Misplaced Pages

If you look at the face of it it's fairly clear what happened. I don't think anyone is making such a simplistic statement blaming it on only Cabals, but the current block is somewhat tainted, IMHO, based on what I read in the block discussion. I don't know the blocked editor, so have no personal opinion of him one way or the other, I just think it's a shame to leave such a prolific content contributor blocked. Burpelson AFB (talk) 00:59, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

• Support lifting the ban, although making the un-ban provisional/conditional may not be a bad idea. I have taken a look at the original AN/I thread where the ban was imposed. The number of users who cast !votes was relatively small and a significant proportion of them were EEML-related users. There was a valid misconduct case with respect to the banned editor, but it does look like the discussion was tainted. Nsk92 (talk) 14:07, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose, unless it is replaced with a Baltic topic ban. Petri Krohn has a track record of rather nasty POV pushing in this topic area, as documented here and here, which is apparently driven by an extreme political agenda as documented here. You only need to Google his name together with the word "viro" (which is Finnish for Estonia) to see that he and his political organisation still maintain and promote this strident anti-Estonian sentiment that all Estonians are "Holocaust denying fascist glorifiers of Nazism". The fear is that he will again attempt to push this fringe POV in the Baltic topic space and target any editor he identifies as being Estonian. Given that he doesn't appear to understand that his combative approach in regard to the Baltics is grossly offensive to most editors from that region, and in fact seems to believe he is an innocent victim of evil cabalz, his return without such an topic ban may result in more battleground drama. --Martin (talk) 17:46, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose with caveat per Martin. Petri's ban was lifted for EEML participation which he used simply to rehash his political position. Petri is a member of SAFKA, an openly virulently anti-Estonian Finnish-based activist group which regularly accuses Estonia of fascism in the extreme. I have long acknowledged Petri's positive contributions on other topics. Petri was on ban before EEML existed, there is nothing "tainted" regarding portrayals of his prior editorial conduct.  PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ►talk  16:11, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
• Comment Please note that User:Martintg and User:Vecrumba have both been sanctioned by the committee under the WP:EEML case (Misplaced Pages:EEML#Vecrumba_topic_banned and Misplaced Pages:EEML#Martintg_topic_banned). Their participation here is completely inappropriate given that this is exactly the type of behaviour that the Arbcom wants editors to refrain from engaging in, and dare I say it, their participation here could well be in violation of the sanctions they have been placed under. Would someone who is not involved in EEML care to look into that? --Russavia 17:47, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Indeed, their topic bans cover "all process discussions" about Eastern European article topics; both their comments above clearly fall under that rule. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:57, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
    • I respectfully disagree. The topic ban imposed is explicitly specific to EE articles, as the wording suggests: "articles about Eastern Europe, their associated talk pages, and any process discussion about same". Engaging in a discussion about another editor is not the same as engaging in a process discussion (e.g. AfDs) about an article, this is plain common sense. The fact that the committee also made an additional explicit restriction in regard to the discussion of one individual editor here, indicates that they understand the difference between discussing an article and discussing an editor. There is no restriction in discussing Petri Krohn. If you disagree please seek clarification and/or an amendment with the ArbCom. --Martin (talk) 18:57, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose Petri Krohn was blocked for making threats. See this archived thread, and the one after it. Cardamon (talk) 01:50, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
• Support with caveat As with myself, Petri was a target of the WP:EEML - the email archive (freely available online) is full of emails between EEML members with tactics and the like on how to off content opponents such as Petri, and the thread linked to by Cardamon is but one example of gang tactics by the EEML. In Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern_European_mailing_list/Evidence/Russavia#Response_to_denial_by_Piotrus I make note of "In "20090424-1635- GFDL", Biruitoral claims, blazenly, that any accusations that they make against myself, even if knowingly false, would only help the team." The same holds true towards Petri - he didn't make any threats - he simply pointed out that people who push some points of view could be banned from entering Russia - it is a fact, except it was totally blown out of proportion, and in no small part due to the EEML web brigadiers. Misplaced Pages is full of editors who have a bias - hell, the EEML was set up specifically to push an anti-Russian bias on Misplaced Pages, and to off editors who opposed them. My experience with Petri is that although some information he introduces into article does not conform to the view of the world held by several nationalist governments, his edits are sourced to reliable sources. This is where people such as Martintg and Vecrumba have to realise that points of view which do not conform to their own point of view are allowed on Misplaced Pages. Or are those two editors arguing that editors with an agenda should be banned from Misplaced Pages? Vecrumba, especially, should be careful how he answers this, as his own agenda is well known, and by looking at his website, he too is promoting fringe views which equate communism with nazism. Back to Petri, I would support his unbanning with the caveat that he try to refrain from editing articles where he has a direct conflict of interest, meaning those articles relating to organisations he is involved with, and the people of those organisations - any edits he wishes to make to such articles should be discussed on the talk page first, as per normal COI procedure. --Russavia 02:16, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
• Support unblock since he was a productive contributor. If there are any concerns, it could be replaced by a topic ban on EE subjects or Baltics-related subjects. This is not to dispute his block.Biophys (talk) 04:55, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

• Support unblock. Krohn's ban was not genuine community decision, but result of harassment and block-shopping by secret mailing list group (EEML case). DonaldDuck (talk) 05:44, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Umm, it was uninvolved User:Roux who initiated the ban discussion against Petri Krohn, after Petri made his threat in a thread initiated by User:Offliner, so the claim of "harassment and block-shopping by secret mailing list group" is a bit far fetched. --Martin (talk) 10:56, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

• Note, one of the principles to come out of the WP:CAMERA case was that some Misplaced Pages editors may be working to advance the agenda of various external groups, rather than in adherence with the purposes of the project, SAFKA is one such external group who has a prominent member who has edited Baltic related topics in accord with the group's viewpoint and agenda, rather than adhere to the project's pillar of WP:NPOV. Thus in a sense any edit related to the Baltics would in fact involve a conflict of interest. --Martin (talk) 10:56, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

False information on Gregorian and Julian calendars

62.31.226.77 insists upon inserting an incorrect procedure, based on original research, for converting between the Gregorian and Julian calendars into Gregorian calendar. The error is shown at Talk:Gregorian calendar#Novel conversion procedure. Jc3s5h (talk) 20:28, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

This series of edits have extended to Julian calendar, with statements indicating that the USSR adopted the religious New Calendar despite the fact that the USSR changed calendars in 1919, four years before the New Calendar was created. Jc3s5h (talk) 22:43, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

After what period of administrator inaction may an issue be taken to arbitration? Jc3s5h (talk) 22:48, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

The above claim is false.

62.31.226.77 (talk) 23:28, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Have patience, I think going to ArbCom would be using a sledgehammer to crack a nut. I think it would help if you explained how the IP is being disruptive in more detail, provided more diffs. You're assuming that admins will understand this content dispute and side with you. Fences&Windows 23:52, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

In several edits including this one to Gregorian calendar 62.31.226.77 (who also edits as 156.61.160.1) added a method to find the difference in dates between the Julian and Gregorian calendar. It is well know that the rule is that centurial years (ending in 00) are always Julian leap years, but not Gregorian leap years unless they are also evenly divisible by 400. The years 1200 and 2800 are leap years under both systems, so the difference should not increase in those years. When 62.31.226.77's procedure is followed (and all divisions are integer divisions, remainders are dropped), the results are:

For 1199 and 1200:

((1199 + 300) / 100) * 7 / 9 - 4 = 6

((1200 + 300) / 100) * 7 / 9 - 4 = 7

so the difference increases, which is wrong.

Similarly, for 2799 and 2800:

((2799 + 300) / 100) * 7 / 9 - 4 = 19

((2799 + 300) / 100) * 7 / 9 - 4 = 19

As for the Julian calendar, 62.31.226.77 made a series of edits in which he mixed up the meanings of civil and religious calendars, and indicated countries adopted a religious calendar, the New Calendar, when that is plainly impossible. The most recent pair of such edit is here.

He/she changed

The Julian calendar remained in use into the 20th century in some countries as a civil calendar, but it has generally been replaced by the Gregorian calendar introduced by Pope Gregory XIII in 1582.

to

The Julian calendar remained in use into the 20th century in some countries as a civil calendar, but thirteen days have been excised to make the date the same as in other countries. This is described as the "New calendar". Research will be needed to establish which leap year model has been adopted (if any), but the civil calendar is identical with the new calendar of fixed holy days in Orthodox countries.

which is nonsense for several reasons, including

• If thirteen days are excised from the Julian calendar, it isn't the Julian calendar anymore.
• Russia retained the Julian calendar into the 20th century, but when the USSR took over, they certainly didn't adopt the New Calendar because it didn't exist until 1923, and the USSR government was hostile to religion.
• Civil calendars don't have holy days, so it is nonsense to say they the civil calendar and New Calendar are identical in this respect. Jc3s5h (talk) 00:56, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I find this arithmetic rather odd:

((1199 + 300) / 100) * 7 / 9 - 4 = 6

When I add 1199 and 300, I get 1499. When I divide that by 100, I get 1.499. Then I multiply that by 7, getting 10.493. Then divide that by 9, getting 1.1658888... (with the "8" repeating). Finally, subtract 4 from that, getting −2.8341111... (with the "1" repeating). How is that equal to 6? Michael Hardy (talk) 16:31, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

As state above, "and all divisions are integer divisions, remainders are dropped". 1499/100 = 14. 14 * 7 = 98. 98/9 = 10. 10 - 4 = 6. Integer arithmetic, the floor function, and the ceiling function are all quite common in calendar calculations. Jc3s5h (talk) 16:52, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Legal threat

I interpret the edit summary in this edit to be a legal threat. It states "(Certain individuals have been telling lies about me to the administrators and on talk pages. Be careful what you say as your remarks are disseminated worldwide and libel suits are not unknown.)." Jc3s5h (talk) 11:56, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

A registered user would be indef'd for that comment, which is probably why some editors prefer to remain as IP's, as they can get away with more. An IP is seldom indef'd, but a lengthy block would seem to be called for. Possibly with a fitting comment such as, "Certain individuals have been making legal threats, and lengthy blocks for such threats are well known." ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 12:30, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

It's the same IP address for the last month, safe to say it's static. Say a 6 month block for legal threats? Canterbury Tail talk 20:12, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Blocked for 3 months, and neutral block comment and notice provided. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:50, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Block evasion

The blocked user continues to edit using his other IP address, 156.61.160.1 Jc3s5h (talk) 14:11, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Just blocked that one for 3 months to agree with the original block. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:28, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Cool, was just about to come here and note that the IPs are within spitting distance of each other, geographically. Tarc (talk) 15:30, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

SPI followup

Since the thread above where this was previously discussed was closed:

Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Scalabrineformvp followup

The SPI Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Scalabrineformvp cleared one editor of socking (User:Constitutional1787); for some reason this editor remains indeffed. The SPI concluded that one editor (User:Scalabrineformvp) had created two socks, User:Markweisbrot and User:Kriswarner - an excellent example of naive use of checkuser. What kind of sockmaster previously operating with undisclosed COI creates two aliases using the real names of people associated with the relevant articles (hence raising COI issues), and then uses those socks entirely independently of each other and of the "sockmaster"? It does not take a long look at the edit histories to divine 3 people in the same location. (Given that the accounts have not supported each other in any way, claims of meatpuppetry are so far equally off base - though this would need to be monitored in future.) User:Kriswarner managed to get unblocked, the situation being acknowledged; the other "sock" and supposed "sockmaster" remain blocked. Does anyone feel like, at some convenient time, unblocking these 3 accounts? One exonerated of being a sock by CU, one clearly not a sockmaster, one clearly not a sock and also the author of an OTRS ticket. Anyone? Rd232 00:09, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Very embarassing for Misplaced Pages.  :( Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 02:07, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I would think it more embarassing that someone can get their article cleansed by writing to Wiki OTRS, even though COI and meatpuppetry policies were violated. That would seem to damage Wiki's credibility more than blocking editors who violate policies. There are still outstanding meatpuppetry questions here, but that's for tomorrow. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:32, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

As Sandy states, very embarassing. I don't know the situation details enough to point out which act is the most embarassing only to know that Misplaced Pages is getting a black eye.  :( or x( Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 15:54, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

It seems unwise and uncalled for to block a renowned, international journalist, a regular columnist for The Guardian as well as a contributor to the LA Times and The New York Times, after he's complained via OTRS about the NPOV balance of his BLP here. It is not likely to enhance Misplaced Pages's reputation out there in the real world.

