are unique users and were not created to deceive the wikipedia community in any way. Bbarbata (talk) 20:20, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

• We appreciate your ringing endorsement, but the edits between the two of you still violate the policy on meatpuppets. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 21:55, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Blocked user talk page protection review

I just page protected User talk:Keysoft‎ after its 5th unblock request. I feel like this is such a dramatic step that it should be reviewed automatically. --Selket ^Talk 17:17, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I wikilinked Res judicata, since I had no idea what the hell it meant... but other than that, I concur with your decision, if only due to the username. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 17:36, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

The only thing I see is that they probably should have been directed to Template:Autoblock after the second unblock request. Protecting the page was a good idea though. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 17:43, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

• I replied to their email, confirming mostly all that has subsequently been said (I commented that COI didn't mean they couldn't write about themselves - but they needed to be very careful about NPOV) but emphasised that notability and verification were at the core of the problem. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:21, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

User:SlimVirgin removing image problem tags

Long thread over 50k moved to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/User:SlimVirgin.' D.M.N. (talk)

Thread has been dead for two days. Adding timestamp here to let the bot archive this section. Carcharoth (talk) 23:17, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Caspian blue

I had requested Adoministrator's comment for Appletrees, the previous name of User:Caspian blue gaming conducts.[[19]]. And he and I are both preacehed by adomin. And so I delete his gaming conducts on my talk page, then he say not to say gaming conduct on my talk page. What can I say to him? His gaming conduct was already recorded, and so he was preated about it. I can't understand his comment on my page. He didn't feel apologetic for it? [[20]]. What can I do? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jazz81089 (talk • contribs) 05:16, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Can the editors involved in this incident please be more clear in their description of what the problems are? It's almost impossible to tell what the issues are from the above comments. Badagnani (talk) 05:50, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I was preated by admin for because of not familiarity with terms, I wasn't preated for gamings. And you, Appretree (Caspian blue) was preated for gamings. And I deleted your gaming conducts on my talk page, and write edit summary. Your gamings are already recorded as this[[21]]. It's a fact. You should read the page again. I can't understand your writings on my page. Jazz81089 (talk) 05:58, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

User_talk:Moonriddengirl/Archive_15#User:Jazz81089.27s_inflammatory_personal_attack According to this admin The fact that he is himself gaming the system and his filing at ANI shows he knows better, almost. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:28, 9 June 2008 (UTC) --Caspian blue (talk) 06:03, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Can the editors involved in this incident kindly be clearer in their description of what the problems are? The above still makes little to no sense to the general English reader. Badagnani (talk) 05:59, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

>User:Badagnani. In short, I am personal attacked that I did personarl attack. But as it was, what I did is to write a summary of edits on my talk page that was already recorded as this [[22]]. Jazz81089 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 06:06, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I see. That editor frequently does that, yet for whatever reason has never been disciplined for it (most likely that for admins, there are always "bigger" issues to attend to). But, as our project is collaborative in nature, it really is important that we try to keep our rhetoric moderated and not incendiary, as I've often seen with certain editors. Badagnani (talk) 06:09, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Nope, I'm the one who heard his personal attacks, and you came to retaliate me for Korean cuisine artilce. You frequently attack me per your history. And then this is clear evidence you've been stalking me as usual--Caspian blue (talk) 06:29, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I can know that I am not only one done by him like this. I try to keep them. Thanks!Jazz81089 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 06:21, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Jazz81089's repeated personal attack

• Summary Some Japanese OCN ISP anon has vandalized manhwa article over a year, and also appeared at the same article about one weeks ago. After that, the anon went to Blade of the Phantom Master and removed the mention of artists' nationality and manhwa. The work was actually created by Korean manhwa artists and published in a Japanese magazine in Japanese first. Shortly after or almost simultaneous, it was also published in South Korea. The adapted animation was jointly created by a Korean and Japanese company as well. However, the anon replaced the manhwa related mention with manga and emphasized it.

To avoid disputes and NPOV, I suggested the anon to participate in a discussion or RFC and then presented a sort of compromised version as "cartoon and animation series by Korean manhwa artists published by a Japanese manga magazine as manga. However, the anon refused any compromise but just kept reverting and the behaviors were very similar to a banned user Azukimonaka (talk · contribs). Suddenly, Jazz81089 (talk · contribs) appeared to do the same edit as the anon after his 8 month break and looked like violating 3RR with the two accounts. So I reported to RFCU, but Jazz81089's edit numbers were not enough for checkuser to examine anything. At that time, WP:RFC and suggesting a discussion were no useful (no response at that time), so I filed to WP:3RR on him, but the both were blocked for edit warring. However, after that, Jazz still produced inflammatory comments against me at the talk page of Blade of the Phantom Master and his talk page too. As a result, I gave him a WP:NPA warning, then he reported to ANI previously as if he was a victim. What a lie.

Admin User:Moonriddengirl intervened the case, and everything seemed okay and going to be settle down peacefully. However, the usr kept making personal attacks on me and reverted to his preferred version with no consensus, so I let the admin know of his personal attacks. The admin gave him a warning for his disruptive behaviors and edit warring. Jazz complaint that the article is not removing manhwa mention and emphasizing manga-centered. I was busy dealing with other things, and Jazz and I actually did not contribute to rewrite the article much since the dispute occurred. As Jazz deleted his sockpuppetry case and warnings on his talk page given by me, he wrote the insulting comment against me at the summary field regardless of his previous warnings. So I gave him a NPA warning, and left notes about his behaviors, then he reported here. What a good gesture.--Caspian blue (talk) 06:25, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

You apparently gaming the system again to report here. Since the dispute is between you and I, I titled as such. (This is not fair to use only my name, since I was attacked by you. You intentionally wrote to mock me at the edit summary over and over and the administrator at that time said you're the one gaming the rule. Besides, it is a courtesy to notify me, and you did not. If you think reporting first is to justify your POV, that is not good approach. --Caspian blue (talk) 05:43, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

1. 2008-06-17T04:50:57 (hist) (diff) User talk:Jazz81089‎ (Your gaming conduct was already recorded, read it again.)
2. 2008-06-17T04:41:50 (hist) (diff) User talk:Jazz81089‎ (delete Caspian blue's gamings)
3. 2008-06-17T04:40:32 (hist) (diff) User talk:Jazz81089‎ (delete. Appletrees gamings)

The editor did not edit the disputed article but complaint or attacked me at the summary field, so I gave him waring and left notes. I feel very absurd this disruptive behaviros of Jazz81089 (talk · contribs).--Caspian blue (talk) 05:46, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Your gaming conduct was already recorded as this [[23]]. And I only wrote edit summery on my talk page for the reason already reported above. You looks you don't feel apologetic for your conducts. It's repugnant of you. Jazz81089 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 06:36, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Nay, the admin said you're the one gaming the rule and then you're the one who received the formal warning from her. You just prove that as you keep making personal attacks against me, and then victimize yourself. That is too pathetic. Nope, everyone at the talk page of the article said that you're always complaining and not helpful for the article. The previous ANI is the evidence of your gaming Wiki rules, not me.--Caspian blue (talk) 06:48, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I can't understand your saying. I editted my page, then why it was my gamings? It's edit summrery of deleted of your conduct which was already reported. It is impossible of being my gamings, and the editing summry was already reported as your gamings. You don't feel apologetic for them? Jazz81089 (talk) 06:58, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Who are them? You do not make any sense. Personal attacks do not justify anywhere within Wikipedia. After your highly inappropriate personal attacks, you do know that I will see your talk page for a while as you checking my contributions. Somebody who wrote very inflammatory and personal attacks on his own page was indefinitely blocked because of his user page. Your excuse "Oh, I only wrote so on my talk page" is not plausible rationale. You intentionally wrote the personal attacks (not even true) at the summary field. It is so possible you're gaming again as the admin said so and gave you a warning. I sense that you're deeply related to 2channel again per your weird usage of "apologeitc" and disruptive personal attacks. --Caspian blue (talk) 07:06, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

You did gamings as this [[24]][[25]] that was reported in here [[26]], and the editing summery is short comment of the reason. If this is a personal attack, your writings is a personal attacks too. You say I did gamings, so it's personal attack as you said. You shoud apply same rule on you and others. It's contrariety of yours. Jazz81089 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 07:22, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Nope, the admin who looked into the case said, you're the one who gaming the rule. As the result of your blatant disregard of consensus and the previous attack, you received the final warning from her[27][28]. Beside, the admin warned about your edit summary as such[29] "The thing to do at this point is to civilly discuss your differences at the article's talk page. I'd recommend keeping your edit summaries related to the nature of your edits and avoid discussing another editor's behavior at all in them." --Caspian blue (talk) 07:33, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I strongly sense that you're one of banned users by checkuser, or Furf, or Rlevs per your very unique usages of English, and the implausible rationale. --Caspian blue (talk) 07:48, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive383#Request for checkuser on Opoona (talk · contribs)

I don't know why you seem like Opoona (talk · contribs) or Princesunta (talk · contribs),Limited200802th (talk · contribs), all of which are related to Japanese 2channel and indefinitely blocked, especially Opoona. Your 9 edits in 3 years and your return after 8 months break do not still make any sense. --Caspian blue (talk) 07:57, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Keep it Short and Simple

Fellas... if you keep sniping at each other back and forth on the Administrators' noticeboard, you are not going to get anyone to actually look at your concerns. I suggest each of you summarize your problem in 100 words or less, providing the diffs you feel are most representative of the conduct in question, and then just shut up for a few hours so an admin or other user can take a look and respond. As it is, I just see a whole bunch of ranting about "gamings" and "preated by adomin" (I had to look up "preat" on urbandictionary.com -- does that make me old?), with a few diffs thrown in with no context that don't tell me anything. --Jaysweet (talk) 13:17, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll second Jaysweet here, even though I do know the context of much of this. :) The first thing you might do, Jazz, in response to your first question here is stop antagonizing Caspian blue. I advised you in the continuation of the last ANI thread at my talk page, archived here, to keep "your edit summaries related to the nature of your edits and avoid discussing another editor's behavior at all in them". At this point, since you acknowledged yourself that he found the term upsetting in that thread, you seem to be taunting him. There is no good reason for you to keep referencing that term other than the fact that he told you there that it bothered him. Please review civility. In the last ANI thread, I did not confirm that Appletrees (now named Caspian blue) was gaming the system. Gaming the system is a deliberate effort to subvert the system. I explained to him why his actions could be interpreted that way, but in the lack of persistence did not assume bad faith. Caspian blue, please try to ignore his edit summaries. If he expands the behavior, including it in edit summaries at the article or talk page, then you have a clear case of harassment. In the meantime, if you did not respond to them, they would probably go away. The article in dispute here, Blade of the Phantom Master, is now being addressed by additional editors who are helping to find a consensual version. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:27, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I feel like Jazz's reporting appears to be deliberate and looks like my name have repeatedly exposed to ANI regardless of his absurd behaviors (I'm the one who got his mockeries again) Besides, Jazz looks like one of Japanese disruptive offenders who harassed me for while and then banned for the reason or meat/sockpuppetry, I think filing sockpuppetry on him is really needed.