I would think differently if there were a pattern of longstanding abuse; but looking at the edits that the Markweisbrot (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) account has made here, I don't see it. Assuming the IP checked out, it seems he used his RL name and sits in the same building as his colleagues, one of whom also used his RL name.

By all means, hand out all the appropriate warnings about COI and meatpuppeting and all the rest of it ... but let's also remember that we are hardly in a position to claim the moral high ground on neutral BLPs in general, and this one in particular. --JN466 01:00, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

There seems to be a fundamental understanding of Checkuser limitations here; Constitutional1787 may not have been editing from the same IP, but meatpuppetry is meatpuppetry, and they've admitted to that, as well as reverted other editors to add unsourced material to articles. Not to mention that all CUs haven't been run yet. On the other hand, I found it unfortunate that the Weisbrot account was welcomed with no mention of COI issues until I added it. And the fact that he complained to OTRS doesn't make the complaint valid; those articles have largely been edited by CEPR-friendly editors since their inception, providing a strange context for their complaints about the content. We still have Rd232 and JRSP disappearing at a time that Off2riorob and the Brazilian IP took up the same edits. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:19, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Sandy, they are newbies, probably three guys sitting in an office, and the term "meatpuppetry" most likely means nothing to them. --JN466 01:24, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree, and was troubled that editors welcomed them without explaining the COI issues, but the other problem is that this has been going on for a long time, they don't seem repentant, and although they've been editing the articles for a long time, they're still blaming Misplaced Pages for the content. Someone should explain to them that they should add suggestions to talk pages, and we should still get to the bottom of the coordinated editing across all of these articles. Checkuser can't catch everything, and the statements that Constitional1787 is unrelated demonstrate some lack of understanding of CU. The way the OTRS report has been used to censor content is alarming, and sets a bad precedent. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:57, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

1. Sandy, a glance through JRSP's contribs shows that he disappears for a week or more at a time not infrequently . Also, if you're going to repeatedly raise suspicions, then do add him to the SPI. In fact, throw in Jayen466, User:Pohta ce-am pohtit (who AFD'd a Venezuela article of Sandy's); who else? Let's get some fire into this witch-hunt already! No-one who does anything Sandy dislikes shall edit unless approved by checkuser! (Which is infallible, because IPs are burned into our foreheads at birth...)
2. You know perfectly well why I tried to semi-retire - and not editing for a week was quite an achievement for me; I was hoping to avoid it til March. But this OTRS mess - including blocking editors from the OTRS ticket-placing organisation as socks, despite this being pretty obviously ridiculous - forced me to start again. The sooner this can be resolved, the sooner I can slip back into semi-retirement and not edit til at least March.
3. Claims that CEPR editors have had a hand in those articles ("this has been going on for a long time, they don't seem repentant, and although they've been editing the articles for a long time, they're still blaming Misplaced Pages for the content.") are without evidence. The only one of the accounts in question to have been around a while (User:Scalabrineformvp, March 2009) has a grand total of 30 mainspace edits. Looking at editor involvement at Mark Weisbrot and CEPR doesn't suggest major IP involvement or undiscovered sock involvement either.
4. "Someone should explain to them that they should add suggestions to talk pages" - Well that's all user:Markweisbrot did - and he's still blocked. User:Kriswarner managed to get unblocked, having agreed that. user:Scalabrineformvp said the same but is still blocked.
5. No evidence of meatpuppetry for User:Constitutional1787. The unblock requests from the Markweisbrot/Kriswarner/Scalabrine CEPR guys do not mention him; User_talk:Kriswarner is pretty clear in only referring to those 3 accounts. Constitutional made 5 edits to Mark Weisbrot before being blocked; those reverts came over 24 hours after Scalabrine's last involvement, so no impact on 3RR. This user was cleared by checkuser, and like all the blocked users mentioned here, has still not even received a block message such that they can properly request an unblock. Rd232 09:06, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I've added block messages to the relevant user talk pages such that they can request unblocking. Rd232 13:56, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Rd232, do you honestly fail to see how attacking, accusatory, assuming bad faith, and disruptive your posts are? Are you going to continue attacking me across multiple noticeboards, are you going to retire, or would you like to stop attacking, start assuming good faith, and actually engage the first step in dispute resolution, which is your or my talk page, without removing my conciliatory posts from your talk page or refusing to discuss with me because you're going on Wikibreak? Your post above is full of bad faith and wasting everyone's time here, and you are misusing noticeboards to air your vendetta against me (although you don't seem to have noticed that no one else is buying your attempts to discredit me). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:51, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I have had substantial support by email from people who understand what you can be like (I find it hard to believe you're *always* like this). The problem is that it would be a full-time job keeping up with your misrepresentations if you ceased repeating them when shown false; but you just repeat them regardless, steamrollering on, making the task beyond human capacity. Rd232 11:38, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

• Something for an admin to do now: I think the most urgent thing here, most appropriate for ANI, is to unblock User:Markweisbrot. I think it is pretty clear he was not involved in any malfeasance, and that it is the real Mark Weisbrot. These diffs, his only genuine edits: and clarify things. I think he now knows his account should only be used by him. If the subject of a BLP is bothered enough by its content to send in an OTRS complaint, we should be very circumspect about blocking him or keeping him blocked.John Z (talk) 04:01, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

• There are still checkusers pending, including another new account continuing the CEPR edits. It is premature to say the CEPR crowd understands what they did wrong, and the representations of some of these blocks (example Constitutional1787) are incorrect. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:46, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

It's getting to the point where it would less of an effort to document posts by Sandy which do not contain misrepresentations. Here, Sandy is referring to User:RegisMordor, who may well be a sock (probably of User:Scalabrineformvp or User:Constitutional1787, both whom remain unjustly blocked), or else someone else at CEPR than the people involved previously; checkuser cannot distinguish that. Either way, the account so far has made 1 (one) talk page comment. The entire gist of the CEPR/COI discussion was that these people (however many there are) should be limiting themselves to talk page comments. Rd232 11:34, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

• We block people as individuals for their actions, not as members of a group, and literary and editing style counts for something in identification. As I said, it is doubtful the Markweisbrot account will ever be used again, but it is important to give him, or any complaining real world blp subject the benefit of the doubt. It is very unlikely that the (co)boss of CEPR is doing anything untoward, he surely has better things to do. Unblock, if there are new edits, ask him nicely if he is MW, this is probably confirmable already by people with the tools, given the OTRS email. The damage to wikipedia of continued blocking is much greater than the microscopic probability of misuse of this account.John Z (talk) 16:14, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

• But Kriswarner's recent post at Talk:Center for Economic and Policy Research indicates that she/they/whomever still haven't grasped the situation ... hopefully my post there will illuminate. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:18, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't think your implications of meatpuppetry and nonunderstanding are true. And as I just said to UnitAnode at Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Scalabrineformvp, "Meatpuppetry is the recruitment of editors as proxies to sway consensus" - a point you quote yourself. Yet no evidence whatsoever has been provided that these accounts have interacted in ways that amount to supporting each other. I've looked into the edit histories and seen none, with the sole exception of 1 (one) occasion at Mark Weisbrot, an occasion which suggests that User:Constitutional1787 is actually a sock of user:Scalabrineformvp, unlike the other two accounts. Ironically, checkuser said no to Constitutional being a sock; maybe whoever did that could confirm how strong that conclusion was; on that one occasion, Scalabrine/Constitutional edited one hour apart. Rd232 09:42, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

This discussion has long since descended into the sort of petty bickering characteristic of every other discussion involving this particular set of users. In the interest of making progress, I have a few simple requests. Sandy, your COI and meatpuppet concerns seem easy to address with a warning, so please provide diffs showing why each of the following should not be unblocked. I'm not looking for a rehash of your arguments going into the SPI or any recitation of policy. I just want to know what exactly you think they have done (especially since the SPI, but not exclusively) that makes you think unblocking these accounts would harm or potentially harm the project:

• User:Scalabrineformvp
• User:Markweisbrot
• User:Constitutional1787

RD232, please let me know if there are any editors I have missed on this very narrow issue of people blocked during this mess. Both of you, please do me the favour of not responding to the other's comments until I've had a chance to do so. You antagonize each other, seemingly, without effort, and I don't want to get sidetracked in another argument. -Rrius (talk) 02:28, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

User:Simon-in-sagamihara blocked for disruptive CSD tagging - comments welcome

Simon-in-sagamihara (talk · contribs) has a history of making poor CSD taggings. Numerous editors have spoken to him about it, and he's showed little to no interest in improving his work. See various sections here, here and here (sorry if these overlap a bit - Simon's habit of archiving talkpage discussions to "/dev/null", i.e. removing them without archiving, makes it rather difficult), and in general the history of his talk page.

Earlier this month I gave him this notice, which suggested that he take some time to look of the CSD criteria before doing more tagging; I also offered to help 'mentor' him in CSD work. He removed it without response.

More recently, he was given this warning by PanchoS (talk · contribs); his initial reply was "Generic reply", followed later by this clear indication that he still saw no problem: "Some other guy gets butthurt because his article got tagged as spam and spergs out, whatever". I warned him that if he continued with inappropriate taggings I'd block him (having also reminded him of my mentoring offer). He made no direct response to that, but said he'd start using the article incubator (sorry, I can't find that diff right now).

Today, he began speedy tagging again - including A7s on several comedians with claims of importance. Most striking is this one, containing the sentence "He has also gained international recognition through winning Best International Show at the New Zealand Comedy Festival". Given the multiple editors' attempts to persuade him to stop bad CSD taggings and his repeated failure to respond positively, I have blocked him for 24 hours. It's my hope that he'll take this time to reflect on how he can improve his CSD work: because he does have a lot of good taggings in his history but all these bad ones are becoming disruptive. Any comments on the block are welcome (I'll be going offline for the evening quite soon, so if my block is deemed bad feel free to reverse it without waiting for my input). Olaf Davis (talk) 16:50, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Good block, I endorse it entirely. I've declined a few of his speedies myself, I think - while he seems well-intentioned, he does tend to be quite inaccurate and it's clear from his responses to previous warnings that he doesn't really acknowledge the problem. Hopefully he will take this opportunity to review his behaviour and correct the problem. ~ mazca 17:43, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I have also declined several speedy deletions by this editor and have put messages on his talk page, which he has blanked with no response. He is of course, entitled to blank talk page msgs when he as read them, and they remain in the history, but I could wish for some indication that he understood that such careless use of speedy tags is a problem, and can violate WP:BITE. DES 17:54, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I think this is excessive. The taggings are poor and the failure to take criticism on board worse. However, no warning was given of the block. Also, given this is a first block, would not a one hour shot "across the bows" have sufficed - increase duration if he fails to take heed?--Scott Mac (Doc) 18:54, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Scott - Olaf gave him a clear warning, which is linked in Olaf's opening post in this thread. DuncanHill (talk) 18:57, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

OK, I jumped to his talk page and missed that. I've posted to the user's talk indicating that what we need is an indication he "gets it" and will discuss and learn before resuming tagging. The bottom line is that if he gets the message, then we can unblock him now, if he doesn't then he's liable to wind up blocked for a lot longer than 24 hours. The timescale is probably irrelevant - we just need him to understand.--Scott Mac (Doc) 19:01, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. I'll certainly consider your comment about warning shots in similar situations in future, though. Olaf Davis (talk) 09:10, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Not sure if the admins in this case are aware, the term "sperging," which this editor uses liberally, does not mean 'whining' or 'griping' (or anything to do with brewing beer, but specifically means 'behaving like someone with Aspergers syndrome", and relates to a belief that people with Aspergers syndrome are excessively concerned with attention to detail. I fail to see why this is any different to describing someone in offensive racial or sexual terms, something for which a block is often forthcoming. Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:51, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Here is a fairly full list of diffs bearing on this matter. DES 21:51, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Allegations of personal attacks

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Simon-in-sagamihara&diff=next&oldid=319549260-

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Simon-in-sagamihara&diff=next&oldid=326462719