• Long time abusing Wikipedia by Japanese editors from 2channel meat/sock puppets--Caspian blue (talk) 13:40, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

>Moonriddengirl. I will read the gaming the system and assume bad faith, and will understand them. I understood that was a gaming system and I think I only wrote a summery what was told in ANI page[[30]]. So I was astonished by Caspian blue's conducts, and then I can understand what he is, and what I should do by you all, especally thanks for Moonriddengirl and Badagnani.Jazz81089 (talk) 21:54, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Obviously, a malicious filing (I'm the one who should report Jazz's gaming the system and his possible sockpuppetry). Per the admin's advice, I will try to ignore the person who tries to produce bad dramas. --Caspian blue (talk) 00:53, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Motofan

Previous ANI discussion
I'm starting to think he doesn't get it...
I know absolutely nothing about Formula 1, but I'm having a hard time believing that the few contributions this user has made on the topic make the rest of their contributions worthwhile. --Onorem♠Dil 19:31, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Block is in order per this personal attack. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 19:34, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it's what we'd normally consider a personal attack... I'm assuming that it's his recently blocked friend, User:Flyhead's, new account. Either way, he's been warned about that type of edit. --Onorem♠Dil 19:39, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh... maybe you are right. Within context, maybe it is a compliment? Block is in order anyways. This is disruptive editing, previously strictly warned. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 19:41, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Using racist language should always lead to a block. Corvus cornix_talk 20:32, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

• I have enacted an indef block, giving my reasons on the editors talkpage here. I invite review of my block and rationale. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:43, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Endorsed, clearly. Long history of attacks, disruptions. Tan | 39 20:47, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Ya, good block, very good block. _{1 != 2} 20:46, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I was at first contemplating the block, but looking at it again in more detail, yes, good block. D.M.N. (talk) 20:47, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the block. Ever since I had to revert one of his edits, he's been nothing but trouble. TheChrisD ^{Rants•Edits} 21:52, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

• Aerofreak1061 (talk · contribs) is in fact a reincaration of Motofan's indef-blocked friend Flyhead (talk · contribs). I remain concerned about these two and do not object to a block of Motofan, although his conduct has not been as bad as Flyhead's. Thatcher 20:48, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Someone snowball this AFD. The article in question was created by Aerofreak1061. D.M.N. (talk) 20:50, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Snowballed. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:32, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

• • I am concerned that WP should host any account that believes that placing the [[Image:Three sevens.svg]] image, and supporting the AWB while "hating kaffers" comments, on a userpage is acceptable. Now, and since this is clearly impinging on my own personal political/anti-racist agenda, I feel that a little investigation into this little drawer of ultra white socks might be considered. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:57, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Any idea how Flyhead is using a Norwegian IP? - 195.189.143.61 (talk · contribs) Corvus cornix_talk 21:01, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

(There is an WP:AIV report, by Corvus cornix, on this ip if there is any admin free - I cannot act since I have now declared a bias. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:05, 17 June 2008 (UTC) )

Used by the Opera Mini mobile browser, see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive104#Opera_proxies. I can see their true IPs. Drop a short term soft-block if you need to block. Thatcher 21:09, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I was the admin who gave Motofan a slap on the wrist 24 hours ago. I was under the impression I was just dealing with a young idiot and his idiot young friends but somehow convinced myself he could remain a productive idiot. Seems I was badly mistaken and the indef block is the obvious call. Indeed, no matter how good his contributions were to motorsports articles, we don't need this. But I'd also like to point out that his work was not exactly stellar (see [31] for a good laugh) lest anyone have second thoughts. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 23:14, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

block review - User:Cbsite

Cbsite (talk · contribs · logs · block log) has sent me an email, the whole contents of which (tildes and all) was:

• Unblock my account.~~~~

Feeback is welcome. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:58, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I think this is all that really needs to be said here. – iridescent 19:03, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, a good block. Given that edit summary, I am inclined to re-block with e-mail disabled. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 19:13, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Endorse block, wash mouth with soap. Bearian (talk) 19:14, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Recommend shampoo rather than soap. Works a treat. Seriously, endorse. Alex Muller 20:04, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Such a nice young editor. Good block. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:16, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Recommend replacing indef with, oh, 125 years - anyone unblocking before the century is up to be desysopped for wheel warring? LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:26, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I've gotten another email from Cbsite. Ok if I or someone else blocks email? Gwen Gale (talk) 21:00, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

So why did you block my talk page after I said I didn't do whatever edit you said I did? And then mentioned that it wasn't a factor in your decision TWICE???

I want you to hand this off to someone else and let the appeal go on without you.

• Reblocked without email. --Rodhullandemu 21:03, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

A little late, but Cbsite also sent me an email, first saying that they would NOW agree to dispute resolution (but I will listen to consensus). Second, I was told that Gwen "has an ax to grind", saying the edits were done "inadvertently", and that the talk page was protected "before I could offer an explanation." All in all, agree with leaving this to Arbcom for unblocking. Support. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:40, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree that it's a little late, but the prior attitude shown was indefensible even given a perceived grievance. I don't believe Gwen can be faulted in the slightest and if he chooses to appeal to ArbCom, they will look at the whole picture. I took the view that he was likely to continue pursuing his grievance by email, and enough has to be enough at some point. We are, after all, volunteers here. --Rodhullandemu 22:48, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

• Just FYI, someone unblocked him 3 hrs later 16:30, 17 June 2008 Fred Bauder (Talk | contribs) unblocked "Cbsite (Talk | contribs)" ‎ (Has agreed not to repeat behavior)

• • Someone should unprotect his talk page, then. -- Ned Scott 06:39, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Done. MaxSem^{(Han shot first!)} 08:23, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Template Error

I'm sure I've asked for help with this before - Template:Db-reason has a problem. Once you've placed the template on the page, copying and pasting the warning onto the creators talk page does not reproduce the reason for deletion you've entered, instead you get

{{{2}}}

.

Can someone fix this please? Exxolon (talk) 23:14, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I think I've fixed it. Does it work now? —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 00:34, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Works for me now. Thanks Kevin (talk) 00:37, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I've always had this. But I thought I was just doing it wrong! Thanks to Exxolon for bringing it up, and to others if they've sorted it.:) Sticky Parkin 03:08, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Seven deadly sins indeed

Someone might care to look at the Seven deadly sins talk page which seems to have been invaded by a bigotted fool. Abtract (talk) 19:36, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

A lot of nonsense that hardly related to the article at hand, and to diffuse the situation, I've removed the passages. seicer | talk | contribs 19:41, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

i have chastisted the user in question with regards to her vnadlaims. Smith Jones (talk) 20:26, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you both ... I wonder if you would care to look at Gender of God and its talk page. Not quite as clear cut but imho this article has been taken over by an editor who, by his bullying ways, now effectively owns it. In particular the lead does not mention the topic and the Comparative Religion section is simply an essay on a vaguely related topic ... he brooks no opposition and, as you will see, is very aggressive in his manner. Thanks again. Abtract (talk) 20:37, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure that will help. Corvus cornix_talk 20:37, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

User talk:Christopher Paul Stephenson

I have an unblock request from Christopher Paul Stephenson (talk · contribs · logs · block log). However, since being created in December 2007, the account has edited only once - to post this unblock request. Unless its an autoblock of some sort, the user is not blocked at all. This raises two questions, 1) Should I indefblock for a threat of harassment, and 2) whose sock is this? UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 20:28, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I could be wrong, but is it possible it's related to this?WP:AN#John_Paul_Neil--Cube lurker (talk) 20:38, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd just ignore it. Troll. Corvus cornix_talk 20:36, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

(ecX2)Could there be oversighted edits? In any case, I would support an indef-block for the threat (and potentially libelous statement) in the unblock request. I don't see an editor with that sort of mindset contributing anything useful to the project; he's here for disruption and harassment. Horologium (talk) 20:39, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Is there, or should there be, a CU report on John Paul Neil? If there is an underlying ip we could have that blocked for some little while to stop the drawer getting refreshed. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:48, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

So far there are two IPs involved and they are both autoblocked. This might be a chance to draw some more sleepers out of hibernation. Thatcher 21:01, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Rule #1 in a succussful unblock request: Don't complain that the block is preventing you from harassing someone. </shakes head in disbelief> --Jaysweet (talk) 13:24, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

At least he's honest. He deserves something positive for that. Recommendation: Reduce the length of his indefinite block by one day. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:21, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Disruption by WillyJulia

WillyJulia (talk · contribs) is continuing making unhelpful edits (see previous discussion about BLP violations). WJ has been warned about PA such as this, but is continuing to do so. A short block is in order. APK ^{yada yada} 03:13, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Last warning given. Gwen Gale (talk) 03:21, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Exhibit A. APK ^{yada yada} 10:51, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

you keep reporting me here like im some kind of trouble maker, when all the warnings on my talk page is wikipedias fault. this BLP nonsense was already in the article, this copyright image nonsense of a image i didn't upload. your just warning me for all wikipedias problems--WillyJulia (talk) 11:26, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I believe this is the first time I've ever posted anything about you on ANI. The only warnings I've mentioned on your talk pages are in relation to harassment and personal attacks. APK ^{yada yada} 11:31, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

this is not the Wikipedia complaints department. - if it isnt the complaints department what is it?--WillyJulia (talk) 11:53, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I count three "final" warnings in five days... "The only people who are coddled more in America are criminals and babies!" --Stephen Colbert Jaysweet (talk) 14:23, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Let's see if it stops. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:25, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

For review: indefinite block of User:Jagz

I'd like to submit one of my blocks for review. Jagz (talk · contribs) is, in my opinion, a long-term tendentious editor on the topic of race and intelligence. In a recent AN/I thread, I proposed a topic ban, with the goal of refocusing Jagz on constructive contribution to the encyclopedia. After quite a bit of discussion, the thread ended with Jagz agreeing not to edit the pages in question, and there was talk of placing him on probation for disruptiveness and incivility. Since then, he's continued to pursue the same grudges in different venues. Most recently, Mathsci (talk · contribs), one of Jagz's opponents, announced his retirement. Jagz chose this juncture to taunt Mathsci by vandalizing his userpage.

I view this as the final straw for this editor: the topic ban has had no effect; he continues to pursue his same old disruptive agenda in new venues; and he's stooped to vandalizing opposing editors' userspace to gloat about their departure from the project. I haven't seen anything positive originate from Jagz's account in a long time, and there's no reason to think things are getting any better - quite the reverse. I've blocked the account indefinitely for a long-term pattern of tendentious, disruptive editing capped off by personal attacks and vandalism of an opposing editor's userpage.

Jagz himself has not requested an unblock thus far, but Elonka (talk · contribs) raised the concern that this block was overly harsh. I agreed to disagree, but felt I should bring it here for further review and discussion. If there's a significant feeling in the community that Jagz should be unblocked, then any admin can feel free to do so. I would ask that if he is unblocked, he commit to contribute positively, and that a plan be in place to provide both clear behavioral guidelines and restrictions and/or mentoring/monitoring. MastCell ^Talk 21:43, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I recently came across this editor at User talk:Cailil. My review of Jagz's recent contributions indicate a pattern of disruptiveness and polite trolling. I think the block was a good decision. I was unaware of how long this pattern had been going on, or else I might have done more than just blank Jagz's taunts. Jehochman ^Talk 21:48, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I am surprised that the previous discussion concluded with agreeing to a topic ban, a party that appears not to have joined the consensus was Jagz - who was violating said ban before the last edit was posted in the discussion. I fully support the indef block now, as not only does the editor seem unwilling to withdraw from the disputed area but also seems more than willing to argue his "case" by the same questionable methods (personal attacks, attempts to sanction "opponents", etc) as in the past. Good block. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:03, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I blocked this chap a while back for 3RR. I wasn't impressed then, and have grown steadily less so as time has gone on. This is definitely one we're well quit of. Race and intelligence is quite contentious enough a topic without letting tendentious, edit-warring, and harassing SPAs such as Jagz go unrestrained. AGF has its limits: those he exceeded a long time ago. I also put the other single-purpose accounts operating in this area on notice to clean up their act, or else I shall personally ensure they follow in Jagz's footsteps, and that swiftly. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 22:12, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

• Disagree with indef. A warning or a brief block may have been appropriate, but an indefinite block was overkill. Now, I do agree that Jagz has been disruptive in the past, but I felt that he had been making steady improvement. I am also concerned that he may have been the victim of some "tag team" harassment. In the past, he did seem to have some constructive contributions, but ran into what he felt was a "team" organized against him, when editing some race-related articles. He was blocked for 3RR in March, and another 24-block for personal attacks in May. A week or so ago, Jagz voluntarily agreed to avoid editing the Race and intelligence article for the rest of the year.[32] I have been working with him since then, as he is identifying areas where he feels that there is "team" editing. I have not yet completed my investigation, but it is obvious to me that Jagz was not the sole problem at some of these articles, as there was disruptive behavior from multiple editors. Since his voluntary ban, Jagz has honored his word and avoided the R&I article. He has left a couple messages on talkpages of related users, some of which were unfortunate, such as placing a "cheshire cat" image on the userpage of a retired user, Mathsci (talk · contribs), one of Jagz's earlier opponents. His edit was reverted by another of his opponents as "vandalism",[33] but I think that this was overstating the situation. In fact, Mathsci had first placed a "cheshire cat" image in a previous conversation with Jagz,[34] so Jagz's response was to place the cheshire cat image on Mathsci's page[35] (granted, he should have put it on the talkpage, not the userpage). It may have been an ill-considered attempt at humor, but it wasn't vandalism. Jagz also indicated his opposition to one of his opponents, Cailil, who is considering running for admin. When Jagz posted this message at Cailil's takpage,[36] it was deleted by administrator Jehochman with an excessive edit summary.[37] When Jagz restored his message,[38] Jehochman again deleted it, this time accusing Jagz of "trolling".[39] MastCell followed this up with an indef block of Jagz. I'm in agreement that Jagz's behavior could have been better, but I think an indef block was excessive, and indeed has an appearance of being an attempt to silence a potential opponent before an RfA. --Elonka 02:18, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
• COMMENT I think that Elonka has not taken the time to review this editor's behaviour. In the previous disussion here and subsequently she has somewhat villified his critics (alun (Wobble), Ramdrake, Slrubenstein), suggesting that it is they that should have a topic ban. Even above she has placed remarks from over a month ago out of context. When Jagz announced his retirement from editing Race and intelligence with postings in several new sections on the talk page, proclaiming that the article was in a finished state, he placed other editors in a state of confusion. This type of editing seems to be what is usually called trolling. Elonka seems to condone the vandalism of my user page and talk page in her remarks above: although she might dislike me, such vandalism is upsetting and against WP policy. Since she is the interventionist administrator that has put an end to my contributions to WP, with mathematical articles stopped in midstream, I am not surprised that she seems to be giving the thumbs up to Jagz's act of vandalism. (Her recent slowness to recognize User:Koalorka's history of anti-Turkish POV-pushing, perhaps because she had not made this observation herself, showed a similar attempt to deny a consistently disruptive pattern of behaviour carefully documented by me User:Mathsci/subpage.) Does anybody else understand why she is acting in this way? Mathsci (talk) 05:46, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
• Indef block sounds fine to me. Maybe review Jagz's situation again after an appropriate period of time (6 months, a year?) but not now. Thanks, R. Baley (talk) 04:36, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
• When Jagz was topic-banned not long ago, among the conditions of his ban were a civility and NPA parole. Since then, the sum total of his contributions outside his own user and talk pages has been limited to:

• 1)Putting up at ANI the picture of a baby to show his discontent with a comment about him about which he disagreed;
• 2) Commenting on the user talk page of an editor considering accepting a nomination for adminship that the editor in question wouldn't be ready "for a few years", talking about an otherwise established and very respected editor and edit-warring to put his comment back after it was removed as inappropriate;
• 3)putting first on the user page of a retired user and then on his talk page the same derogatory image (in context) and revert warring to keep it there;
• 4) having a long conversation with another admin about his woes that other editors wouldn't let him further his POV at the R&I article
• 5)and then questioning the authority of an editor who removed one of his unpleasant comments from a user's page.

All in all, I don't see that he has made any improvement at all since his topic ban, as his contribution to main article or article talk page space has been zero, although he has made several derogatory contributions to user pages and user talk pages, in addition to trying to get a previously uninvolved admin to help him settle old scores. I say indef was the right decision.--Ramdrake (talk) 11:28, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

The ANI thread[40] was still active as of June 8. After it closed, Jagz (talk · contribs) kept to his word and was avoiding the disputed articles. He stuck to user talkpages, though admittedly he was "grumbling" at a couple of them. Then he posted the picture of a cat at Mathsci's page (a picture which Mathsci had already used himself, in a similar context), and Jagz suddenly gets labeled as a "vandal" and is blocked indefinitely. I'm just not seeing his behavior as that disruptive, that Wikipedia was "protected" by indefinitely blocking him. I also see no communication from MastCell on Jagz's talkpage. Instead, MastCell started the ANI thread on June 3, requesting a full topic ban (which Jagz agreed to voluntarily comply with). Then MastCell's next communication with Jagz was the indefinite block, without further warning. Better would have been if MastCell could have posted a reminder on Jagz's talkpage to move on to editing articles. But simply blocking him without any other communication was inappropriate. Jagz has been an editor here since 2005, he deserved better. --Elonka 13:22, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Elonka, it seems that there is a strong consensus in support of the block. If you would like to mentor this editor, and feel confident that you can steer them away from trouble, I might support that. Otherwise, I do not see any chance of an unblock at this time. Jehochman ^Talk 14:08, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I would question the wisdom of declaring "consensus" in less than 24 hours, especially because some of the participants here were involved in the dispute. However, I am happy to mentor this editor, if he even chooses to return. He and I were having a reasonable conversation on my talkpage before he was suddenly blocked. And to be honest, the more I investigate, the more it looks like he has been targeted in an unfair manner. Looking at some of the previous evidence against him, if he so much as said, "Please do not make provocative statements", he was accused of incivility, trolling, and vandalism. Seriously, look at the accusations,[41] and then check the diffs for yourself. Specifically, don't read what's said about him, read what he's actually said. I would ask those who are reviewing the case to try and do so with fresh eyes. Instead of starting with a preconceived notion of, "Jagz is a troll, and we just need to find proof of that", try to start from an assumption of good faith, as in, "Jagz is a good faith individual who is being ganged up on, and has lost patience, and his temper, with the system." And again, to be clear, I am not saying that Jagz's behavior is squeaky clean in all this. There are definitely a few statements which were clearly uncivil, a few actions which were unquestionably unhelpful. But it does seem that there were multiple disruptive editors, who were pushing for Jagz to be ejected, while other editors with equally bad behavior were not censured or even, as near as I can tell, cautioned. Yet Jagz received an indefinite block without warning. I have respect for MastCell in many things, but this particular block was not well done. --Elonka 15:43, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I would like Elonka to supply diffs to support her accusations that "there were multiple disruptive editors, who were pushing for Jagz to be ejected, while other editors with equally bad behavior were not censured or even, as near as I can tell, cautioned" rather than the simple, plain fact that Jagz was either unwilling or unable to accept talk page consensus (as evidenced by several RfCs, inquiries at the NPOV and Fringe theories noticeboards) and persistently pushed his own POV (to the extent of creating POV fork articles such as Dysgenics (people) and Human Intelligence Controversies which were promptly identified as such and deleted) in defiance of wide consensus against it, thereby exhausting the patience of the community.--Ramdrake (talk) 16:41, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I am one of the people Elonka is refering to as uncivil, unhelpful, and disruptive. Anyone reviewing this case needs to take two things into consideration: first, what makes someone a troll is not necessarily behavior that is platantly offensive to some - not all trolls go around saying "@#!* you, I will kill you and your children!" What made Jagz a troll was a pattern of behavior that had a fundamentally disruptive effect on attempts to improve an article on a complicated and controversial topic. The ultimate effect of his trollish behavior was to drive away countless other editors who have over the past couple of years tried to improve the article. The behaviors that had this trollish effect seldom took the form of personal attacks or vandalism, but so what? There are other ways to disrupt progress on an article and thus the overall project of writing an encyclopedia. There were three things that made Jagz a troll. First, he never made any substantive contribution to the article. When he made claims I and others considered unfounded, if we asked him either to explain what he meant or to provide evidence he always changed the subject. This by itself is not proof he is a troll, but it does call into question his motives - why would the overwhelming bulk of his edits over the past couple of years be to the talk page for an article on a topic on which he has done no research and knows nothing? I have an answer, it is the third reason ...

The second thing that made him a troll was that any time other people were making progress towards improving the article - reaching consensus on a controversial edit, the structure and scope of the article, and so on, he would make an inane comment, or create a new section and start a new thread of talk that had nothing to do with the subject at hand and was not constructive. The line Elonka quotes above is a perfect example - "Please do not make provocative statements" when taken out of context appear to be harmless. But when the edit is made in response to a statement that was not provocative, and when Jagz couldn't explain why the statement was provocative, and the effect was to disrupt a discussion among other editors who were drawing on research to improve the article, then it turns out that "Please do not make provocative statements" is itself a provocative statement; any attempt to respond to it derails work on the article. And I want to emphasize one critical matter: we are not talking about one or a few statement like this, we are talking about a pattern of inance disruptive comments like this over more than a year's time. It is the pattern of edits and their effect that make Jagz a troll, not just one edit.

The third thing that made Jagz a troll is that this pattern of disruptive comments on the talk page is connected to the POV that Jagz was pushing at the Race and intelligence article. And there is no way anyone can correctly assess my trating Jagz as a troll without looking at the actual POV he was pushing. First, one point all editors working on the article agree on: the average IQ score of self-identified whites in the US is higher than the average IQ score of self-identified blacks. I know of know one working on the article who ever disputed this. The question is, why? And this is the POV Jagz wants to keep in the article and as a prominent and notable view: that the reasons are genetic. Please think about this: Jagz is saying that blacks are inherently inferior to whites. That is the point of view he is pushing. And please keep in mind the increasing prominence of Wikipedia as an educational resource in the US and around the world

We have policies to guide us in such matters - obviously if this is a notable POV it has to be included in the article. The argument, which has gone on for over two years on the talk page of the article, the discussion that Jagz derails whnever possible, is whether this is a fringe POV or not. Anytime Jagz was asked for evidence that anyone studying human heredity - physical anthropologists, population geneticists, molecular geneticists (and yes, these are established scientific communities that produce a huge amount of literature on human genetics each year) - supports this view ... an inane comment, like "don't be provocative." Any time that I or another editor - Ramdrake and Alun are far more knowledgable than I in the life sciences - tried to explain why this is a fringe view, and what mainstream scientists actually do say ... an inane comment, like "don't be provocative." There are other editors working on the article who, drawing on research in psychology (not genetics), believe that this view must be represented in the article. Any time Ramdrake and Alun, and other well-informed editors with opposing views, started approaching a compromise or consensus ... some inane comment from Jagz like "don't be provocative." And any time an editor tried to engage Jagz in a serious discussion - asking him for the evidence that his POV is not fringe, or providing evidence that it is fringe, Jagz would simply repeat his claim. He never displayed any respect for the research of other editors, nor any willingness to compromise, and he explicitly rejected invitations to begin mediation. Several times when we were approaching consensus, he placed an NPOV violation tag on the article! When someone removed it, in at least two instances, he issued RFCs, which overwhelmingly supported the consensus and not him. Did this put an end to his trollish disruptions, the fact that the response to his own RFC's went against him? No, of course not, he just disregarded the comments that he himself called for, and went on disrupting the page. It was this kind of hypocritical disregard for collaborative processes and the views of others, and the realization that he by using the RFC in bad faith (since the results were inconsequential to him) the very use of the RFC was an act of trolling. Yes, an act of a troll - because what makes him a troll is not simply uncivil comments, it is an overall pattern of disruptive behavior. An RFC that makes us all suspend work on the article for a while, for no purpose at all since the person issuing the RFC ignores the results, is turned against itself to be just another disruptive act. So disruptive acts can come in many forms, folks. If he ever made a thoughtful contribution to the article, or a constructive contribution to the discussion, I would have reached a different conclusion. there are other editors on the page I clearly disagree with, and have argued with - and I have never called any of them trolls because in my view they are not; we disagree but they are well-informed editors acting in good faith. Jagz is so far from falling into this category, if he tried to jump into it gravity would reverse itself and he would float up in the air.