Warnings on WP:NPA

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Simon-in-sagamihara&diff=next&oldid=329840234

Complaints about improper speedy tagging

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Simon-in-sagamihara&diff=next&oldid=333253080

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Simon-in-sagamihara&diff=next&oldid=342619742

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Simon-in-sagamihara&diff=next&oldid=342636926

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Simon-in-sagamihara&diff=next&oldid=342650693

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Simon-in-sagamihara&diff=next&oldid=342741787

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Simon-in-sagamihara&diff=next&oldid=342839803

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Simon-in-sagamihara&diff=next&oldid=342899203

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Simon-in-sagamihara&diff=next&oldid=342901950

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Simon-in-sagamihara&diff=next&oldid=342903074

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Simon-in-sagamihara&diff=next&oldid=343030312

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Simon-in-sagamihara&diff=next&oldid=343059509

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Simon-in-sagamihara&diff=next&oldid=343112101

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Simon-in-sagamihara&diff=next&oldid=343516191

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Simon-in-sagamihara&diff=next&oldid=343520162

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Simon-in-sagamihara&diff=next&oldid=343521087

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Simon-in-sagamihara&diff=next&oldid=343522562

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Simon-in-sagamihara&diff=next&oldid=343523546

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Simon-in-sagamihara&diff=next&oldid=343531676

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Simon-in-sagamihara&diff=next&oldid=344182074

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Simon-in-sagamihara&diff=next&oldid=344198267

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Simon-in-sagamihara&diff=next&oldid=344203388

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Simon-in-sagamihara&diff=next&oldid=344204174

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Simon-in-sagamihara&diff=next&oldid=344204477

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Simon-in-sagamihara&diff=next&oldid=344291852

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Simon-in-sagamihara&diff=next&oldid=344341667

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Simon-in-sagamihara&diff=next&oldid=344342744

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Simon-in-sagamihara&diff=next&oldid=344508197

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Simon-in-sagamihara&diff=next&oldid=344818373

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Simon-in-sagamihara&diff=next&oldid=344843456

Complaints about procedure when placing speedy tags

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Simon-in-sagamihara&diff=prev&oldid=342650930

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Simon-in-sagamihara&diff=next&oldid=342656015

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Simon-in-sagamihara&diff=next&oldid=342698287

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Simon-in-sagamihara&diff=next&oldid=342883186

Warnings of accumulated problems with speedy deletion and related issues

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Simon-in-sagamihara&diff=next&oldid=344344364

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Simon-in-sagamihara&diff=next&oldid=344401405

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Simon-in-sagamihara&diff=next&oldid=344402603

Complaints about improper WP:PROD tags

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Simon-in-sagamihara&diff=next&oldid=342650386

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Simon-in-sagamihara&diff=next&oldid=343118462

Inappropriate responses to talk page msgs

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Simon-in-sagamihara&diff=next&oldid=326462799

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Simon-in-sagamihara&diff=next&oldid=329289378-

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Simon-in-sagamihara&diff=next&oldid=330024604

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Simon-in-sagamihara&diff=next&oldid=330235751

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Simon-in-sagamihara&diff=next&oldid=333068363

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Simon-in-sagamihara&diff=next&oldid=342901156

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Simon-in-sagamihara&diff=next&oldid=342902994

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Simon-in-sagamihara&diff=next&oldid=344180791

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Simon-in-sagamihara&diff=next&oldid=344399754

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Simon-in-sagamihara&diff=next&oldid=344401705

Innappropriate msgs to other users

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Cameron_Scott&diff=next&oldid=344197627

This may be worth considering. DES 21:51, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

He's been skating on thin ice for a while now. I noticed his incivility before, but it wasn't quite at block levels. He needs to realise that if he doesn't behave better and be more careful with his speedy tagging, his account will be blocked indefinitely. He's not shown much sign of acknowledging his problems. Fences&Windows 22:57, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I left a civility warning. More admins commenting on his talk page, emphasizing the issues, may help get the point across. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:00, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

He blanked his talk page with the comment "turning over a new leaf". Hopefully his future behavior is consistent with that sentiment and we're done here. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:54, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

That would be very good. DES 02:32, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, let's hope so. Thanks for having the patience to compile that list, DESiegel. Olaf Davis (talk) 09:10, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I have just one comment to add to the above discussion. I totally disagree with the suggestion that Olaf's action was excessive, and that a token one hour block as a shot over the bows at first would have been better. Considering the huge number of times this editor had been given friendly advice, the contemptuous way in which he had dismissed such attempts to advise him, the fact that he had explicitly stated that he doesn't care about his errors, I think a 24 hour block was a shot over the bows, and far less than he might have deserved. In fact I think Olaf's handling of the matter has been exemplary: giving very courteous advice and an offer of help, followed by a very courteous warning, together with a repeated offer of help, followed eventually by a quite short block as a further warning. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:33, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback James. As a relatively new admin I listed this here exactly to get comments on whether I was too harsh or too lenient so it's good to hear what people think. Anyway it seems as though we're all agreed in cautious optimism about Simon's intent to reform, so hopefully this won't need to be brought up here again. Cheers all. Olaf Davis (talk) 11:50, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree with James, this was good block. Pcap ping 01:38, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

I've just deleted their userpage as ANOTHER attack page. It had previously been deleted as the same. The version I just deleted was a cunning (not) attempt to use rhyme to circumvent the NPA policy. I will watchlist the page to see if it comes back. GedUK  14:37, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Well spotted, Ged. Olaf Davis (talk) 16:10, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

User CRAustralia (again)

This user has been persistently repeating unacceptable edits in two pages. This involves not only edit warring, but also BLP, NPOV, and copyright infringement. His/her editing was the subject of a report on this noticeboard, as a result of which he/she was blocked for 24 hours. Unfortunately he/she has continued with the same pattern of editing, as can be seen in these edits: . Since BLP issues and copyright are involved, I think it is important for thsi to be dealt with fairly urgently. Copyright of is violated JamesBWatson (talk) 21:30, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

While VOA is not subject to copyright (as it's an agency of the US government), this is clearly an SPA based on contributions. Blocked indef--please review. Blueboy96 21:51, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Copyright or not aside, there is still enough to warrant a block. cheers --Merbabu (talk) 04:42, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Good block YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 05:16, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I see I was wrong about copyright, but the rest stands. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:35, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Question

Hi,

This user that is editing from an IP address, 99.243.109.23, has been vandalizing the Care Bears: Adventures in Care-a-Lot article. I have reverted their edits twice in recent weeks, and another user has as well. I have sent them warnings, and since they vandalize the article on different days, not continuously at the same time, like some vandals, I'm wondering if I'm doing the right thing by sending them a first level warning the first day the vandalize, a second level the next time they vandalize, and a third level warning this time they vandalize. Their user talk page can be found here: 99.243.109.23's talk. Please help me with this issue, it would be appreciated. Abby 96 (talk) 00:04, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

There is nothing to do except have them run afoul again and get blocked. They've only vandalized it twice at the .23 address. Page protection won't work as there isn't a normal amount of vandalism right now. Keep continuing to warn them as they obviously know that they are doing something wrong. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 01:23, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, but since I seem to find the vandalism a while after it's been vandalized, would I still be able to report them? I should be able to get them blocked even if it's a few hours after their vandalism is discovered. Abby 96 (talk) 14:09, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Sure, since they seem to be only vandalizing pages. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 15:19, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Maltese Nobility

Opinions would be appreciated, re. racist comments on talkpage. Ελληνικά όρος ή φράση (talk) 01:08, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Fellow above (User:Notpietru) has been edit warring. No big deal. Reported him to 3rr noticeboard. This was his "defense." "How is reverting edits by rascist editors unjustified.". Speaks for itself.Bali ultimate (talk) 01:17, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Random editor above decided to support an edit by the "racist editor", which was made without consensus. I fail to see how that is justified. S/he also declined to participate in the talkpage discussion, or offer reasons for supporting the deletion. How is that acceptable? What input (if any) has Bali ultimate had on the article in question and in what position are they to dispute what information should be removed, without so much as a nod to established information? Some sort of explanation is only fair. Ελληνικά όρος ή φράση (talk) 01:20, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Admins? Is nobody going to put in an appearance? Assistance/clarification would be appreciated. Ελληνικά όρος ή φράση (talk) 07:49, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, someone please block Notpietru. He's way past 3RR and I can't see anything racist about the part he keeps removing.--Atlan (talk) 11:04, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Notpietru has a history of edit warring and incivilities - including in numerous edit summaries - most particularly under his old name of User:Pietru, where he's been blocked eight times for edit warring, 3RR violations and gross incivilities. This certainly isn't the first time he's accused an editor of racism ,,, , , , of "vandalising" an article edited against his preferences , , , , , , or otherwise has just been uncivil , , , , , , , , .  RGTraynor  11:07, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Looking into it now. I'm sorta familiar with the editor in question... Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:09, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Please involve another admin, considering past dealings with the above editor, I don't think any sort of fair resolution can be achieved. Ελληνικά όρος ή φράση (talk) 12:11, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I've blocked Notpietru for a month. I did so before I saw his protest here, but I wouldn't have heeded it. I am completely "uninvolved" with this editor; all prior dealings we had were in my function as an admin stepping in against his disruptive conduct. The fact that he didn't like these interventions is, well, not unexpected, but irrelevant. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:22, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Uncivil behaviour after warning or is this how things go at Misplaced Pages-land

After repeated warningand not so civil responses in edit summaries Rvcx has continued his uncivil and bad faith behaviour. This requires an indef-ban from all articles and user and talk pages related to Larry Sanger or at the wild, wild west of wikis this behaviour is acceptable from Rvcx. QuackGuru (talk) 01:39, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

At what point does QuackGuru's stalking pass the threshold for WP:harassment? The above links clearly demonstrate intentional violation of WP:DRC, he has a habit of tossing around sockpuppet allegations, and he's certainly one to complain about obnoxious edit summaries. Apparently he's decided I'm an enemy and it's become personal for him. I'd like to get on with editing and move past this silliness. Rvcx (talk) 02:23, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Tothwolf / Theserialcomma / JBsupreme

I stumbled into a multi-way civility incident and am bringing discussion here to a) get it off the least involved users' talk page and b) expose it to other uninvolved administrator review.

Parties are:

• Tothwolf (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Theserialcomma (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• JBsupreme (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

This is my narrative; the parties and others may have different interpretations and are welcome to respond and challenge or clarify.

Tothwolf was the subject of an Arbcom finding and remedy about a month ago regarding uncivil claims and comments:

"1) Tothwolf (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) is subject to an editing restriction for six months. Should Tothwolf make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, Tothwolf may be blocked for the duration specified in the enforcement ruling below."

The current incident started with Theserialcomma removing a wikilink to an old page containing critical comments Tothwolf made in December from the top of Tothwolf's talk page: . Theserialcomma believed that the linked diff was a personal attack on him and other users, and violated civility standards and the edit restriction. Tothwulf disagreed and restored and filed a warning on TSC's talk page . This warning was reverted off Theserialcomma's talk page by TSC apparently using Twinkle and with the edit summary of "identified as vandalism" . Tothwolf placed a slightly different warning - this time, reinterating a prior, standing request for Theserialcomma not to edit on Tothwolf's talk page and threatening to ask ANI for a topic ban. Following this, Theserialcomma filed an Arbitration Enforcement request over the series of events: Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Tothwolf, responded on his talk page , prompting a large response by Tothwolf , which Theserialcomma again removed with Twinkle with the edit summary of "identified as vandalism" .

At this point I warned Theserialcomma that elements of his behavior seemed to me to be baiting and didn't specify how the comment violated the arbitration editing restriction, and commented similarly on the AE request . TSC reinterated the claim that the earlier diff was a violation of the arbcom finding to which I reinterated my concerns about baiting . Uninvolved admin A Stop at Willoughby echoed the baiting concern at AE following which TSC withdrew the filing . Theserialcomma claimed in the withdrawl that they would file the issue on ANI but did not do so at the time.

TSC during this came to my talk page and insisted I was biased and demanded I leave them alone and stop watching their talk page, which I declined to do as I have no COI and am not biased against them. Uninvolved admins do not become conflicted out of enforcing policy by dint of having done so, etc. I have previously blocked TSC for baiting another user, for a period of time which was found to be excessive (reduced from a month, in parity with the baited users' block for their abusive responses, down to 5 days).

Around this time I received email from Tothwolf complaining of TSC harrassing him and his aquaintences via email. I took no action on that.

Fast forwards a bit - JBsupreme now steps onto Theserialcomma's talk page and with this edit claims that Tothwolf is harrassing and stalking him now. TSC agrees. As JBsupreme claimed to be being stalked and harrassed by Tothwolf I compared edit histories, finding the only point of significant overlap to be edits to Comparison of Internet Relay Chat bots . Tothwolf had been editing chat program and IRC related topics with about 40% of his edit history in the last 500 edits; it seemed difficult to sustain a claim of stalking when it was referring to their main article focus area. I advised JBsupreme of that and advised more AGF.

JBsupreme reinterated his position and states that he cannot AGF re Tothwolf anymore , followed by my reinterating , and his re-reinterating .

At this point Theserialcomma commented on JBsupreme's talk page, complaining that I was warning JBsupreme but hadn't sanctioned Tothwolf for his violation from the withdrawn AE case and demanding that I unwatch TSC's talk page. TSC followed with in which they claimed Tothwolf is still emailing them and harrassing them and trying to bait them (and further, ). I asked TSC if I should ask Tothwolf to stop emailing . TSC said yes .

At this point, before I had a chance to make such a request to Tothwolf, Tothwolf commented in the thread on JBsupreme's talk page making critical statements about the thread and both TSC and JBsupreme, including repeating his claim from the email to me that in fact Theserialcomma was email harrassing Tothwolf and Tothwolf's friends in real life, not visa versa. This was reverted off JBsupreme's talk page by JBS who doesn't want to talk to Tothwolf (policy compliant), and then Theserialcomma took Tothwolf's now-reverted comment as yet another arbitration edit restriction violation and asked for enforcement . At this point I determined that the situation is escalating and needs more eyeballs.

I would like to request additional input on the following questions:

1. Was Tothwolf's link that started this ( ) in violation of general Misplaced Pages civility and/or the edit restrictions he is under?
2. Was Theserialcomma's removal appropriate or inappropriate?
3. Were Tothwolf's warnings and edit restrictions reasonable or unreasonable / uncivil?
4. Were Theserialcomma's "vandalism" reverts with TW reasonable or unreasonable / uncivil?
5. Was the Arbitration Enforcement filing reasonable and well founded or unreasonable?
6. Considering all the above, was Tothwolf at that time in violation of his edit restrictions or otherwise acting unreasonably and uncivily?
7. Considering all the above, was Theserialcomma engaged in baiting or other uncivil behavior?
8. Was JBsupreme's claim of harrassment and stalking (wikihounding) appropriate and well founded?
9. Did Tothwolf's final complaint on JBsupreme's talk page violate his edit restriction or otherwise constitute abusive uncivil behavior?
10. Does my history or participation here constitute a conflict of interest or bar under Admin policy or best practice to continuing to act in regards to these users?
11. Finally, would it be appropriate for the community to issue a restraining order on all 3 participants in the form of an edit restriction that they cannot talk to or comment about each other? There's a similar ER in place for Theserialcomma and now-indeffed User:Koalorka - see Misplaced Pages:Editing_restrictions#Placed by the Misplaced Pages community

And finally, questions for the participants:

• Tothwolf

1. Tothwolf, have you sent any email(s) to Theserialcomma in the last month, or are you aware of anyone you are associated with having done so?
2. Tothwolf, are you willing to forward the emails you claim to have received to an uninvolved administrator for review (please DO NOT post them here)?

• Theserialcomma

1. Theserialcomma, have you sent any email(s) to Tothwolf or people he is associated with, in the last month?
2. Theserialcomma, are you willing to forward the emails you claim to have received to an uninvolved administrator for review (please DO NOT post them here)?

My apologies to everyone else for the size of the filing. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:49, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Georgewilliamherbert, yikes mate, that's a heck of a tl;dr (although my reply here will be too). At least I was already familiar with the situation and knew what the diff links were... I can forward you the emails I've sent Theserialcomma if you'd like, although as I mentioned on my talk page they are the "Leave me alone" variety. You may want to re-read the email I sent you though as I didn't claim Theserialcomma had been emailing me directly. As I mentioned, one of the things that has been happening is a number of people I know have been receiving unusual emails which have been attempts to get them to give out any personal information that they might have about me (which won't work; they just contact me and tell me they are receiving suspicious social engineering type emails asking for my personal information). As far as I know, none of the people I know have responded to the emails they've received but there is obviously no way for me to know for certain.

If you are proposing an interaction ban, please also add Miami33139 to the list as well since he is directly involved in the larger issue. I'm not sure an interaction ban will actually resolve the larger issues though, as these three individuals have systematically attempted to harass me to the point where I am unable to edit. My primary editing focus had been in the Computing and Technology subject areas, including online communications and software. As can be seen in their contribution histories, these three individuals did not edit in these subject areas prior to interacting with me and have not made any sort of constructive edits in these subject areas.

For those who are not familiar with the larger issue, I made a statement here and the evidence backing up that statement can he found here, in the collapsed wikitable here (both of these are extremely long and detailed with 100s of diffs), and some simplified material can also be found here.

Unfortunately, due to the case name, the material I presented was apparently thrown out and ignored by the person who wrote the draft decision. The original RFAR working name was "Hounding of Tothwolf" but Manning Bartlett attempted to go with a more neutral name of "Tothwolf" when he moved it from the RFAR stage to an open case. The case name discussion from Manning Bartlett's talk page can be found here. The diff link that Theserialcomma has attempted to remove from my talk page details this and was a reply to the personal attack she made here.

Now, partly due to how long this issue has gone on, I have very much become a "tell it like it is" person when it comes to this issue. As can be seen in the evidence I linked to above, when I claimed something I backed it up with diffs. In the statement I linked to above (written November 2009) I said: "I feel as though I've tried pretty much everything else possible to resolve this situation short of either leaving the project (such as what Ed Fitzgerald did and something I've been considering) or having ArbCom review this issue. I've tried taking this to AN/I without resolution and individual administrators have mostly suggested I collect diffs and document things. I really feel as though the community has failed me and left me out in the cold with no way to defend myself against the harassment from these three individuals. I will admit that dealing with these three editors has at times been rather stressful and at times I've made some comments I wouldn't have likely made otherwise, but by in large I've attempted to deal with each encounter without making things worse."

My feelings on this have not really changed at all. I feel as though the community has left me out in the cold with no way to defend myself from the on-wiki harassment. While I certainly do have the ability to mitigate some of the off-wiki harassment, there seems to be no way for me to put a stop to the on-wiki harassment. Past AN/I discussions did little to resolve the larger harassment issues and unfortunately even an ArbCom case failed to resolve anything (had the EEML case and ArbCom elections not happened in the middle of the case things might have turned out very differently however). The decision the drafting arbitrator wrote (while throwing out all of the evidence I provided) only gave these individuals another tool with which to attack me. While I've unfortunately allowed myself to be baited a handful of times by these individuals, it hasn't happened all that often, and having been in this situation now personally, I have a lot more respect for people who have the patience to deal with issues of online harassment.

I voluntarily stopped editing for awhile in an attempt to mitigate the damage these three individuals were doing to Misplaced Pages. (You can actually correlate the drops in my monthly contributions in these graphs with the evidence I linked to above.) As can be seen in the evidence I linked to above, when I edited, these individuals targeted those pages and attempted to have them deleted. They still wouldn't leave me alone when I stopped editing though, so we are back here yet again. They've continued their attempts to damage my reputation and quite frankly, that is unacceptable. All three of these individuals have attacked me constantly with claims of WP:COI, WP:OWN, and so on but have never provided any diffs to back up their claims and no other editors have echoed such concerns or provided any evidence which would back up such claims.

I'm tired of the harassment. Without going into too much detail due to WP:BEANS, I have in the past contributed to MediaWiki itself and I'm quite familiar with its internals. Because of this, it would be trivial for me to create new accounts which are completely separate from this one (and impossible to link via a CU) and set about editing again without being harassed by these three individuals. I've not done so however, because quite frankly no one should ever have to do such a thing in order to edit without being harassed. With as long as I've been using this particular username (outside of Misplaced Pages), I should not have to give up my username on Misplaced Pages simply because a few individuals wish to harass me and prevent me from improving Misplaced Pages.

--Tothwolf (talk) 06:19, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

just to clarify, i've never emailed or attempted to contact tothwolf or any of his "friends" off-wiki, whether via wikipedia email or otherwise, ever. his claims that i've attempted to contact him or his "friends" off wiki should be carefully scrutinized, considering his specific arbcom admonishment not to make unsubstantiated allegations against other users. if tothwolf has any supposed evidence that his off-wiki-contact allegations are true, he can feel free to submit any such 'evidence' publicly or privately to any admin he wishes. if the evidence he submits does not pass scrutiny, or he avoids submitting any compelling evidence of off-wiki harassment, i would expect him to be blocked for violating his arbcom restrictions by making unsubstantiated allegations. as far as i'm concerned, tothwolf's delusional accusations without evidence should be treated as direct violations of his arbcom restrictions. wikipedia is not therapy, and allowing paranoid/delusional accusations without solid evidence is just enabling and assisting deviant behavior. show the evidence, tothwolf. we are all waiting.

• on the other hand, tothwolf has contacted/harassed/threatened me twice via wiki email since his arbcom restrictions, with both emails having been immediately forwarded to arbcom by me. i never responded to tothwolf's threatening email, obviously, so he doesn't know my email address or IP. any admin interested can get his harassing emails to me forwarded to them. the same admin should also request his evidence of off-wiki contact from me, which doesn't exist. his first email to me is publically documented at ], which resulted in him being blocked. he thought he was outing me as a "woman blogger" or something, and felt so confident that he posted it publically without evidence. he was so completely wrong that i question from which planet he gathered the evidence. he was blocked for this attempted outing, but the fact that he failed so badly to come anywhere near outing me really makes me question his judgment when it comes to gathering evidence and making deductions. no idea what he was thinking, but it's a bizarre and creepy failure of an attempt to out me, regardless. check out tothwolf's backwards outing logic here http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_40#User:Theserialcomma_and_Tucker_Max
• as for my 'vandalism' reverts, i apologize. i will use rollback or twinkle's 'good faith' rollback on my talkpage in the future. i thought it was ok because it was my talk page, but it won't happen again, regardless.
• tothwolf was restricted from making allegations against other users. linking a diff on his talkpage that calls me, miami, and jbsupreme 'harassers, wikistalkers, and gamers of the system' to me feels like unsubstantiated allegations which were rejected by arbcom and resulted in tothwolf being restricted from making these exact allegations. perhaps the fact that he is linking a diff that makes allegations on his talk page, and not making the allegations directly, somehow absolves him from his restrictions. that's up to the community to decide. Theserialcomma (talk) 11:56, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Good grief Theserialcomma, your lies just never seem to stop do they? You know darn good and well what you've done. Your ISP took things seriously when they were notified of your off-wiki actions. I believe they also have a 3 strikes policy and you've already used up two.

The IP address from the email headers that were shown to me match the IP address that attempted to breach my webserver (logs were emailed to ArbCom) which also matched the same IP address/netblock that Theserialcomma edits Misplaced Pages from. I could even point out some of her past IP edits on her "favourite" articles too if need be...

Theserialcomma, you were already told that email is "offsite conduct" and does not fall under AE. Your statement above "his first email to me is publically documented at ], which resulted in him being blocked." is an outright lie. I was not blocked for any sort of email activity, nor was I blocked for "attempted outing". The block that was imposed on my account was also the subject of lengthy email discussions with a number of administrators, the summary of which boils down to the fact that while the block wasn't justifiable under the rationale used, it was short enough that contesting it while it was active would have only created further drama and thus not really be worthwhile contesting.

Theserialcomma, I've never sent you a threatening email; I told you to Leave me alone. You revert of my on-wiki messages and warnings as "vandalism" so warning you via email seems to be the only thing that actually gets your attention. Your twinkle explanation regarding you marking of my edits as "vandalism" also doesn't hold water; you have to select "vandalism" as the reason for your revert.