It is this pattern of disruptive behavior in order to push the racist point of view that blacks are inherently less intelligent than whites that led me, after several months of attempts to reach some compromise with Jagz, to label him a troll. I did not do it overnight. Elonka misrepresents the situation if she thinks one day Jagz wrote "do not make provocative statements" and from that I concluded he was a troll. No, no, my friends, this happened after more than a year of the pattern of behavior I described. I never went to ArbCom because Jagz never attacked me personally, until the very end a month or two ago when he called me an asshole on the talk page[42][43](note: I did not originally put in these edit differences becauase I do not care about Jagz personal attacks. I do care about his disruptive effect on the article, and his pushing a racist fringe POV that should be offensive to everyone - it is not about me it is about the article). But why didn't Jagz ever go to ArbCom, for the over a year period in which I responded to his disruptive edits with a simple WP:DNFTT? I have a simple answer: any investigation would have produced the evidence that led other editors to block him. It took long enough, but I am not surprised it eventually happened anyway. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:47, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I think you hit the mark when discussing his disregard for others' opinions. Its hard to reach consensus with someone who just does not care for others' work. Brusegadi (talk) 22:28, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

There is definitely something amiss with this user/account. Jagz used to be a good editor--I myself even gave him a Scouting Barnstar for FA writing once. I wonder if the account is compromised, so I support the indef til more evidence comes forward. — Rlevse • Talk • 17:14, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

He could also be more passionate about Race topics. Brusegadi (talk) 22:28, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that even today Jagz is using his talk page as a soapbox to make personal attacks [44][45] which personnally I find most grievous. I'd like to request an uninvolved pair of eyes to take a look at this and take any appropriate measures, if they feel any are warranted.--Ramdrake (talk) 18:47, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Jagz is already indef blocked. Since there are some good faith questions as to whether this account is still being used by the same person, I think it would be more helpful to leave the talk page unprotected for now. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:54, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Fine, but can somebody keep an eye on it so it doesn't get out of hand? The accusations he made are very serious.--Ramdrake (talk) 19:00, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I am watching the page, but I am not seeing the same attacks as you are, though I understand that since it's not directed at me, it's easier for me to be ambivalent about it. However, turn it around and look at it from a different perspective. How would you feel if you tried to edit an article, and a team of editors jumped on your edits, accused you (unjustly in your mind) of trolling and vandalism, and then complained so persuasively to administrators, that you were blocked for it? Then if you tried to speak up about it at your talkpage, and name the members of the team, they then further escalated, accused you of making personal attacks, and demanded that your talkpage be protected so you couldn't even speak up in your own defense?

My feeling is that if one editor feels that they were blocked by an organized tag team (as Jagz does), then he has the right to speak up about it. If someone doesn't like what he's saying on his talkpage, well, take the page off your watchlist. It's not like he's spewing profanity or disrupting article space. --Elonka 19:18, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

That's fine. In this case, I would like to ask that Jagz be invited to either substantiate his accusations by providing diffs, or if these accusations are unsubstantiated to withdraw them. I believe that's fair. What he's doing still amounts to a personal attack, unless he can prove it.--Ramdrake (talk) 20:50, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I propose that he be indef banned. But as a condition of him not being indef-banned, if he agrees, that the user be assigned to a wiki-project where they will do memos and research for senior editors, and also perform 30 edits for the editors of the project each month. For six months. Thank you. JeanLatore (talk) 21:15, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Elonka, you wrote, "How would you feel if you tried to edit an article, and a team of editors jumped on your edits, accused you (unjustly in your mind) of trolling and vandalism, and then complained so persuasively to administrators, that you were blocked for it?" Implicitly you are saying that Jagz made an edit to the article that was compliant with Wikipedia policy and that provoked this unjustified response. I ask you to provide evidence. Please provide one example in which Jagz made a substantive edit to the article, or any edit to the article that was Wikipedia policy compliant, and which was then jumped on by a "team" of editors who accused him of trolling or vandalism. Note: your evidence would serve your case only if the edit Jagz made to the article were not an example of trolling. Anyway, your claim requires that three conditions be filled: (1) Jagz made an edit to the article itself (2) the edit was not trolling and (3) a team of others accused Jagz of trolling because of this particular edit to the article. Can you provide just one example? you need to back up your accusations with evidence. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:03, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

For now, I must support the indefinite block. As Rlevse points out, Jagz was a good contributor, but his very poor behavior over the past weeks and months makes one suspect that his account has been compromised. I asked Jagz to stop making comments to further escalate and inflame the situation with the other R/I editors, a suggestion he totally ignored, even after being blocked. As noted above, if he cannot resist continuing to attack other editors even while he’s indefinitely blocked, there’s a problem.

I’m also not comfortable with his responses to Elonka’s proposal that he stay away from the other’s talk pages and leave them alone, as well as his total lack of response to her offer of mentorship, his somewhat vague response instead only says that “I will distance myself further from that situation”. Not a very compelling answer. Perhaps what is also needed is a temporary topic ban in addition to the mentorship Elonka has kindly offered, to see how he performs elsewhere on Wikipedia. Dreadstar † 03:13, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

My understanding is that he has already agreed to voluntarily restrict himself from editing race-related articles for the rest of the year, and that that ban would still be in effect. --Elonka 04:23, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

That would be a very good thing indeed. Did that self-imposed restriction include the article's talk pages as well, and has Jagz confirmed this since his indef block and your proposal to him for being unblocked? (I didn't see it on his current talk page, so just making sure) Dreadstar † 04:34, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

My understanding is that yes, his restriction would apply to all race-related articles, their talkpages, and the user talkpages of those editors with whom he was disputing at the race-related articles. I would also be keeping a close eye on him.[46] Certain exceptions that I would allow, would be that he could bring up concerns about the articles or editors at my talkpage (within reason), and in certain other venues. For example, one of the related editors, Cailil, is getting ready to run for RfA, so I think it would be reasonable for Jagz to offer his opinion there if he wanted, as long as he kept his comments civil. --Elonka 22:23, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't get what Elonka is writing. Slrubenstein, a prolific editor on a wide range of articles, is somehow being taken to task for standing up to the trollish behavior of Jagz? And we're spending this much discussion space for Jagz? I really don't get it. By the way, Slr and I have been discussing Jagz for months. He has contributed nothing to this project. Why are we wasting time? Elonka, if you want to mentor an editor, why don't you find one that might be uncivil or annoying, but at least contributes to the growth of this project. Again, why are we wasting our time? OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 04:41, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I'm amazed at Elonka's portrayal of this situation as if Jagz is some sort of innocent lamb who has bee "jumped on" by some nasty wolves. I mean where's the evidence? On his talk page Jagz claims that there are "sinister motives" and claims that Slr and Ramdrake have been out to get him, and Elonka has fallen for this conspiracy theory nonsense hook line and sinker. Indeed the behaviours Jagz attributes to other editors in this comment "Slrubenstein's motive with all his incivilty, name calling, and adding the link "DNFTT" was to goad and provoke me so as to precipitate an event such as this. Mathsci constantly taunted me and went out of his way to disrupt my good faith efforts probably for the same reason but also to keep me from making any progress out of spite. Ramdrake is best described by WP:BAIT" apply to Jagz's behaviour on talk pages to a far greater extent than they do to the editors he vilifies.[47] [48] [49] [50] [51] [52] [53] [54] [55] [56] [57] [58] [59] [60] [61] [62] [63] [64] [65] Jagz does not attribute any motive to these claims except "spite", which begs the question, why does he think these editors are "out to get him", what have they got to be spiteful about?. And why does Elonka believe so passionately that these editors are "out to get" Jagz? Anyone who has followed the discussions of the R&I talk page over the last few months could not possibly, in any seriousness, paint Jagz as a "victim" and Ramdrake, Slr and myself as aggressive monsters out to hound the innocent lamb. That analysis must be borne out of ignorance of the history of the talk page, I can't see any other way to explain it. Furthermore Jagz is complaining that he's the victim of a "kangaroo court" [66] and seems to believe that he was blocked because of his recent comments and actions [67] rather than his ongoing and continual disruptive contributions to talk pages as I list above. Likewise he's complaining that the diffs are all from talk pages and that no evidence is provided of disruption on article mainspace,[68] whereas I could provide ample evidence of such behaviour from Jagz, currently we are specifically discussing his talk page contributions which have been a major concern to editors of these articles for some time. Alun (talk) 06:00, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

FYI here I explain to Jagz what my real motives were in using the WP:DNFTT tag. Slrubenstein | Talk 10:09, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Just because there are multiple editors here saying "Jagz is a troll" and accusing him of "trollish behavior" does not make it true, especially because many of the voices here are editors who were involved in the dispute. Jagz has been an editor on this project since 2005, he has an FA to his name, and before this current indef block, only two 24-hour blocks in his history as an editor. I am not saying that all of his recent behavior was appropriate. There was clearly a dispute, there was clearly harsh language on the part of multiple editors, there was high emotion, and there were attacks leveled from both sides. But I am simply not seeing Jagz as the "menace to Wikipedia" that some of his opponents are trying to claim. Indeed, anytime someone repeats the overused term "trollish behavior" or says "Jagz has contributed nothing to this project", it is increasingly obvious that they are overstating the case. I recommend that everyone review the actual definition of WP:TROLLing. I define it as deliberate attempts to harm the project, and/or to incite other editors to react in a negative manner. I have looked at the diffs provided, I have looked at the contrib histories involved, and I am not seeing a troll. I am seeing embarrassingly uncivil behavior on the part of multiple other editors who should know better than to level the kind of attacks that they have been doing in this thread. A general rule of thumb is, that the more strident the attacks, the less credibility that they probably have. So I would like if everyone here could ratchet things back a bit, and try to get away from this "lynch mob" mentality. Jagz has agreed to move on to other topic areas, he has agreed to mentorship. He has a history of good contributions except for this dispute. I think we should allow him to get back to editing. --Elonka 06:47, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Elonka, it is disingenuous of you to write "Just because there are multiple editors here saying "Jagz is a troll" and accusing him of "trollish behavior" does not make it true" when I posted a lengthy explanation of why I consider Jagz a troll, and Alun provided a long list of edit diff. You are acting in bad faith to imply that we are simply labelling jagz a troll without providing reasons, when just inches above your insinuation, we provide our reasons. No one here is claiming that Jagz is a troll "because we say he is." You are welcome to defend Jagz, and you are welcome to question our reasons, but you should appologize for this disingenuous insuation that we either have no reasons or refuse to provide them when we have many times. 10:16, 15 June 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Slrubenstein (talk • contribs) [69]

I haven't claimed that Jagz has contributed nothing to the project, neither have I repeatedly stated that he's a troll, but his behaviour is extremely disruptive and his talk page comments are often irrelevant and personal. Your claim that "I am seeing embarrassingly uncivil behavior on the part of multiple other editors who should know better than to level the kind of attacks that they have been doing in this thread." seems to be saying that Jagz's behaviour is somehow superior, that only the "multiple other editors" are displaying "embarrassing behaviour". Indeed I can't see any "attacks" on this thread at all. I just don't get it. Your whole argument seems to be that everyone else on this thread is wrong and victimising this poor little innocent, and that only you know the "real" Jagz who is noble and above the pettyness of the rest of us mere mortals. Look again at the diffs I provide and explain the brilliance of these contributions because I can't see it. You want to defend Jagz, fine, do it with evidence, rather than making complaints about other editors who at least do provide evidence of his disruption, as I have done. Also You could provide some diffs to show that your claims that other editors (me, Slr, Ramdrake, Mathsci, Dreadstar, Brusegadi etc.) are worse that this "honourable" person Jagz, and that we have been "hounding" him because you provide no evidence of this persecution you claim is ongoing. Alun (talk) 07:09, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Please could Elonka provide diffs to back her analysis? Looking for example at my reasonable and extremely civil question [70] about a sentence inserted by Jagz on biomedicine, his response was evasive and unhelpful. Apart from the opinion piece cited from the Guardian which did not mention biomedicine, Jagz was unable to support his claims. In the subsequent interchange he labelled Slrubenstein an "asshole". In normal circumstances, and this is certainly true of almost all my own edits to mainspace articles, accurate and relevant citations have to be supplied when adding content to main space articles, particularly when it is repeatedly disputed. Are the rules different for Jagz? [71]Mathsci (talk) 08:13, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Above (22:03, 14 June 2008) I asked Elonka to provide us with evidence of just one instance where Jagz made a policy-compliant edit to the the article and as a consequence of that was then jumped on by other editors who accused him of being a troll and vandal. Although she has edited this thread since then, she has not responsed to my request. I am assuming she missed it - otherwise, why would an editor acting in good faith make an accusation against me or others and not provide evidence when asked? - so since she missed my request I am asking again, please provide evidence of one instance. Slrubenstein | Talk 09:44, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd also like to reiterate my question to Elonka: this is the third time (first here and second here) that I have asked for someone to supply diffs to substantiate Jagz' accusations, or that they be dropped as unsubstantiated. Many other editors have asked the same and have provided diffs to show that the charges were unfounded (that it was in fact Jagz who was being disruptive), but User:Elonka keeps bringing up the same issues over and over again without substantiating them. I would like to ask, for the last time, that she either substantiate her charges or drop them as unfounded. It is time this wiki-drama ended. As an admin, she should know better than to do this.--Ramdrake (talk) 12:09, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

If Mastcell doesn't object and Elonka agrees to mentor/watch Jagz, I don't object to his being unblocked. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:10, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, and yes, I promise to keep an eye on him. --Elonka 22:25, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd support unblocking since Elonka has agreed to mentor Jagz--Cailil ^talk 23:14, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Counting the contributions here, there seems to be no consensus, in fact probably the reverse. It might therefore be best to await MastCell's return. In the meantime, can Elonka please tell us which articles she thinks Jagz might work on that are unrelated to the non-scouting edits of 2008? Jagz's contributions to scouting articles on the WP seem to have been excellent, considering that some of the articles to which he made significant contributions became featured articles. In that period the non-scouting articles that he edited were Race and intelligence, Eugenics, Dysgenics, Fringe science, Intelligence quotient, The Bell curve, Snyderman and Rothman (study),‎ Race, Evolution, and Behavior, Neuroscience and intelligence, Craniometry, IQ and Global Inequality, Achievement gap in the United States, Race differences in intelligence, IQ and the Wealth of Nations, Environment and intelligence,‎‎ Arthur Jensen‎, William James Sidis and J. Philippe Rushton. This combination of topics, which goes back much further in time, seems to be that of a WP:SPA. After early March there were very few scouting edits. Has Elonka in fact discussed this with Jagz at any point, on-wiki or off-wiki? Jagz seems to be a valuable editor in one sphere of expertise - scouting - and perhaps a topic ban might therefore be more appropriate and fairer to him. I write this with no feeling of animosity towards Jagz: I question his edits in the articles I have listed above, but recognize that he has made some extremely positive contributions to WP elsewhere. Mathsci (talk) 23:24, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

(Elonka has responded to one of the questions above here and on MastCell's talk page seems to be in favour of a topic ban on Race related topics.) Mathsci (talk) 00:47, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Good point, MathSci. to that I add another. Just a few inches above, three editors - myself, Ramdrake, and Matchsci each respond to different, specific comments Elonka has made, requesting in good faith evidence for claims Elonka has made about the situation. Elonka has yet to respond to these requests. I think she needs to, so we can see what evidence she has been relying on, before reconsidering the indef. block. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:36, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

(reset indent) I'd like to offer a precision which I believe is important to all those not fully acquainted with the whole story: Jagz is in effect a POV-pusher, who tried by several means (including breach of WP:PARENT) to justify his position and gather backing for it. When he saw that consensus both of current editors and of unrelated editors attracted by an RfC on the subject soundly defeated his POV, he turned to being disruptive of the general progression on the article, through various means: repeating the same question over and over, snide remarks, etc. However, some of Jagz' edits, especially on the main article, look like perfectly normal edits (and some of them were - and were accepted). However, his dedication to injecting a misleading presentation of facts in the article is what led to most of his edits being reverted by a variety of editors. As time went by, his behaviour became more and more disruptive.--Ramdrake (talk) 00:08, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

This is getting a bit beyond the scope of this particular ANI thread, which I would like to keep focused on the specific question of, "Can Jagz be unblocked yet?" But since a few of the other involved editors keep asking me for more details about their own behavior, I am taking that to their respective talkpages. I have recently posted to Slrubenstein (talk · contribs) and Ramdrake (talk · contribs). If other editors would like similar details, let me know. --Elonka 06:20, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

The highly offensive allegation of "gang editing", originating from Jagz himself and repeated here by you, is not something that you have been discussing with individual editors on their talk pages. Since you have been uncritical of Jagz's most recent disruptive behaviour (in particular by repeating his baseless allegation), you might not be the best person to act as his mentor (why not User:Moonriddengirl?). Although I strongly support replacing the indefinite block by a topic ban and appointing a mentor, I think that you yourself could now help "de-escalate the situation" by explicitly retracting the accusation of "gang editing". That way everyone concerned can "move on". Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 09:10, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm happy for the topic ban and a lifting of the indef block if others are, Elonka has agreed to mentor Jagz and that's excellent. This is not about "punishing" Jagz after all and he's shown himself to be a good and productive editor in other areas. Cheers. Alun (talk) 06:31, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree in principle. But frankly I do not understand Elonka's offer to mentor Jagz. Does Elonka truly believe Jagz needs mentoring? in what ways? Clearly, she seems to believe that his behavior at talk: Race and Intelligence was not trollish or disruptive. In her response to Ramdrakes questions she provides edit difs. from June, from after his block from R&I. Her response to my query is on MastCell's page, but her response is evasive - I asked her to provide examples of cases where Jagz made reasonable edits and a gang of editors jumped on him accusing him of trollish behavior or vandalism, and she provided examples of edits where Jagz made reasonable edits to the article and no one accused him of trollish behavior or vandalism. That hardly seems to support her claim ... and makes me wonder if she understands what the problem at R&I was. Like I said, it leaves me wondering what she thinks she is going to mentor him in. Slrubenstein | Talk 06:55, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Agreed for mentoring too, but while I don't object formally to Elonka's offer to mentor Jagz, I believe that someone else, less involved at this point, may be better suited to mentor Jagz. I believe that Elonka may be too involved in defending Jagz' actions to have the impartiality that I would expect from a mentor.--Ramdrake (talk) 12:46, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

After reading through and seeing everything listed here, I disagree with an indef block. Also, I have no problem assisting Jagz with issues and am willing to adopt him if he agrees to it. If Elonka seriously wants to work with Jagz, then I'm not opposed to being a co-adopter or mentor. Thanks, Dusti^SPEAK!! 12:54, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Dusti. I have no trouble with co-mentoring, or letting someone else be "official" mentor, either is fine with me. It does look like there is now consensus for unblock, though MastCell, the blocking admin, has not been participating in this thread for the last few days. However he did say at the top of the thread that if "If there's a significant feeling in the community that Jagz should be unblocked, then any admin can feel free to do so." What do other admins think? Has this level been reached? --Elonka 15:12, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

← I was just staying out of it because I was hoping to hear some outside opinions. I know what I think (and what Slrubinstein, Alun, Ramdrake, et al think). I'm not going to stand in the way of an unblock, particularly in the setting of dedicated mentorship, but I would strongly like to see the following conditions attached:

• A complete avoidance of race-related articles for at least 6 months.
• Avoidance and disengagement with opposing editors, including those above. That means no snide remarks, no pursuing the grudge on various admins' talk pages, and no Cheshire cats. I'd like to see (both sides) just move on. Of course, this needs to be a two-way street - no poking Jagz with a stick either - but I view this as an essential condition.

With that said, and with a clear mentorship relationship in place, I'm fine with an unblock. Any admin can perform it, as far as I'm concerned. MastCell ^Talk 16:35, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Agree with MastCell. Dreadstar † 17:03, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I have unblocked Jagz, informed him of the conditions, and given suggestions to him about other areas that he can participate.[72] Thank you to everyone that has participated in the thread, hopefully now we can all move on.  :) --Elonka 17:30, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Topic ban violation

Jagz's recent post about possible edits to Dysgenics on User:Zero g's page is completely contrary to his topic ban.[73] Could Elonka please intervene a.s.a.p.? Otherwise it is clear that MastCell's proposal for an indefinite block will have to be reconsidered. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 15:22, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I took a look at the edit, and don't see a problem. Jagz was suggesting a possible course of action, to another editor who he has worked with in the past. Jagz's ban is to avoid the articles and their talkpages, as well as to avoid interacting with his opponents. Zero g was not one of his opponents. If Jagz wants to engage in a non-controversial conversation with other editors who welcome his comments though, then I don't see a problem with that. --Elonka 15:42, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Jagz is forbidden from getting involved in topics of race and intelligence. What is the point in a topic ban if the editor is allowed to recruit and coaches a proxy editor who does their bidding. No, this must not be allowed to continue. Jehochman ^Talk 15:51, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I see nothing wrong with the edit, just a suggestion on a course of action. I belive the topic ban includes (correct me if I'm wrong) editing and discussion on talk pages of race related articles and any discussion with opponents. This is not a violation of the ban IMO. Dusti^SPEAK!! 15:56, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree he needs to be kept a close eye on, but I also don't see a problem with this edit. I dislike the idea of letting people off the hook for bad behavior because they're being mentored, but as long as this is what we're doing, let's wait to react until he does something actually bad. Friday (talk) 15:59, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

But doesn't counseling another editor on ways to circumvent consensus on a matter where he is subjected to a topic ban strike you as breaking the agreement in spirit, if not in law? Wouldn't this be worth at least a warning?--Ramdrake (talk) 16:06, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Yup, this is not a court of law. We are primarily governed by common sense here.Jehochman ^Talk 16:08, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

As I read it, he's suggesting things for another editor to read. If he starts saying "Now go make this edit.." then I agree we have a problem. Friday (talk) 16:11, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

<ec> NO!!! Guys, let's lay off of his back. He was suggesting something to read! Give the man some room to breathe, if we just template him over every little thing then what is that going to accomplish out of our goals for him that we set above? Stand back, give him room to breathe, and see where he goes. If then he does something stupid, template him. Dusti^SPEAK!! 16:13, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Elonka now seems to have given carte blanche to Jagz to discuss racist-related topics on WP. User:Zero g is a WP:SPA with the same sphere of non-scouting interests as User:Jagz. They are in Elonka's immortal words an "organized tag team". Has she left some kind of warning message on Jagz's talk page? Richard Lynn is exactly the discredited author that has caused problems on Race and intelligence, Eugenics, Dysgenics, etc. Please could administrators pay a little more attention to content rather than form? Mathsci (talk) 16:22, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Granted that Zero g (talk · contribs) is not an extraordinarily active editor, but he has been editing Wikipedia since 2006 and has worked on a variety of articles.[74] I would not classify him as a SPA. --Elonka 16:50, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

And just to bring a precision here, if you re-read the edit by Jagz, he is suggesting that Zero g "try (to create) an article (named) Dysgenics: Genetic Deterioration in Modern Populations" based on Lynn's work. Why would Jagz point Zero g to an otherwise non-existent article? Certainly not to read it.--Ramdrake (talk) 16:27, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I'm starting to wonder about this comment "although I want to avoid discussions.....". Dusti^SPEAK!! 16:29, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the comment is written to look innocuous on the surface. I had to re-read it myself before I grasped what was actually being suggested. It really looks like he's skirting parole violation and he knows he is.--Ramdrake (talk) 16:32, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Ramdrake, Mathsci, Slrubenstein, and Alan/Wobble were all engaged in an active dispute with Jagz. If Jagz posted a comment to one of their pages, that would be a violation of his ban. But a simple mention of a source to someone he was not in dispute with is not a problem. Further, the only reason that this is an issue, is because the opposing editors are watching Jagz like a hawk and ready to scream "foul!" at the slightest provocation. Guys, lay off. See also WP:HARASS. If Jagz does something to damage the project, then bring it up. Otherwise, please move along. --Elonka 16:45, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I do agree with you Elonka, read my post above. Everyone, please let Elonka and I work with Jazz, and lay off of the posts. If something comes up and you feel that a violation has been made, instead of "crying foul!" bring it to either my attention or Elonka's attention. Please and thank you :). Dusti^SPEAK!! 17:37, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

<- Just a comment on this mentoring situation.. It's not reasonable to expect others to not worry about a problem editor just because you claim to be on top of the situation. I don't believe we should try to fix problematic editors- I believe we should merely welcome those who don't need to be fixed. So, your assurances mean nothing to me. If he steps out of line, we should expect he'll get blocked. He's already on his last chance. I don't quite get why an editor or two would attempt to "own" a situation like this anyway - you don't get to single-handedly decide how to handle this guy. Go ahead and try to mentor him if you somehow feel it's a good use of your time, but don't expect others to cut him any slack while you're doing it. Friday (talk) 18:03, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Unlike Ramdrake, Slrubsenstein and Wobble, I am not a regular contributor to the talk page of Race and intelligence, contrary to what has been suggested above. In this particular case, all that might be required is a little more care in redefining the terms of the topic ban, something actually very minor and straightforward. There is no need for wikidrama. (BTW I did not create this section heading.) Mathsci (talk) 18:48, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Please cease this petty string of messages. --Jagz (talk) 19:01, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