This is also more than enough evidence of your long term harassment of myself and it is trivially easy for someone to go through your contributions and find that you've done similar things to others for as long as your account has existed. It doesn't even appear that you've ever made any actual constructive edits; you pick fights with others, revert people who you dislike or with whom you don't agree (then report them for edit warring, or on SPI, AN/I, COI/N, etc). Your blog made it quite obvious why you do so...it gives you something dramatic to blog about which will bring in more readers (don't worry; I saved copies of those posts so they won't be lost "accidentally"...)

You also need to stop referring to me as "paranoid", "delusional", "deviant", etc. That is a personal attack. You began attacking me with such statements after Miami33139 began making them. It's also quite obvious that you are not even medically qualified to make such claims; one of the very first things you are taught is: Don't diagnose unless you have a treatment plan.

Theserialcomma, I'll tell you one last time: Leave me the hell alone.

Theserialcomma...you know, given the sheer overwhelming amount of evidence taken directly from your contribution history it's no wonder you, Miami33139, and JBsupreme didn't want any part of the ArbCom case and why you resorted to attacking my person and even others (full discussion) in further attempts to discredit me and damage my reputation.

Now if you'll excuse me, I have better things to do with my time than put up with your abuse. I'd rather be forced watch a marathon of The Jerry Springer Show uncensored than respond to any more of your bogus claims. If someone needs to contact me, I ask that they please send me an email as I do not plan to monitor this AN/I discussion closely.

--Tothwolf (talk) 16:55, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

i'm tired of tothwolf's bullshit accusations about me trying to contact him off wiki. i dont care about him. i have no interest in his personal life, and the allegations that i would care enough to email him or his friends is repugnant. if i've acted abrasively at any point here it's because i'm fed up with tothwolf's completely fabricated accusations. he just makes accusation after accusation, and no one steps in to say "evidence please?" that is his MO. he previously accused me, jbsupreme, and miami of hacking into his email address, his webserver, attempting to ruin his reputation off wiki, and even DDOS attacks], which are a felony. can you accuse people of felonies on wikipedia these days without evidence? where is the police report? cause i'd file one if I got DDOS'd. now i am trying to contact his friends off wiki. there is no other word for this than delusional. no evidence has been presented, just increasing amounts of unsubstantiated lies. tothwolf has to stop making crazy accusations with evidence. he is strongly violating civility guidelines here. we cannot play his game anymore.

• and while ill concede that my actions could appear like baiting, i actually asked him at least 4 times, with multiple posts to the arbcom clerk noticeboard to have tothwolf remove his attacks from his soapbox talk page. the clerks responded that i should take it to ANI. i didn't do so because i'm lazy, instead I removed the attack diffs myself. if that was wrong, i learned my lesson. i won't do that again either. but it wasn't baiting, it was a sincere attempt to get him not to link to a diff on the top of his talk page which calls me a wikistalker and a harasser - without evidence, and in violation of his restrictions. i approached that one wrong, but i admit to my error. but before chastising me for these minor transgressions, keep in mind that i'm fed up with tothwolf's delusional accusations and i want it to stop. even in his response above, he is continuing to try to OUT me. he calls me 'she' which is a reference to his ridiculous outing attempt for which he was blocked ] i have never identified myself as a woman, and i've denied it repeatedly. but he continues to call me 'she' because he is trying to out me as some female blogger. he's wrong, he's speculating as to my identity even after being blocked for this behavior. he is, at best, further inflaming the situation with this outing BS. how can he get away with continuing to make unsubstantiated accusations and outing attempts?

Theserialcomma (talk) 18:12, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Re 1) -- while the content of that diff wasn't terribly civil, linking to it documented the issues that Tothwolf had with the case name, and was not itself uncivil. Hence, 2) the removal was inappropriate. 3) Jumping straight to a level-3 warning may have been a bit iffy, though. Since "topic ban" is a term of art referring to a ban imposed by the community, it was inappropriate for Tothwolf to claim that there was one in place, when it was apparently a simple request not to edit his page. 4) Claiming "vandalism" in this case was inappropriate.

That's all I've gone through so far -- I'm not sure if I'll be able to evaluate the other questions tonight. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:03, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

The reason I went with a "level 3" warning was this was not the first time Theserialcomma had edited my comments and it was not the first time she had removed that specific diff from that section on my talk page. See --Tothwolf (talk) 05:55, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

To answer GWH:

1. It's not clear cut but given the arbitration ruling, it was probably unwise. Linking to accusations against editors, when the restriction from arbcom was: "Should Tothwolf make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, Tothwolf may be blocked for the duration specified in the enforcement ruling below." could be considered a breach of the ruling.
2. Whether the removal was appropriate or not (I would say it was), it shouldn't have been theserialcomma who did it. If he was unhappy with it then he should have raised it elsewhere, and let others deal with it.
3. Tothwolf should have raised it somewhere else rather than template the person he was in conflict with. It is obvious that doing so would only escalate the problem.
4. Likewise, theserialcomma's choosing of the 'vandalism' revert option in twinkle would only further escalate things.
5. The AE request was perhaps reasonable, and should have been followed in the first place rather then go directly into the dispute. It's difficult to judge how bothered people are about something, or whether it's simply furthering a dispute. To my mind it would have been best just to leave it, but I haven't been in a long running dispute and through arbcom, which is obviously going to colour ones view of the matter.
6. Tothwolf shouldn't have carried on the dispute. I'd say this definitely breaches his restrictions.
7. theserialcomma has done nothing in this situation to de-escalate things, but instead every action has made it worse. I think 'baiting' would be an adequate description.
8. JBsupreme's claims do not appear well founded. I agree with GWH's analysis of that.
9. Tothwolf's last reply is full of the same sort of accusations that got him sanctioned in the first place. It is in response to JBsupreme summarily removing stuff from a list, which should at least have been discussed first. Lists do not require every individual entry to be notable and can often be a useful way of presenting information for subjects which are not notable enough for an individual article. In other words, tothwolf was perhaps right to be pissed off, but his response violated his arbcom restriction.
10. I can't see that GWH has done much wrong here.
11. Given all the above, I cannot see any hope that these users will be able to work together at all, so some further restriction is probably warranted. Quantpole (talk) 16:51, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

What makes me think that it was baiting was the deliberate choice to use the ROLLBACK (VANDAL) option in twinkle. That was your decision and the only reason I can think of to do that in this dispute was to annoy the other user. I'm not saying that your only purpose in this dispute were to bait tothwolf, far from it, but some of your actions seemed to be baiting. If what you are saying regarding his accusations are true then that would appear to be a clear breach of the arbcom ruling, and I suggest you take it to AE. Quantpole (talk) 19:37, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

after tothwolf's accused me of DDOS, hacking his webserver, hacking his email, contacting his friends off wiki, libeling him off wiki, and then he continues to try to erroneously out me as a female blogger (he still calls me 'she' when i repeatedly mention i am a dude), it's highly likely that i could have been pushed to making a mistake in terms of which rollback button i pressed on my own talk page. i am frustrated, creeped out, and fed up. so if i came across as baiting, you'll have to keep in mind that he keeps accusing me of bullshit, and so i'm prone to make errors due to losing my patience. his talk page comments weren't 'vandalism', and i should have clicked the other rollback button. my bad. is this really the issue though? how many allegations and outing atempts can someone make against another editor before the accused gets some leeway in their responses. tothwolf is restricted by arbcom for this exact reason. Theserialcomma (talk) 19:53, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Like I said before, if that is all true then I'd think it is up to arbcom to handle. I can understand you doing something in frustration, and I don't think using the rollback is that big a deal, especially since you have apologised for it. The only advice I can give is to try and rise above it. I know it's not easy when you're pissed off but it means things don't get clouded by relatively petty side disputes. Anyway, I think tothwolf's accusations in this thread go way past his restrictions, and should be sent to AE to deal with. Quantpole (talk) 20:35, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Theserialcomma, can you provide diffs for each of the claims you are making above? I can (and have) been providing diffs and links regarding your behaviours towards me. --Tothwolf (talk) 21:05, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

• unsubstantiated allegations, for which you should be blocked indefinitely: | their efforts off-wiki include attempts to damage my reputation. The efforts of one of these individuals to breach the security of my personal webserver to gain access to my email, personal information manager, project holding area, etc did not go unnoticed and their ISP's abuse group was notified and very cooperative. Logs of the DDoS attack. most recently, in this ANI, you accused me of contacting your friends off wiki. where's the evidence? is it in the same evidence database from where you 'discovered' i was a female blogger and keep trying to out me by continually calling me 'she' when i've only said i'm a man? http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_40#User:Theserialcomma_and_Tucker_Max . im not playing your games anymore. i am done with you. go harass someone else with your destructive imagination. Theserialcomma (talk) 21:21, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Some things just never seem to change... (full discussion) (full report) --Tothwolf (talk) 21:27, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Judging by the stuff I've seen here, TSC, the only one who should be blocked indefinitely is you. You need to back off and disengage, right now. You're only digging yourself a hole. Jtrainor (talk) 03:26, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

• Just noting here that ArbCom have received some e-mails about all this since the arbitration case closed. It's complicated and for some part of this, a full understanding of the arbitration case and decision is needed. I believe that various community sanctions were put in place at some point after the case closed. A listing of those community sanctions would help (maybe list them at the case pages?). If further community sanctions are needed, that should be discussed somewhere. If the arbitration case decision and its interpretation needs clarification or amendment, there are pages for that as well (see WP:RFAR and its subpages). I would also note that if people are not happy with the result of the case, they should file an on-wiki appeal with any new evidence, rather than insist they were right all along. I am posting this as an arbitrator, but I won't say more than this, as I'm meant to be inactive on arbitration matters at the moment, but hopefully this will help. Carcharoth (talk) 07:37, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Unitanode block

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Looks like there's been some productive discussion and advice passed about on how to better handle situations such as this in future. See, in particular, the summary by Floquenbeam. Time to move on, I think. –xeno 16:09, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

What's up with this? A block for a 10-hour-old edit? Was the edit against policy? What's up here? Cla68 (talk) 05:51, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Why is there a poll about an article name change running on a user talk page? And why was Unitanode adding a collapse box on that page? - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) 06:13, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I think GoRight should be part of this discussion. I left a note on his page about this. Cla68 (talk) 06:16, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough, I think. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) 06:23, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Given that there's nearly ten hours between the edit and the block, the phrase, "You leave me no choice" from the blocking admin rings a little hollow. I'm really not seeing any rationale for the block, per policy. It smacks of punishment and that is not what the block button is for - Alison 06:17, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I dunno... there seems to have been some sort of edit war going on. I think I'd probably assume good faith about this one because he was pretty clear that he would block the next person to edit war... the time frames are definitely unfortunate though, so the block is probably unjustified. But what's going on with that talk page? - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) 06:20, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Truly a shamefully bad block to a valuable contributor. Wonder why were losing editors? JPatterson (talk) 06:19, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I've unblocked as the block was done too late after the edit was done. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) 06:26, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

• (EC)I'm glad to see that AGF now includes running straight to an admin noticeboard without first discussing with the blocking admin - or does AGF not apply to admins anymore? With regard to the block I noticed GoRight's user page flashing up on my watchlist yesterday with the following series of edit wars over a hat notice that Unitanode applied to a comment from Hipocrite. , , , , http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:GoRight&diff=next&oldid=344807620], which was followed by Hipocrite replacing their comment and complaining about their being censorsed. I left a clear warning that the next person to revert/edit war over the hat would be blocked and the banter between Hipocrite and Unitanode continued until the dust had settled and Unitanode again moved the hat down to collapse Hipocrite's comment . Since we cannot have users warring with other on another user's talk page and I had left a clear warning that the next one got blocked, I really had few options. Edit warring doesn't require 3 reverts and this was both unseemly and disruptive. WTF. How on earth can you unblock without at least discussing with me? Spartaz 06:30, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Because there are concerns about the block. Any admin can reverse any other admins block, it's perfectly acceptable. This doesn't seem to have been the wisest block, given the timeframes since that edit. I'm no fan of Unitanode, but I don't think this was for the best. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) 06:35, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The block was entirely appropriate per the previous warning given by Spartaz to Unitanode. Pcap ping 06:32, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