You can be assured (I'm talking to all here- especially you Jagz) that if Jagz steps out of line and breaks his topic ban, he will be blocked. That is why Elonka and I are working together. Dusti^SPEAK!! 19:42, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Assuming Jagz wrote the message under his signature, it seems a violation of the non-agression pact. (And, as far as I can recall, I'm not involved with Jagz or his topics before.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:57, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok, this conversation is coming to a close, as nothing else can be said. I'm calling it resolved. Dusti^SPEAK!! 20:11, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I think this was closed early, so I removed the resolved tag, my apologies to Dusti. Now, let's see what the ban was for, if I read it correctly, certain articles, their talk pages, and talk pages of opponents. Now Zero g hardly seems an opponent of Jagz, so how is this a violation? Doesn't look like one to me. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:22, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Zero g is a WP:SPA who edits the same problematic articles as User:Jagz. Jagz is attempting to edit or create an article, from which he would otherwise be banned, by proxy. He has twice placed comments here directly below what Elonka slightly inaccurately has termed his "opponents". He seems to be testing the limits of his ban. There would be no problem if in his first edits he had chosen to add to a new mainspace article, like Caterpillar, Attila the Hun, Girl Guides or Thomas Mann. He chose to make edits against the spirit if not the letter of the ban. But as has been said before, there is no urgency at all here and Jagz might gradually reform. Mathsci (talk) 07:20, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Dysgenics isn't a race article so Jagz didn't violate the topic ban. As far as I can tell Jagz is avoiding the Dysgenics article because Ramdrake recently invited several R&I editors to the article. These editors happened to be the same editors who were incivil toward Jagz on numerous occasions, and in fact, the incivil attitude toward different viewpoints was continued. [75] --Zero g (talk) 14:44, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

If you were familiar with Richard Lynn's work, you'd see that indeed his "dysgenics" hypothesis is very much race-related; however that is much beyond the scope of this ANI. Suffice is to say that in the original topic ban, Dysgenics was indeed considered a race-related article for the purpose of Jagz' topic ban.--Ramdrake (talk) 14:54, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Mentoring gone awry

OK, this mentoring notion started out as misguided, in my view, but unlikely to actually hurt anything. Now, I believe it's actively harmful. We've got Elonka leaving him messages telling him that some crowd of enemies is out to get him, and he should lay low. This is the opposite of good advice. I don't believe for a minute that this kind of "mentoring" can possibly help. So, if he starts acting up again, I hope nobody pays any heed at all to cries of "But, I'm mentoring him!" Play therapist on your own time, people. Here, we're an encyclopedia, and we take steps to minimize disruption. Friday (talk) 20:58, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I wonder if Elonka could explain why a non-administrator is helping her mentor Jagz. Is this really that great an idea? Mathsci (talk) 21:06, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Friday, is it not you who is being disruptive? --Jagz (talk) 21:23, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Having respect for all the good work Elonka has done here, I'd like to point out that it is not the place of mentors to be advocates for users who are misbehaving[76][77]. I understand that she wants to give Jagz some latitude and has warned him for his above comment but it is not the place of any mentor to speak on behalf of their adoptee - the mentor is there to give guidance not to be a defender. I also share Friday's concern about Elonka's use of "battlefield" terminology to describe editors in dispute and disagreement with Jagz. MastCell indef blocked Jagz but he is not Jagz's enemy or opponent. SLR, Alun & Ramdrake are in dispute with Jagz but they are not his enemies. Mathsci and Jagz have had disagreements previously but Mathsci is not Jagz's enemy. And vice versa. Elonka is an experienced and well respected sysop - she should not be referring to editors in a dispute resolution process as "enemies" or "opponents" and I respectfully request she consider refactoring the remark in the above diff.

@Mathschi a non-sysop mentor for Jagz is fine in my view. AFAIK sysops never had a monopoly on Adopting users and from their record I trust Dustihowe‎ to as good a job as they can--Cailil ^talk 22:31, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I've stricken my remarks about use of term opponents - Elonka was not alone in this as she has pointed out on my talk page[78], but my point about "enemies" still stands--User:Cailil16:43, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I think Elonka does need to be more careful in her terminology, but I think she's simply trying to help Jagz.Sumoeagle179 (talk) 22:47, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Just in case I was unclear in my post I do think Elonka is work in the best of faith and is trying to help Jagz and personally I hope the process works. However it needs to be treated as dispute resolution and such wording ("opponents", "enemies", "gangs") wont help this--Cailil ^talk 22:55, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind words Cailil, as far as the reasoning for me to be a mentor with Jagz, I volunteered as someone thought it would be a bad idea for Elonka to do it alone, for some reason. Dusti^SPEAK!! 22:53, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Elonka has so far been highly reluctant to rephrase anything she has said in this discussion, despite the many requests to do so. It seems that she carefully thinks about what the issues are, then writes her posts accordingly. Pleas to refactor have so far come to nothing for that very reason. I have not been involved in the issues discussed here, but I have experience of dealing with Elonka, when she mentored a dispute at Rab concentration camp. My experience was that she was just about the best intentioned admin I have ever come across, and was resolutely impartial throughout. I have highlighted those two words for a reason. She did not, ever, make an effort to familiarise herself with the subject, not did she factor into her thoughts the fact that there was one editor who was alone, without sources, claiming that Rab was a POW camp, whereas a "group" of other editors, backed by every source available, were of the informed view that it was a concentration camp. She was resolutely impartial throughout. Now, I raise this here as it seems to me that the cases are similar. A lone editor against a pack of hungry wolves. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 23:12, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I dont think having Dusti mentor Jagz is a problem. Also, it is not a problem for Jagz to discuss race related stuff on talk pages he was not banned from. Guys, lets be real here, they (Jagz and Zero g) could communicate off wikipedia if they were trying to be sneaky, so the fact that they communicate on wikipedia means that either they have no bad intentions OR they are trying to get a reaction from you. My advice to everyone is to lay off Jagz. He is banned from Race related articles! Stop looking at his contribs and go fix those articles! I have seen you (Ramdrake, Mathsci, Slrubenstein, and Alan/Wobble) work well with other editors on R&I (such as Zero g) so now you should be able to get consensus and finally fix the mess. If you directly run into Jagz while doing the great work I am sure you will do, Dusti and Elonka will be on it in no time. Brusegadi (talk) 02:28, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Latest edit warring by User:RedSpruce

Relevant discussion at

→ the "Footnoted quotes" ArbCom case → an (archived) AE thread about Alansohn

User:RedSpruce has taken WP:OWNership of a series of articles related to McCarthyism and has been involved in extensive edit warring, removing sourced content that has been added to a series of articles, most notably G. David Schine, Elizabeth Bentley‎ and William Remington. In all three of these particular cases, RedSpruce has arbitrarily removed content added by other editors. The pattern is that other editors, including myself have added content and sources, and then RedSpruce has removed it. While it takes at least two to edit war, the pattern here is that of an arsonist who sets new fires after the firefighters have put out the previous one and built a new building in its place; the arsonist then blames the firefighters for causing the problem. This can be best seen by User:RedSpruce's recent edits over the past two weeks, almost two dozen edits, every single one of which has removed sourced content: June 1st) this diff of William Remington‎ (rm repetitious & unnecessary footnote quotes); June 2nd) this diff of G. David Schine‎ (rv); this diff of Elizabeth Bentley‎ (with the classic edit summary of "rv for the usual reasons..."); June 3rd) this diff of William Remington, removing sourced content without bothering to provide an explanation; this diff of Elizabeth Bentley‎ (with an edit summary falsely justifying the removal of content as "rv per RFC (and everyone else)".); this diff of William Remington‎ (again, based on a false claim of "RV per RFC and general consensus"); June 4) this diff of William Remington‎ (again, falsely claiming "RV, per RFC and general consensus"); this diff of G. David Schine‎ (with an edit summary of "RV per general consensus. Editors can look at the history and the discussion if they want to see what the issue is" after deleting content uder discussion at RfC). On June 5, User:RedSpruce swept through all three articles -- Remington, Bentley andf Shine -- again deleting sourced content without explanation or justification, a continuation of the WP:OWNership rights improperly arrogated over these articles. After taking a week-long break following the previous ANI, User:RedSpruce returned, sweeping through all three articles again -- Remington, Bentley and Schine -- using the edit summary of "restoring to better version" as an excuse to remove weeks of work on improving, expanding and adding sources to these three articles. This time around User:RedSpruce added some more arbitrary deletion of content at Joseph McCarthy, and then some WP:wikistalking at Lizzie Borden, deleting content from an article he had never previously edited that User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) has been actively editing. In the span of two weeks, dozens of edits adding sources and sourced content to these three articles has been removed by User:RedSpruce. In no case has RedSpruce indicated why this content violates Wikipedia policy nor has he added content or sources to any of these articles. I and other editors have shown a sincere interest in improving these articles; User:RedSpruce has shown a persistent objective of interfering with any effort to change these articles from what he has decided is appropriate. Administrative intervention to address these issues is sorely needed. Alansohn (talk) 21:10, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Wow, that's a whole lot of really strange, but clearly bad-faith, editing. That's definite edit warring, though to what end, I'm not sure. Might just be an 'I'm right you're not' situation. A block should be issued, as it's clear that he will continue such editing and reversion. ThuranX (talk) 21:35, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe RedSpruces' reversions were worded well, but I will note most of them were reverting extraneous and unnecessary quotes from citations. Edit-warring over such quotes is something Alansohn is currently engaged in an Arbitration over. Neıl 龱 21:47, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

This sounds like a broken record - see Alansohn's last AN/I complaint, which led to no action. Repeating the same complain a week later is one thing, but if you post this yet again without noting that there is an open ArbCom case on this very subject which is close to its conclusion, and which bears remedies and findings which are relevant, then it's going to be hard to view this as anything other than shopping around for a block. MastCell ^Talk 22:03, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

• I might even have agreed with the snide broken record remark if it weren't for the fact that the same user has returned a week later with an additional series of reverts to the same articles, with the best and brightest excuse being that his version is "better", and done so after the evidence-gathering phase of the Arbcom case has been completed. Arbcom has baffingly chosen to ignore the footnoted quotes issue in its entirety and has decided to ignore the ample evidence of previous abusive editing by User:RedSpruce, despite the numerous examples of edit warring and incivility by RedSpruce. All that is needed is one admin who can look at this problem and come up with a solution to stopping sourced material being arbitrarily removed without coming up with rationalizations to enable the abuse -- "I don't believe RedSpruces' reversions were worded well" is an entirely unjustifiable excuse to justify deletion of dozens of edits -- and we might have a solution here. Can anyone here actually deal with this problem? Alansohn (talk) 23:41, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

• Being blunt - Alan, you will find few, if any, editors who believe your habit of lumping extensive quotes into references is appropriate. Nobody is denying they are sourced. You seem to have conveniently overlooked the fact that Redspruce's reversions were only because you had reinserted the unnecessary quotes. Was his edit-warring appropriate? Possibly not, but no more or no less inappropriate than yours was. I have witnessed this from you firsthand before. Neıl 龱 00:54, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

• To be absolutely blunt Neil, I think that there is a rather clear difference between editors adding sourced material to articles and editors who have decided that they will remove sourced material from articles, a distinction that few editors are unable to appreciate. I and other editors have expanded the three articles in question and added sources for statements that had none. In turn, User:RedSpruce has simply taken it upon himself to remove weeks of work. You have simply got to do better than the utterly irresponsible "Was his edit-warring appropriate? Possibly not...". I have offered over a dozen examples of abusive edit warring by User:RedSpruce, and I challenge you to point to a single edit that I (or any other editor) has made to these articles in this period that would remotely meet even your definition of edit warring. User:RedSpruce can be stopped or he can be enabled. Alansohn (talk) 01:48, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I have looked through a few articles and made several reverts. First of all, these quotes provide some essential details and therefore improve the articles. Second, this is an WP:NPA problem. People made good faith work by sourcing the articles with appropriate quotes. The justification of deletions by RedSpruce sounds unconvincing. Simply going through the articles and deleting a good faith work by others is unacceptable.Biophys (talk) 05:01, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I for one hope that Alansohn keeps making these metronomic ANIs. Perhaps they will eventually lead to some admin or admins actually becoming involved and taking a good look at this issue, or even at some subset of it, looking at just the G. David Schine article, for example. The ArbCom has looked into it, but they are clearly going to decide that the issue isn't within their purview. It seems the only remedy they're certain to apply is a restriction on Alansohn for his "uncivil [comments], personal attacks, [and] assumptions of bad faith." That will be a start, but the major issues will be left untouched. Alansohn and his partner-in-edit-warring User: Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) are relentless in their defense of bad edits that they can't justify on any grounds, and boundlessly dishonest and obstructive in their discussions and interactions. RedSpruce (talk) 15:55, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