• The edit was 10 hours old, and violated no policy. You left no warning there about the hab, just something about a "sentence", which I had no damn clue what you were even talking about. It was a pathetically ill-considered block, especially as it sullied a clean block log. Blocks are preventative, not punitive -- or at least they're supposed to be. Scottaka UnitAnode 06:35, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
  • I unblocked you, but you kept on adding a {{hat}} tag to the talk page, which Hipocrite wasn't happy about. I don't really blame him, hiding his comments is hardly going to make anyone happy. And on another editor's talk page? Let that editor do it, seriously! - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) 06:38, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
    • Another editor had perceived what Hipocrite was writing as a personal attack. I looked into it, and agreed. As his commentary there was also VERY off-topic, the collapse was completely appropriate. Scottaka UnitAnode 06:42, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
      • He evidently disagreed. He kept taking it off, and you kept putting it back. How exactly was that a wise move? It didn't exactly help the situation. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) 06:43, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
        • Of course he "disagree", Tbsdy -- he was the one making the personal attacks! And, if I remember right, I think I only RE-added it once. Either way, though, collapsing a personal attack is not against policy, and is, in fact, a good idea. Hipocrite had been asked by the editor to retract it, and refused to do so. Scottaka UnitAnode 06:47, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
          • You were in a heated argument with him, and you did in fact revert him after the hat tag was added. See this edit. As you were involved in an argument, it would have been better to take it here. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) 06:52, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't "heated" at all. My edit summary read, "If GoRight doesn't want it archived, he'll undo it. YOU are not the arbiter here." Hipocrite edit-warred to remove the hat not only reverting me, but also reverting Eraserhead. He was (and remains) the problem. Scottaka UnitAnode 06:55, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

• That's some interesting logic, Unitanode. You hid a comment, then you state that "If GoRight doesn't want it archived, he'll undo it. YOU are not the arbiter here." What made you the arbiter? By your own logic, wouldn't GoRight have removed it? - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) 06:57, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

  GoRight wasn't around. Someone had asked about the personal attacks in that sub-thread. Because GR wasn't around, I dealt with it. Scottaka UnitAnode 07:00, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

  Why were you the one to deal with it? Why were you involved? - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) 07:01, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

• Because Unitanode is a bit of a drama magnet despite his best intentions. But my enjoyment of dramafests is marred here by failing to understand what everyone is going bezerk over--a debate over a debate over whether to edit the name of a page? Come on! Speaking of cooling off, why doesn't everyone just leave it alone for a few hours?--~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Milowent (talk • contribs)

• He's upset because he got blocked. I think that's fair enough that he says a few things - he wasn't able to edit because of the block. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) 07:11, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

No opinion about the block, but there's too much admin immaturity going on here on either side. Tbsdy lives should not have undone a block by another admin without discussing it first with that other admin. That is wheel-warring already. And Spartaz should not have deleted and protected his own talk page in what appears to be a fit of pique (I have undeleted it).  Sandstein  07:16, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. One admin can unblock after another admin, if there is constant unblock/reblock then there is a problem. And it was being discussed here. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) 07:22, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

So let's summarize here.

1. A move poll was made on User:GoRight's talk page.
2. During the discussion, Hipocrite wrote that "I don't sign proposals being used to bludgeon people who disagree with them, but only if those people disagree from one side. Thus, I'm out."
3. This was seen as a personal attack against... someone (who?!)
4. A {{hat}} tag was added to the entire section by Unitanode, which just enraged Hipocrite and there was a minor edit war.
5. Spartaz clearly warned against edit warring and warned of a block for the next one to remove the sentence.
6. Unitanode readded the hat tag.
7. 10 hours later, he got blocked for 24 hours.
8. This was brought up here by Cla.
9. There was some discussion, and I unblocked Unitanode.
10. Unitanode not happy about unblock reason, Spartaz unhappy about unblock
11. Spartaz deletes his user and talk pages
12. Unitanode posts about new lows to Hipocrite's talk page

Just another day of wikidrama? Should we close out this thread now? - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu)

Well, we can either close it up, or we can get a few drinks and sit around to wait on the inevitable Hitler reference. I'd suggest the former. Dayewalker (talk) 07:44, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Hitler was a mean guy. So are a lot of admins. Can we close it now? :) Scottaka UnitAnode 07:47, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I think we can resume building the 'pedia. There are other issues going on, such as the recent dispute over lousy food at the 2010 Winter Olympics. All comments welcome. Cla68 (talk) 07:49, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

First: Why the fuck is TBSDY involving himself with me? I thought he was going to avoid me at all costs? Secondly - I was warned that the next person to edit war over something was going to be blocked. I stopped edit warring over it. The other person did not stop edit warring over it. I don't know why clear and explicit warnings are allowed to be ignored if they get ignored for long enough. Why didn't TBSDY contact the blocking admin before unblocking? How many admin and other various mistakes has TBSDY made since regaining his bits, exactly? Hipocrite (talk) 11:52, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I never said that I'm going to avoid you at all costs. The block against Unitanode was done over 10 hours after the final edit occurred, this was reversed as it was really quite punitive. I think the admins actions subsequent to this act have not been terribly mature, and as a matter of simple justice I hardly think it was fair to have blocked Unitanode in the way he was.

I have made no mistakes. I should have discussed this with the admin. You should not have been canvassing admins, demanding that other editors get blocked. If you were truly concerned, you would have taken this here. This block was being reviewed here, and it was overturned. I was not the only one concerned about the block. Admins should always be willing to have their actions reviewed, and the fact that Spartaz has slapped a {{retired}} tag, and has now protected his talk page hasn't helped this whole situation in the slightest. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) 12:33, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, it certainly was a mistake to unblock so quickly. No matter whether one agrees with the block or not, a reasonable attempt should always be made to contact the blocking admin and give them an opportunity to comment. In this case, you unblocked less than one hour after the original block, only about half an hour after the issue was raised here at ANI, and ten minutes after the blocking admin had become aware of the notification of this discussion. That's most certainly not what Misplaced Pages:BLOCK#Block reviews describes. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:42, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

However... this block was clearly punitive, the edit war has ceased, the editor was blocked for 24 hours and the admin was being canvassed by another party who demanded that they block the editor in question. I fail to see why the editor was blocked in the first place, however if another admin wants to block them, I will protest but take no further action.

Do any other admins believe that my unblock was out of order? Was the original block fair? - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) 12:46, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Right now two admins have said your unblock was inappropriate - none have defended your unblock timing. How many times are you going to jump into things without looking. I went to the admin that said he was going to do something if edit warring continued - not some random canvass. At the time the block was made, the edit war had not ceased. I suspect if I return my perfectly reasonable non-PA comment to the page, the edit war would continue, but I suppose you'd block me for doing that - thus, the only reason there's no edit war is because unlike the blocked editor, I'm not disruptive. Hipocrite (talk) 12:52, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

You did indeed demand that the admin block Unitanode. That admin has now deleted their talk page, so it's a bit hard to see this (and yes, I speedily closed the DRV to avoid the drama, but I'm going to reopen it now). - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) 12:58, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

So now it's undeleted, you wrote that "Normally I don't go whining for people I disagree with to be blocked, but now I am. In fact, I'm insisting on it." Honestly, I just couldn't make this stuff up. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) 14:52, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, "I went to the admin that said he was going to do something if edit warring continued." Now 3 admins have admonished yet another poor administrative action by you. Hipocrite (talk) 13:26, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

It was wrong that I didn't discuss it with the admin, I will do so in future. I doubt that anyone else is going to block Unitanode. As I asked admins to comment, I look forward to the input of other admins. Incidentally, if someone did this to you in the same circumstances I would have no hesitation in unblocking you. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) 13:32, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Tbsdy should've discussed the unblock with the blocking admin first, otherwise it's basically the definition of wheel-warring. There's no way around that; it doesn't matter whether the original block was warranted or not -- I don't have any real position on that -- but it still should've been discussed first. I'm glad to see that Tbsdy did "something nice" for Unitanode though. This could mean progress of sorts. Equazcion 13:07, 19 Feb 2010 (UTC)

I disagree, this is not a wheel war. Next time I will definitely discuss further with the admin, however the more I looked at the block the more egregious it seemed to me and I didn't see any reason why it was done after 10 hours after the edit in question. By this time Unitanode had been doing some very productive editing, and the block seemed quite punitive and it was being discussed here, so I saw no issue with reversing it. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) 13:10, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Guys, WP:WHEEL is not when an admin undoes an admin action, the wheel war starts when the undoing is reversed with admin tools. It was an unproper unblock, but not a wheel war. Spartaz did very well in not reinstating the block.

@Tbsdy, please discuss unblocks first with the blocking admin, and let them time to respond and for other people to comment. It doesn't matter that you thought that it was a bad block, you were still supposed to discuss it first. --Enric Naval (talk) 13:58, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

P.D.: And, Tbsdy, do not speedily close DRV discussions when you just had a dispute with the guy whose userpage is in discussion. Next time ask someone else to close the discussion, you just cause more drama than you try to avoid. Seriously, wtf, I endorse LHVU's comment below, specially the part about reviewing yourself more before hitting the admin buttons. Be more careful with those buttons, dammit. --Enric Naval (talk) 14:09, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Take on board the comments about unblocking, but disagree that the speedy close was anything other than trying to stop the drama. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) 14:33, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

• It is difficult to see any good in any of this; an argument on a third parties talkpage, claims of personal attacks, a warning/threat to block as a means of tempering said argument, continued arguing, bad block (per TBSDY, long after the argument had ended), bad unblock (too soon without a good consensus or referral to blocking admin) and poor faith discussion following. Since two wrongs do not make a right, the number of wrongs here defy the potential of there being any resolution that will satisfy even a consensus. I hope Spartaz changes their mind, I hope Tsbdy self reviews more exensively before acting, and I hope that everyone recognises that this came about because all involved believed they were acting in good faith. Then, perhaps, we can move on. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:00, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Definitely, as I said above I will do more to discuss with the blocking admin before unblocking. As for the speedy closure of the DRV - Enric, no idea why you think I was having a dispute, there is no anger from my end and in fact I closed it down because I didn't want them to be deluged with talk page notices; this was to give them some time to calm down and reconsider the decision. I reversed when they protected their page, but they thought better of it later so it was all moot. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) 14:29, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

• • It should be pointed out somewhere that the blocking admin had left the scene of the crime. He was unresponsive to UA's many requests for justification on his talkpage. If an admin is going to block and run, they've got no legitimate complaint when they get overruled. JPatterson (talk) 15:45, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
    • That's hardly true. Spartaz was inactive for a whopping 35 minutes after the block. That's not "running away". There is no obligation for an admin to stay fixed to their watchlist on a per-minute basis after a block. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:49, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
      • It's exactly true. I posted for the first time under his block template within maybe five minutes of the block. Can admins not be bothered to check back at least that long after they sully a previously clear block log? Scottaka UnitAnode 16:11, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Threats of blocking

Sandstein and myself just got threatened with a block by Jehochman. I'm a bit concerned about this. Someone want to comment? - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) 15:25, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Seems premature for ANI - something you guys are still talking about. –xeno 15:34, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Not at all. I won't be happy if either myself or Sandstein get blocked by him. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) 15:36, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I doubt he will issue any ill-considered blocks. –xeno 15:38, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Sure hope not. Neither myself or Sandstein is very impressed we got threatened. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) 15:45, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, no one was much impressed with your actions above, it seems, so maybe you're even. Tan | 39 15:47, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Helpful. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) 15:49, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Good grief, looks like we soon need WP:Lamest admin wars at this rate. Suggest everyone drop their stick and walk home, and resolve their disputes on their talk pages rather than generating a new round of drama on ANI. MLauba (talk) 15:38, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I would say that if J made such a block, it would be a demonstration of poor judgment. Chillum 15:38, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Nobody is going to be blocked. The users involved have agreed to stop posting to User talk:Spartaz. We need to be very mindful not to do anything that could be perceived as grave dancing. I hope that Spartaz will calm down and return. This tempest in a teacup should end right now. Let the user be. If their talk page needs to be undeleted, there is no rush. Let it sit, and then somebody completely uninvolved take the matter to DRV if there is a compelling reason to undelete it. Otherwise, just leave it be. Jehochman 15:39, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Relevant discussion is at User talk:Sandstein#Stop. I have not agreed to stop anything, though I do not anticipate having to make further edits to his talk page, since Spartaz has undone his deletion and protection, for which I thank him.  Sandstein  15:47, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

No one was coming close to "grave dancing", Jehochman. And Spartaz was misusing his delete and protect buttons, only an hour after he misused his block button. Two fellow admins asking him to stop misusing the delete and protect buttons is not "grave dancing." Scottaka UnitAnode 15:42, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

For God's sake man! For the fourth time - Spartaz protected his talk page, which was a misuse of the tools. He was asked by two admins to reverse the decision or he would be taken to ArbCom because of this. They were the only messages he was given. Nobody was hounding him, and neither Sandstein nor myself appreciate the threatening language or actual threat of being blocked from another admin who clearly doesn't know what was happening here. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) 15:44, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Is there something in the water this morning? I see Unitanode and Spartaz and Tbsdy and Sandstein and Jehochman doing things that all have the effect of making things worse. Please use judgement.