• In an extremely rare point of agreement, I too would hope that this process would lead to appropriate admin intervention to address RedSpruce's persistent edit warring. Coming from someone whose entire edit history over the past several weeks consists of removing content and sources added to improve articles he believes he WP:OWNs, User:RedSpruce's shrill statement that I and other editors who have improved these articles are "boundlessly dishonest and obstructive in their discussions and interactions" only adds to the mounting evidence of WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA violations. If RedSpruce's comments here and multiple unjustified and arbitrary reversions are intended to be examples of good faith editing, we have a real big problem here. Neil, are you still OK with RedSpruce's actions? Alansohn (talk) 17:33, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

← Again, this argument (footnoted quotes) is the subject of an ArbCom case which is ready to close (there are actually enough votes to close it now). The proposed decision includes findings that Alansohn has repeatedly engaged in "personal attacks, incivility, and assumptions of bad faith", and is to be subject to an editing restriction providing for blocks in the event of "any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith". In that context, taking this content dispute to AN/I repeatedly in an effort to have RedSpruce sanctioned, when ArbCom declined to act on these claims, is forum-shopping. Not mentioning the ongoing ArbCom case dealing with these exact issues is poor form, and sets a trap into which an unwary admin might venture. Reposting essentially the same complaint a week after failing to get the desired response is poor form. The quotes issue is a content dispute. Stop forum-shopping to get RedSpruce blocked and consider the usual means of resolving a content dispute. MastCell ^Talk 17:45, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

• Forum shopping? I did not initiate the RfArb, RedSpruce did. After Arbcom refused to consider the ostebsible subject of footnotes (and RedSApruce has been removing far more than footnoted quotes (as socumented below) and refused to consider RedSpruce's edit warring and repeated incivility, RedSpruce has undertaken a two-week long edit war in which he has repeatedly removed sourced content and references, without any explanation or justifcation other he likes his version better. This is a rather one-sided edit war; I and other editoirs have added sources and other sourced content, while RedSpruce has arbitrarily removed them. The claim that this effort to seek a fair and neutral review of the pattern of abuse by User:RedSpruce is in "bad faith" is completely and entirely unjustifiable. Alansohn (talk) 20:22, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

RedSpruce actual changes vs. "quotes in citations" subterfuge

• I am not sure why "quotes in citations" is always being used as the counter argument. I don't think anyone is actually looking at the edits. RedSpruce was blocked once already for 3RR and a second time for "edit warring" at these very articles, for removing referenced info, and overriding consensus, not for deleting quotes. He is removing info during an active RFD, and using the summary "better version". At this point his deletions have been reversed by three people. Lets look at the articles and see his changes: --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:40, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
• Elizabeth Bentley changes:
  • He removed the name: "William Ludwig Ullmann ref name=coc/ and the source from the list of people she named in testimony
  • He removed the Time magazine reference attached to other names that she gave in her testimony, leaving them unsourced
  • He removed her employer: "Academy of the Sacred Heart, Grand Coteau (1953)" from the infobox and the associated reference.
  • He removed the reference to this sentence: "Her parents were described as straight-laced old family Episcopalian New Englanders." Leaving it unreferenced.
  • He removed the New York Times review of a biography of her: "Galagher, Dorothy. "The Witness: Review of RED SPY QUEEN - A Biography of Elizabeth Bentley. By Kathryn S. Olmsted.", The New York Times, November 3, 2002.
• G. David Schine changes:
  • He removed the names of the children from the infobox: "children = Frederick Berndt Schine (1964-1996)
    Mark Schine (twin of Berndt)
    Vidette Schine Perry
    Kevin Schine
    Axel Schine
    Lance Schine "
  • He removed his role in the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations from the lede: "in his role as the chief consultant to the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations." overriding consensus on talk page, during an active RFC.
  • He removed authorlinks from citations: "|authorlink=Richard Rovere" and reverses the wikification of publishers.
  • He removed the intermediate person: "through newspaper columnist George Sokolsky" in how Schine met Cohn and the associated reference from Time magazine.
  • He removed the citation for "At one point, Cohn was reported to have threatened to "wreck the Army" if his demands were not met." leaving it unreferenced.
  • He removed the marriage date "On October 22, 1957," from the text of the article. And the year from the infobox.
  • He removed "sic" from the incorrect age used by the New York Times in the title "Crash Kills G. David Schine, 69 [sic]".
• William Remington changes
  • He removed "employer =National Resources Planning Board (1940)" from the infobox
  • He removed "salary =$2,000 (1940)
    $10,305 (1948)" from the infobox
  • He changed "parents =Lillian Maude Sutherland (1888-?)
    Frederick C. Remington (1870-1956)" to "parents =Lillian S.
    Frederick C. Remington"
  • He removed the url to the book citations: "url = http://books.google.com/books?id=SgX4AAAACAAJ&dq"
  • He dewikified the publisher in citations
  • He removed a large chunk of the biography on education and birth vs. raised. The article originally stated that he was born in "New Jersey" which was incorrect. He was born in New York and raised in New Jersey, hence a number of references to substantiate the correction ... which were all removed.
  • He removed "His father worked for the Metropolitan Life Insurance Co."
  • He rewikified free standing years.

Alansohn and Richard Arthur Norton have made quite a few valid and worthwhile edits to the articles in question. They have also made a great many bad edits that are deeply damaging to the quality of the article, and which they have never been able to rationally defend. Sometimes when I remove their garbage edits I take the time to filter in the good edits. Other times it just doesn't seem worth the effort, because I know that my time and effor will just be undone by a revert. If and when some action is taken to stop Alansohn/Richard Arthur Norton from making their garbage edits, I would be delighted to replace their worthwhile edits. This is what I advocated with the Annie Lee Moss article, as shown here. RedSpruce (talk) 22:22, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

While I appreciate the acknowledgment that there have been "quite a few valid and worthwhile edits to the articles in question", the question of how one determines which edits meet the "garbage edit" category is left rather unclear. Unfortunately, the flip side is an acknowledgment that edit warring by repeated reverts has been done in arbitrary fashion by User:RedSpruce, tossing out the baby with the bathwater given the supposed difficulty of filtering out the so-called "bad edits". That this acknowledgment comes after the close of an arbitration proceeding in which repeated good faith edits to expand and source these articles were used as an excuse to initiate the litigation only demonstrates the collateral damage caused by this edit warring, especially when those who could have put a prompt end to this refuse to step in to see the clear one-sided nature of this war. Alansohn (talk) 00:12, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

When you say "collateral damage," I'm guessing you mean the restrictions placed against you for being chronically incivil. Judging by your comments here, that restriction will only mean you have to spend a little more time trying to cloak your spite in subtlety. What is more obvious is that you and Richard Arthur Norton have a habit of supporting each other's viewpoints and revisions across an enormous spectrum of articles. On the frequent occasion that you find an editor who disagrees with the form or substance of your edits, you take them to the wall while Richard Norton extends your three reverts until any opposition has been crushed or disabled. It's disappointing that it took a question about the |quote= parameter to enforce a restriction on your contempt for other users, but I hope you will take the time to understand the substance of this message and not the form it takes. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 14:53, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, incivility apparently means anything said by anyone who disagrees with you. A cursory review of your spiteful remarks would show them being far more uncivil than anything I've been accused of. Alansohn (talk) 16:12, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Considering your editing restriction, the rubber-and-glue defense doesn't hold much water. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 17:50, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Considering your history of persistent edit warring and incivility at Cameltoe, Cleavage (breasts) and Whale tail (among many others), I'd say the characterization is fairly accurate. The pattern of continual removal of sourced material in the face of multiple editors disagreeing is a remarkable fit with User:RedSpruce. Alansohn (talk) 19:09, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

• So what are you trying to say here, Alan Cumulus Clouds (talk) 19:17, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

• Cumulus Clouds, calling another editors comments "spite" is not acceptable. In particular, your comment "a little more time trying to cloak your spite in subtlety". Please do not use language like that. Carcharoth (talk) 07:45, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

RedSpruce and blanket reverts

For the record, I've left a note at User talk:RedSpruce asking this editor not to engage in blanket reverts without examining the material that is being reverted and retaining the edits they agree with and discussing the ones they disagree with. See here. Carcharoth (talk) 08:07, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Alansohn blocked

Following a complaint by RedSpruce at WP:AE, User:MBisanz has blocked User:Alansohn for 31 hours for violation of the arbitration committee's remedy. For the record, I disagree with MBisanz's block. Carcharoth (talk) 08:09, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

And per Carcharoth's comments I have extensively elaborated on the block reasoning at [79] MBisanz ^talk 08:28, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

And I've expressed my views there as well. I'm disappointed that people haven't commented further on RedSpruce's edits, or the implicit injustice where someone on one side of a content dispute cannot present a fair case because they are treated more harshly because they are under an arbcom restriction. Preventing editors from making valid points should not be the practical result of arbcom restrictions. Too many people look at the letter and not the spirit of such restrictions. Furthermore, if one side (RedSpruce) incorrectly ("the ArbCom restriction was against Alansohn, not me" - which misses the entire point of what I said) sees the arbcom result as endorsing the problematic parts of their actions, then arbcom have contributed to the problem. Carcharoth (talk) 10:47, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you did express your views there. Why are you re-expressing them here? Hopefully you are just looking for more eyes there? —Wknight94 (talk) 15:00, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

My fingers ran away with me. Sorry. Carcharoth (talk) 17:37, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Map based off copyrighted data

Resolved

 – no copyright violation. --Selket ^Talk 18:23, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Please comment on Statewide opinion polling for the United States presidential election, 2008#Projection based on weighted averages of aggregate statewide polling data and the corresponding thread on the talk page. This map is based off of carefully calculated data on another website, and I worry infringes on copyrights. It may fall under fair use. Is this map a copyright infringement? I know the US supreme court (and all this is based in the US) recently ruled that baseball statistics are not copyrighted; however, this map clearly involves an intricate calculation, unlikely baseball, which is just statistics. The Evil Spartan (talk) 21:05, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Data is not copyrightable in the United States per Feist Publications v. Rural Telephone Service, only presentaion. --Selket ^Talk 21:17, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Baseball doesn't do intricate calculations?  :) Have you ever tried to calculate an Earned run average. On base percentage or WHIP? Corvus cornix_talk 21:43, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

(ec, respond to Selket)Yes, but is a certain very complex algorithm coyprightable? The data itself is not in question. 216.169.164.70 (talk) 21:45, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Algorithms are not copyrightable (though, in some jurisdictions, they may be patentable). A specific implementation of a algorithm, e.g. in the form of computer code, may be copyrightable insofar as it involves creative choices that would not be an inevitable part of any comparable implementation of the same algorithm. To put it simply, you may not copy someone else's code, but you're free to reimplement the same algorithm yourself. Also, there's nothing stopping you from using a computer program that you've legally obtained (at least unless you've signed a restrictive EULA) and publishing the results, even if you're not allowed to copy the program itself. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 00:24, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Abuse of process in Tim Russert article

Tim Russert was a very honored journalist. There was much coverage when he died suddenly, including the whole news program devoted to him and no other news presented. Many important people paid tributes to him.

As a result, many tributes were mentioned in the article. As I suspected, some people have admitted in writing that they have a plot. First split off the tributes to a separate article then kill it by AFD after a few days. This is because there was no concensus to trim the tributes section.

I don't care much one way or another. Probably a well written summary is best. But having an abuse of process to get things deleted when you can't get consensus is a clear abuse of process. There needs to be administrative action.

Administrative action is not to figure out an edit dispute. Administrative action is to prevent abuse of process (wikilawyer tactics by the deletionists).

How about a template saying "This article was created as an way to get some information out of an article. It cannot be deleted by an administrator without re-inserting into the original article" That way, we eliminate a potentially sneaky tactic before it can be abused.