Summary:

• Unitanode's final moving of Hipocrite's comment inside the hat/hab: really poor form, on many levels.
• Spartaz block of Unitanode: I wouldn't have, especially after 10 hours, and unlikely to help anything. Not completely crazy, but not optimal.
• Tbsdy unilateral unblock: I wouldn't have. It was not wheel warring, but good practice says to try to discuss first, and it led to ill will. Tbsdy has acknowledged this.
• Spartaz deleting/protecting his talk: Not really a long term solution, but he's upset, give him some breathing room.
• Sandstein undeletion, and later DRV creation: see above, why the rush, why add fuel to a fire.
• Tbsdy DRV closing: for a move intended to "reduce drama", it backfired. Actually a reasonable decision, but please anticipate arguement when you're involved, and let others do it.
• Jehochman threats of blocking at Sandstein and Tbsdy talk pages: Suggestions work better than threats, and make you look much less pompous.

Please try to edit with your mammal brain instead of your reptile brain. Please try to de-escalate instead of adding fuel. Please consider threats of blocking as a last resort, instead of step #1; it can paint you into a corner. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:44, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely what F says; that is twice within the same range of concerns that blocks are threatened, which isn't something I am aware of in guideline or policy - and likely for a good reason. Once a threat is made, then it becomes a case of "put up or shut up" once the challenge is accepted, and possibly is more likely to be accepted as it is deemed a challenge. There are reasons why there is procedure that involves escalating warnings, it provides for converstion and not confrontation. Please, by example of this section, let there be no more "threats" to block. LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:52, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

User talk pages do not get to be speedy deleted, they go to MfD and should only then be deleted in exceptional circumstances. Admins ought to know better than to use their privileged position to bypass this. Jumping to ANI for a matter already being discussed at several talk pages isn't terribly helpful either. DuncanHill (talk) 15:48, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

How is it that two non-admins know this, Duncan, and several of the admins above don't appear to? Scottaka UnitAnode 15:50, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Because there is no incentive for admins to know, understand, or follow policy, while there is every incentive for non-admins. It's our only protection. DuncanHill (talk) 15:56, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

• If you look into the underlying situation, I was simply collapsing a perceived personal attack, after Hipocrite refused a polite request to do so, with the following text: "No." And I didn't remove the perceived personal attack, just hid it, per the request of the aggrieved party. It wasn't wrong when I did it, and it certainly wasn't blockable then -- but especially not 10+ hours later. Scottaka UnitAnode 15:50, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

To reiterate, nobody is going to be blocked. What are we still talking about? If Spartaz returns, their administrative actions may be reviewed. Otherwise, the issue is largely not worthy of discussion. If the page needs to be undeleted, WP:DRV is open for business. Above all else, let's not pressure the departed user. We'd like them to return. Hopefully they will recognize their errors, and that will be sufficient. Jehochman 15:51, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

It got discussed because you threatened two admins with a block. As you had no intention of doing this, I withdraw. Don't try to intimidate me on my talk page again. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) 15:59, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

"Nobody is going to be blocked". Well, "Stop challenging Spartaz about his management of his own talk page, or else you will be blocked by me for harassment. Is that crystal clear?" seems to contradict that. Crystal clear? Who are you, Colonel Jessup? Did you really feel that that was your only option? Unbelievable. Tan | 39 16:03, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Legal threat at Talk:Richard Rossi

Anon editor is unhappy that local newspaper accounts are used instead of blogs to discuss a nationally-covered trial. As it is, the article bends over backwards to achieve NPOV by giving equal credence to some fairly implausible denials and conspiracy theories sourced only to the Rossi family and their press agent.

This appears to be a sequel to Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive285#Legal_threats_-_please_banhammer and Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive283#Richard_Rossi_.28BLP_concerns.29. THF (talk) 08:17, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

The IP resolves to Los Angeles Community College District, not the Attorney in question. I've softblocked it for a month per the identity fishing expedition and associated chilling effect; that's completely unacceptable by any standards. I suggest removing the talk page post. EyeSerene 10:01, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Struck above, already removed by Tbsdy lives. EyeSerene 10:04, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

NB the article history shows lots of Los Angeles edits with the same tactics, POV-pushing, and adding WP:PUFF. I hate to suggest semi-protection of the article, but it's the most useful way to identify SPAs; this IP was very clearly banned User:Jacksbernstein, right down to the lawyer's address. THF (talk) 10:09, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Although long-term, the IP's crusade is sporadic. However, it's likely that their recent spate has been provoked by your cleanup work so I agree that protection may also be worth trying. I've sprotted the article, also for a month. I considered removing the block on the IP as redundant, but I think the recent talk page harassment, previous edits from that IP to the article, and low edit count from the IP for other articles justify the softblock and limit any collateral damage. If any SPAs show up to continue their crusade (as seems likely), please report back. Hope this helps, EyeSerene 10:36, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

User:65.254.165.214

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

I don't know if this is the right place for this, but it seems that 65.254.165.214 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has been constantly blanking Negima!? whenever he logs on to Misplaced Pages. Any long term solution against this guy? It seems that all vandalism on this article is from the address, BTW. - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 11:12, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Lots of long-term vandalism and previous blocks; blocked for 6 months. EyeSerene 11:31, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of edits

I would like to request Misplaced Pages:Revision deletion of these two diffs as a clear cut copyvio. It was later removed by the contributor so shouldn't be too hard. There is some talk of oversight Misplaced Pages talk:Reference desk#Details but I don't know if that would be necessary. Deletion clearly is however Nil Einne (talk) 11:46, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Editor needs shrubbery for wanting to own an article and talkpage.

Over at Talk:Perception, Dibrisim (talk · contribs) is trying to WP:OWN both the article and talk page, despite only having edited the article twice long ago. This morning, the talk page looked like this, with some "general rules", e.g. "* Anonimity is discouraged. Changes of an anonimus are likely to be reverted within 24 hours - automatically." and "* No direct interventions should not be allowed at the article itself. Each comment, change, real life example, citation, external reference etc. should be added here first, under appropriate section."

This was removed by me (reverted by Dibrisim), removed again by User:Maurreen (again reverted), and finally by User:Maunus. For this, he threatened me ("I will report you to the hiearchy" and "That's bullining I am talking about. And I do have ways to stop that.") and Maurreen here ("And I have reported you for this.") and me again ("Fram asked me to whom I have reported him... Well he will see that."). No evidence of him making any reports to anyone though.

On reading Talk:Perception more closely, I noticed more unacceptable sections, which I removed here: "Every editor who successfully initiated a change to the article, has the right to sign here and describe the agreed change or changes. This is the only reward we can currently provide to serious editors. We also offer to the editors listed here a final say in the discussions and rights to implement the changes." The editors listed here are Dibrisim as "original author" and one other, although the article is from 2002 and has over 700 edits so far. If he had his way, he would implement his new version of the article on tuesday, and from then on he would decide who was allowed to edit the page and which edits were acceptable. Obviously, he reverted this as well.

People have tried to explain things to him on his talk page, on Talk:perception, and on Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people (the page that brought this to our attention). So far, to no avail. So if anyone has a spare trout or shrubbery, now may be the time to use them (a dose of patient and friendly explanation may be tried as well, but I fear that we have a severe case of Ididnthearthat here...) Fram (talk) 14:05, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

He keeps adding a personal note about how to use the talk page above the headers. I've concluded that he really has no clue about Misplaced Pages, unless I've greatly misunderstood this that he's written on the talk page:

"I have contemplated the following going live strategy:

I would publish the article worldwide and wait few days until the article is replicated. In these few days we will have to be vigilant, though.

After the article is replicated we could move under umbrella of the flagged revisions and pickup some jewels for discussion.

I guess that from then on we could lose some valuable feedback. Could we have a proxy Percept page to pick up these"

And what does this mean? "I have opted in Further Reading for online retailers. However this could be used as promotional tool by specific online retailers and there could be a contract with Misplaced Pages re this. Could you see if there is a preferred online retailer?".

His rewrite which is now in the talk page archives is totally unencyclopedic and unacceptable. Dougweller (talk) 14:41, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

It sounds like WP:COMPETENT is at issue. Encyclopedic or not, this is the English Misplaced Pages. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 14:49, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that pointer, Bugs, a useful essay. We have an editor unfamiliar with and dismissive of Misplaced Pages content, style, and behavioral rules, aggressively trying to push through a major redraft of a fairly important article on a difficult scientific / philosophical subject, in a mood to do battle rather than work with others, whose proposed draft introduces more problems than it fixes, and apparently not fluent enough in English to write standard authoritative encyclopedic prose. Even someone who plays by the rules and can write standard English typically needs to start small, copyediting here and there, making minor improvements, learning the style guidelines and markup, etc., before they are ready to tackle a big task like this. This editor isn't even willing to accept that they need to learn the rules. He's said more than once that he rejects the rules, and collaboration with other editors (who he is starting to accuse of obstructionism and bad faith), because they are getting in the way of his article redraft. The only solution is for the editor to do a 180-degree turn and start editing modestly, incrementally, and collaboratively - or simply losing interest in redrafting the article. If that doesn't happen voluntarily it will have to be imposed, hopefully without generating too much Misplaced Pages process. Their approach to talk pages is voluminous and idiosyncratic, so a discussion about what to do could spin out of control. - Wikidemon (talk) 14:54, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Consciousness/Archive 3#A call to discus intro might be useful reading for those involved in this discussion. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:03, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

He's violated 3RR, so we have grounds to block him immediately. However, he seems to have stopped for the moment, so I'm hopeful. I'm watching him as is another admin. With luck, he'll take it upon himself to pause, read, and learn. If not, we'll provide an enforced pause. It's an open and shut case really, so there's not much need for further review here. Interested editors should provide recommendations, tips, and encouragement on the user's talk page. He clearly has an interest in helping. With luck, we can shape it into something productive. Rklawton (talk) 15:08, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I also see 3rr here. Moreover, the edit warring has been over a talk page notice which is straightforwardly beyond the pale of policy. No need for a block if they've stopped and there are indeed hints the editor isn't aware of the policies (rather than, say, knowingly trying to edit war through them and lay his own onto the article). Gwen Gale (talk) 15:33, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

In cases like this (WP:OWN or WP:COI) where I block, I often use an addendum along the lines of "please use this time to review ]. Should similar concerns continue to be raised, you will likely find that further sanctions of longer durations may be applied." Sometimes, it does take a block for someone to realise where the problem truly resides. LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:05, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

As an additional attention-getter, I have collapsed the editor's proposals with instructions to come here before reopening. If that doesn't work, LHvU's example should. —DoRD (?) (talk) 16:48, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I noticed Ancheta Wis (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), an admin, has been active in talking to Dibrisim and invited them to comment here. something lame from CBW 19:42, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, I hate to be blunt, but I am bit concerned that we have an Admin writing "Your rewrite is in fact superior to the current state of the article, of course. But what about the poor guy for whom the rewrite is just words? He might not understand it because he doesn't have the background. Would it help if you used the experience I described above as a concrete example?". That seems to be a lack of understanding of one of our basic policies. And what in the world is she trying to do on her talk page? I've seen her as part of the problem. By the way, her use of the tools has been minimal, 5 blocks, 15 pages deleted, 1 page protected, 2 restored. She became an Admin in 2005. Dougweller (talk) 21:12, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

CambridgeBayWeather and Dougweller, as I am sure you both know, it is not proper to project the authority of an admin on an article with which one has been involved (since 2005, before election), especially with an editor with whom the relationship is as peer editor. User:Dibrisim is a subject matter expert, with all that implies, and yet I detailed on the talk page what would happen if he violated policy. And yet, it is a delicate dance to encourage the participation of editors. I tried to redirect the edits to Flagged Revisions, as the machinery is there for editing, and where the relationships of subject matter expert with other editors can be unearthed and re-examined. What is clear is that we have a problem of scale.