Unfortunately, I expect to be attacked because of my suggestion. Presumptive (talk) 06:07, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Proof (from talk page of Tim Russert tributes: I agree. I think in a couple of days we'll be able to get this deleted. Leaving it for now is probably the best strategy. DJ Clayworth (talk) 03:17, 18 June 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Presumptive (talk • contribs)

If it's deleted, it will be via AFD. Editors will have plenty of chance to support a merge outcome of the AFD (or, for that matter, a keep outcome). I don't see the abuse of process. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 06:10, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Often there is this idea that contributors interested in a certain topic will stop caring about it after it passes from the front pages, and then the content can be quietly removed by those who are opposed to its existence. Personally, I think it's a sneaky tactic that undermines the principles of consensus (a better consensus is one established when broad participation exists; a poorer consensus is one established by a handful of like-minded people when general interest is gone) and notability (if something is notable once, it cannot become non-notable through the passage of time). But the only solution is to be vigilant. An AFD is open now, so please take the opportunity to register your viewpoint there. Everyking (talk) 09:46, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. I would say that pairing back CSD is one place to start, not to mention modifying WP:N to discourage this practice. --Dragon695 (talk) 10:21, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Disagree, to some extent. The problem with notability is that it's an inherently subjective thing--what's notable to you may not be notable to me, etc. As a result, when things are in the news, you end up with a feeling that they're more notable (recentism) than they may actually be. Indeed, WP:N specifically reminds editors to be careful about this. Unfortunately, attempts to determine consensus in high-traffic articles can be swamped by well-intentioned editors who aren't fully familiar with Wikipolicy making arguments based on recentist attitudes not meant to be disruptive or inappropriate, but purely due to not really knowing the requirements for notability. When the subject of an article is in the news, it's going to be hard to identify true notability; once the hubbub dies down, notability will be much more clear.

That said, I'd say that a full article, in this case, is inappropriate based purely on WP:NOT#MEMORIAL; a short listing of the most notable persons to make tribute statements in the main article would be the best option. Either way, this doesn't appear to be an abuse of process to me. Rdfox 76 (talk) 13:28, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

As Everyking said, the place to discuss this as at the AFD discussion. Neıl 龱 13:32, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

A lot of wasted time could be saved if, instead of fighting this memorializing tendency, wikipedia would just set a side a place for it somehow, like in a subpage or something. Then it could be auto-deleted after a suitable interval, say 30 days. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:16, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

If it winds up not-notable, it'll likely be merged back. If it carries on getting published commentary as a noted media phenomenon, it'll stick. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:29, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

My experience (I followed the Steve Irwin article very closely after his death, and have had a few other notable recent deaths on my watchlist at times) is that memorializing in the immediate aftermath is unavoidable, but as Wikipedia has no deadline, it always works itself out eventually.

Those who have been accused of "plotting" to remove the memorializing prose from Tim Russert are guilty mostly of bad phrasing. Instead of saying, "We'll just wait a month and then take the info out when nobody is looking!", they should say, "Well, Wikipedia has no deadline, so let's let it be the way it is for a month or so, and then we'll revisit it and see what seems appropriate at that time." Both sentences essentially mean the same thing, though... --Jaysweet (talk) 14:35, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

But that's not nearly as fun! :) Neıl 龱 14:56, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Please review

Be glad if an experienced vandal-fighting admin or two would review the edits of this vandalism-only account. I've nixxed all the contribs I could find and have deleted a couple of pages, but various things worried me. Ta. --Dweller (talk) 12:22, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Craftier vandal than most I guess, nothing untowards about the block. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:34, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

OK, thanks. --Dweller (talk) 14:52, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Tha Target (talk · contribs)

Report moved here from WP:UAA

• Impersonating a FreeTrack developer for the purpose of editing the FreeTrack and TrackIR pages with the intent to mislead, confirmed by the real The Target.
  • Difficult to confirm as you need to be logged in to see this. giggy _(:O) 10:57, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Sorry, this link shows that a developer by the name of the_target is listed as a programmer on the FreeTrack forums, the other programmer, Kestrel, is myself. We have confirmed amongst ourselves that Tha Target is using a misleading username and does not represent a FreeTrack developer. Kestrel7e7 (talk) 17:54, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
• Suspected to be sockpuppet of 66.182.52.168 involved in prior FreeTrack and TrackIR vandalism. Kestrel7e7 (talk) 04:42, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
  • An IP who decides to finally register an account is hardly a sockpuppet - also, I'm not quite convinced this is a user name issue going on here, given the information available.
    • The edits of 66.182.52.168, for example, this one indicate that they represent the interests of NaturalPoint who are responsible for TrackIR. NaturalPoint see FreeTrack as competition with TrackIR so have motive to impersonate and make misleading edits. The short time between 66.182.52.168 edits and Tha Target's edits and the similarity of the edits (for example this vs this) suggest they represent the same person. Perhaps not sockpuppetry (I don't know whether its the same ip) but a convenient time to register a misleading username before making a controversial edit. Kestrel7e7 (talk) 17:54, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Shereth 13:49, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Repeated attempt to reveal personal information

Could an administrator please remove the thread [80], and protect the page of this blocked editor? He has been warned about this repeatedly but still persists.--Filll (talk | wpc) 16:26, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Eh? isn't this the matter above that just got blanked out at your request? Is the matter resolved or not? I'm confused at what is going on here. ++Lar: t/c 16:39, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. This complaint is unclear to those of us who are not familiar with it's context. Please give more background (including diffs). Also, if you are looking for oversight you need to follow the directions at the top of this page and not post here. --Selket ^Talk 16:41, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I've deleted the user pages, subpages and user talk page of this blocked and banned user. I've protected the user and user talk pages to prevent recreation. Toddst1 (talk) 16:47, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Did you review all the discussion that went beforehand before you did so? However at this time, given that this user reposted some things that (tangentially) revealed information about an editor who does not want that information revealed, after he was expressly counseled in no uncertain terms not to do that, regardless of whether he thought it was warranted or not, without first seeking advice about it, I think this user just does not get it. It's not an honest mistake any more, it's stubbornness. The matter needs addressing in a different manner than he was using. Support the reblank/reprotect. ++Lar: t/c 16:51, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry it came to this. This user seems to want to flout the rules of Wikipedia over and over. They might be stupid and unproductive rules in many cases, and they might need to be changed, but the answer is not to break them over and over and over. --Filll (talk | wpc) 16:57, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

• From what I can see, it was one edit Moulton made, linking to a rename log. He didn't exactly use the name again, and he even seems to have provided the link in some unicode babble, but if you followed the link he provided, you could still see the name in the logs. This does directly contravene what Lar told him not to do, though ironically, Lar did something similar himself earlier. The difference is that Lar hadn't been told explicitly not to do this, and Moulton had. When you are near a cliff edge, you don't skip along looking up at the sky. Carcharoth (talk) 17:13, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Though on closer examination, it seems Filll had more problems with a different section on Moulto's talk page (called "Outing others") where Moulton republished the descriptions of e-mail conversations that had been at User talk:Moulton/Answers, but replaced John Doe with J...D... ie. he refactored it all. One thing I would say about all this, is that people who use their real name off-wiki when talking or e-mailing others about Wikipedia articles and Wikipedia editing, are asking for trouble. You just can't trust everyone to keep things confidential. If you don't want your name to be known on Wikipedia, don't use it off-wiki in such a way that it gets connected to, or can be connected to, your on-wiki activities. Keep things separated as far as possible. Carcharoth (talk) 17:21, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
    • If this is true, that Filll used his real name in e-mail communications, then he self-disclosed. Moulton is under no obligation to keep self-disclosures a secret. --Dragon695 (talk) 17:58, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
      • There's a big difference: Filll has never used his real name onsite. I checked this out under similar circumstances long ago: the Foundation privacy policy still applies. Durova^Charge! 18:17, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Wait a minute. The discussions on User_talk:Moulton are relevant to an ongoing RfC ("Intelligent design"), and some of the evidence at the RfC is now redlinked. Shouldn't the page be oversighted instead? Gnixon (talk) 17:37, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree. There was no need to delete all 759 edits. Some of the discussion there is relevant to things being discussed elsewhere. We don't simply delete all of a talk page because the user is indefinitely blocked or because a recent edit is problematic. Carcharoth (talk) 17:44, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Speedy Undelete those pages at once Toddst1. There are important conversations going on and you have no grounds to do this. I think it is Filll who does not get it. --Dragon695 (talk) 17:53, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Dragon, please calm down. We have five separate actions by Moulton which violate the policy on harassment. Just an hour after Lar gave him very comprehensive advice regarding the issue, Moulton was back at it again. Saying "it is Filll who does not get it" really makes me wonder. Guettarda (talk) 18:07, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

From the look of what Lar wrote it would appear that he is talking about Moulton and not Filll. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 18:38, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Umm..yeah. What I was trying to say was that Dragon seems to have the wrong person in his sights. Filll isn't at fault here, Moulton is. Lar advised Moulton to err on the side of caution when talking about people's real names. Moulton's response was to switch from real names to initials. Not very clueful. Guettarda (talk) 18:56, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Just for context, there had been personal info in this user's subpages discussed recently here, which is why I went ahead and deleted this indefinitely blocked user's files.

I'll be glad to reverse anything I've done, but this is a pretty complex issue and I'm not sure restoring all those files are the right answer. We've got to balance protecting privacy, a highly disruptive editor and the ongoing needs of the discussion. Can someone clue me in to which files should be restored? Is it just the talk or is it the archives as well? Then we can look to see if there is personal info there.

Rather than throw the baby out with the bathwater, I've restored most of the previous edits. If reversion is required, then please do so. Toddst1 (talk) 18:30, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Alternatively if another admin has more context than me here, please go ahead and restore the appropriate files. No ego at stake here for me (at least in this case 8-). Toddst1 (talk) 18:23, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

The privacy issue takes priority. Resolving that in a way that intrudes minimally on other matters is fine, as long as the privacy is adequately addressed. Durova^Charge! 18:39, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

As was politely pointed out to me, I resotred a bit too much. I think/hope I got it right this time. Please AGF on my part here. There were several other files in user space and user talk space that have been deleted. I assume it's only User talk:Moulton that is required at this point. If I don't have it right, then I think I should step aside from this issue at this point.

Oh - and yes, I agree whole-heartedly that we should err on the side of protecting privacy here. Toddst1 (talk) 18:48, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

If someone accidentally reveals his actual name in emailing someone or in posting on IRC, that does not constitute a license to repeat that information on Wikipedia. One anti-Wikipedia site talked about the real name of an editor which had somehow popped up in an IRC posting, due to the software attaching his name and institutional affiliation. I have avoided IRC for that reason, not being sure what personal info would be revealed in a posting. I once emailed Wikipedia with an oversight request, after creating an email account which did not attach my real name. I was surprised to find that the software tried to pick up my other (real name) email account rather than the account specifically attached to Wikipedia. Another type of accident would be if one did a copy and paste in a posting, and the software on the PC pasted the wrong text, something previously copied which included personal contact info (thank God for "Show preview"). But these or other accidents should not be cited as a license for someone to maliciously reveal personal information which the editor has not intentionally posted on Wikipedia. Edison (talk) 17:21, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I would agree with that. Inadvertant disclosure doesn't count as deliberate. But where is the line? If I suddenly took my real name off my user page now, does everyone have to now keep it secret? Maybe. What if I write people (WP users, say) notes signed with my real name? Just one note? Probably was a slip. Scads? Probably not. What if I write people that have little or nothing to do with WP and sign my real name, and say I'm writing as user so and so... when exactly do I waive my privacy right? Can I take back a previous disclosure without abandoning my old ID and starting over? I think there's something underlying this matter that may not be exactly clear without further analysis. ++Lar: t/c 16:26, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Very much so, and I explicitly asked ArbCom for a decision a year ago on the question of retracting a voluntary onsite disclosure. They declined to make a decision. What is clear is that if a person has disclosed his or her identity offsite and only offsite, then it violates Foundation privacy policy for anyone else to use it onsite. Durova^Charge! 20:48, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Just a clarification. Moulton is not, and never has been, banned. Viridae^Talk 11:06, 18 June 2008 (UTC)