For my part, I have been trying to resurrect the chemistry of edits which I encountered in 2003, which was communal and enthusiastic, rather than rule-bound. I have documented (in Signpost talk) the case of an article which had 5 different edits by 5 different editors in its first 20 minutes of existence, 6 1/2 years ago. That is not the case today, as we well know. Instead, articles must pass a gauntlet of policy. As you know, it started to get bad in 2007. When an article develops, it passes through stages, as you well know, and sympathetic treatment is very often appropriate. Dibrisim gave his own assessment which was quite sympathetic to the encyclopedia if not to the state of the article he encountered. Today, in the article in question, the searchlight of attention was definitely not there until, of course, various editors were offended, and the parade began. And now the article is starting to be gardened again, after the searchlight of attention passed over it. Would that all articles enjoy this type of attention; the encyclopedia would become vibrant again. But the current scale of editorship is insufficient to address this. This is in the Signpost talk if you are interested. Drop me a line if you care to join me in re-invigorating the encyclopedia. --Ancheta Wis (talk) 22:26, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

This comment does not in any respect address the problem of one editor attempting to lay down for others rules of editing fpr a specific article which differ significantly from those which have evolved with practice over time, which users are familiar with and prepared to operate under. Nostalgia is a wonderful thing, but a project with as many contributors as Misplaced Pages has now cannot proceed in the same way as it could when the number of participants was considerably smaller, which means the bulk of your comment is totally irrelevant.

I would suggest that if you're not really familiar with the way things run now, and the standards and practices currently in force, that you back away from this situation and allow other admins more familiar with how things work to deal with it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:36, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

She's made it clear she isn't acting as an admin. Surely she's entitled to express her opinion here, and on the article talk page? I have doubts about Misplaced Pages 2010 and Dibrisim being a good fit for each other, for the very reasons she describes, but if there is ever going to be a way to get it to work, I'd think we'd want someone like her helping explain things. The lack of respect (possibly unintended?) for a long term editor is troubling. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:51, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

She's an admin, he's breaking policy. If she's helping him to do that, as opposed to getting him to stop, that's a problem, whether she says she's acting as an admin or not.

Further, I would like to know what grounds AW has to say that the editor in question is a "subject matter expert"? The book he cites on his talk page as writing is self-published, and the website he cites as his is basically a blog and has no CV on it that I can find. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:56, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to tone down my comment just above. I badly misread a comment AW made on the editor's talk page ("I need to think about a way to keep up the editing spirit on the Perception draft without stepping on any rules.") and thought she was actively collaborating with him on his new editing scheme (an impression I initially got from reading his comments on the article talk page). That was my mistake, and to the extent that it colored my comment, I apologize.

I'd still like to kow, however, what makes the editor in question an expert - a self-published book, a blog and no credentials does not an expert make. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:05, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

(ec)Entitled, sure, but a bit more of a realistic touch might be more helpful here. The project isn't going to return to the happy, tight-knit group of its origins any more than the post-Kent State hippy era could ever again return to be the Summer of Love feeling. We appear to have an editor who is effectively saying "fuck consensus", and the response to that should be pretty clear. Tarc (talk) 23:00, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

(resetting indents) Okay, I've been around Misplaced Pages since October 2002, & while there's a lot of things we used to do then that I wish we still did now, there's a lot of things we no longer do that I'm glad we abandoned & some things we do now that are better. But I don't know WTF all of that has to do with an editor who has, in the last few hours, slapped 50K of verbage on a talk page that I can't imagine anyone would want to wade through. If I remember the "good old days" of Misplaced Pages correctly (that time Tarc seems to think we all practiced free love & passed the pipe around while we wrote articles), someone who did this would have had his edits reverted & asked to find another cause to contribute to. (And the reason I don't just indef block him for that is that (1) he just might be a "recognized expert" in the field, & might be worth the effort of extending some diplomacy to, & (2) I don't know the subject well enough to take the time to sift thru his verbage to see if there is anything of value there.) -- llywrch (talk) 06:55, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

"re-slapped" the verbiage, it was a revert to a previous version.   pablo_hablo. 08:05, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Time for a block or ban

Although Dibrisim announced at 01:22 he was 'suspending' his efforts, he's returned, almost doubling the size of the talk page to 103,844 bytes with long rambles which don't belong on the talk page. He's virtually destroyed it as a useful tool to aid in editing the article. It's time we either just block him or at least ban him from the talk page. Dougweller (talk) 07:37, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Sadly, I think you're right.   pablo_hablo. 08:05, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Apparently "the top of the Misplaced Pages" is reviewing this case. Meanwhile Dibrisim continues to revert the talkpage to his preferred version.   pablo_hablo. 09:32, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

After a look at his contributions, I have indefinitely blocked Dibrisim (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). The immediate trigger was what can reasonably be interpreted as a threat of violence on his talk page ("Your own skin could be at stake"), but in general the ranting and edit warring is indicative of a noncooperative approach to Misplaced Pages that is at odds with our community standards.  Sandstein  10:06, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Please note that I have been bold, and have moved the draft article the editor was working on from mainspace (Talk:Perception/draft) to his userspace (User:Dibrisim/Perception draft), where I believe it more properly belongs. Beyond My Ken (talk) 10:27, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Request for permanent semi-protection of List of male performers in gay porn films on BLP grounds

deltion

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

they keep deleting my work what i write —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrshistory2010 (talk • contribs) 18:36, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Several people have explained on your talk page what the problems with these articles were, and made suggestions for how to avoid losing your work in the future. Please read them, and try them out. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:45, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

User:Mrshistory2010 has been blocked as an obvious troll. Rklawton (talk) 20:51, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Help: El Paso-Juárez Metropolitan Area

I recently created El Paso-Juárez Metropolitan Area and nominated it for DYK. User:Polaron put some banners on the article without explanation. When I insisted on explanation he/she provided what I consider WP:OR (no sources; personal opinions) and proceeded to rename the article, remove references and content, etc, etc. I requested that such changes not be made without consensus, particularly considering the article is up for DYK, and tried to revert the changes. Polaron promptly changed everything back and hasn't been willing to provided any more info as to the motives.

I don't want to get into an edit war but I need this restored before the article fails DYK. Basically I need a "don't do things unilaterally or you'll be blocked" intervention here.

Any help is appreciated.

Thanks.

--Mcorazao (talk) 21:03, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

This looks to be a content dispute. I don't see anything for admins to do here, unless you get into a move war. The Guest Life article seems to be a weak reed to hang the DYK hook on, and even if Polaron were not in the picture, passing verification at DYK would not be a simple matter. There is some discussion over at T:DYK. Better to try to persuade the DYK reviewers that the article verifies than to wait for admins to do something. I have notified Polaron of this discussion. EdJohnston (talk) 01:41, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

User:Eckert Seamans

Eckert Seamans (talk · contribs) has been editing Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellott, an article for which is has an obvious conflict of interest. Seems to me it should be blocked a role/corporate account. --Blargh29 (talk) 21:35, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Since we're posting speculations about editors here, it seems to me that User:Blargh29 is an obvious sockpuppet of user:HoboJones. Just saying. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:46, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, that's odd... Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:04, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

User:NewOrleans4Life copyvios

NewOrleans4Life (talk · contribs) has been warned about uploading copyright violation images since 2007, and was finally blocked briefly in December, and yet, they continue. Woogee (talk) 22:56, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Hrmm, I left the user a "this is totally, absolutely, completely your last warning" warning before I saw this, and without checking their block log. Trust that they will be handed a big fat block if they violate again. – Toon 23:52, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Question about editing

Hi,

I am editing an article called See You on the Other Side (Korn album). I only fixed the spacing, but no matter WHAT edit I make, the user Blackmagic1234 reverts my edits. I am not doing any harm, however, although this may be irrelevant, this user knows me in real life and dislikes me, so I believe that this is contributing to why he keeps reverting, since he won't say why, while I keep asking. I would like something to be done, although I don't know what can be done. Abby 96 (talk) 23:56, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Your cyberstalking me

Black Rose (talk) 23:57, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Well I'm allowed to edit articles aren't I? And no, I'm not stalking you, I got better things to do then waste my time on YOU. And the world doesn't revolve around YOU. Just because I make an edit to an article that YOU edit, doesn't mean that it has anything to do with YOU(which it doesn't),therefore it doesn't give YOU The right to revert every edit that I make. Abby 96 (talk) 23:59, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

the page has been protected to stop you warring, I'd just like to point out that the difference between the two versions is practically non existent, both of you are lucky not to be blocked. I suggest you find somewhere different to edit from each other--Jac16888 00:01, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Let me think not once did you EDIT the Slipknot article on-tell I edited it Then I went to the Necrophilia article and after I edited that BOOM you pop in there hell I bet If I edited the Lolicon article you would go there to

Black Rose (talk) 00:04, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

(multiple e/c)The easy thing to do, of course, is block both of you for 24 hours for revert warring a dozen or so times. But first I have to ask, Abby: if you know Blackmagic1234 in real life, and dislike each other, why would you edit a three pages you've never edited before, 3 minutes after Blackmagic1234 does?

That said, you're both acting like fools, so I'd suggest blocking the first one of you to revert the other one, on any page, starting.... now. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:05, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Blackmagic1234 has a point. I've given Abby a final warning for following BM1234 around just to bug him. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:10, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Whatever, I'm done with this. I've been harassed in real life(Blackmagic1234 can tell you plenty of this),and am no longer putting up with it on here. And, I think that there SHOULD BE a checkuser on Blackmagic1234 and the account Higgys that was made back in May 2009 to harass me on another account I had, "Kagome_77".Abby 96 (talk) 00:15, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

User:Matt Lewis

I need to say up front that I am very much not an unbiased party to this, but could someone take an objective look at this comment on another editor's talk page: ? User notified: . --Tryptofish (talk) 00:17, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

FWIW, I've forgiven Matt. GoodDay (talk) 00:41, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

GD, you should be taking note too - you simply change track too much, and too easily sometimes. It's really disconcerting. I was pushed into losing my rag today by Tryptofish, and I think this is just a thinly veiled attempt to get me out of his way. Why speak for someone else otherwise? He has canvassing people today to revert me past where he can go (being up to 3RR) - that says it all I think. As it happens, GoodDay is one of the few friends I have on Wikpedia (if I have that many) so talking to him in that manner is something I wouldn;t do to Joe editor. He can say or do whatever he wants in reply. Matt Lewis (talk) 01:17, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, I still think the comment was beyond the bounds of CIVIL, and nothing said above makes it acceptable, nor does Matt seem to understand that it was not acceptable. Yes, Matt and I are at odds with one another, but no, I did not make this report to get Matt "out of the way". And that canvassing claim is a very big stretch. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:38, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

I want to add that I am only at 2 reversions in the matter to which Matt refers. --Tryptofish (talk) 02:09, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

It's not a "big stretch" at all - It was cut and dry. If I filed it with evidence you would be pulled up on it, esp given the context. I just don't capitalise on people's mistakes the way you clearly do. You clearly asked two editors on their Talk pages, one after the other, to help you when you were on 2RR. One had already stated he wasn't interested on editing on the article, the other hadn't edited it for a while. Your relief when another editor did eventually assist you was palpable. You said you had almost given up! Then you file this AN/I on the very person you wanted reverted!

It's continual abuse of the spirit of Misplaced Pages by someone who never seems to properly adhere to the rules. It's like they are not there to you, as if you've seen to much in life to be effected by trivial technicalities, and you feel that CDA is 'far too important' to Misplaced Pages to be held back by awkward hindrances like abiding by the wider consensus, and technical editing rules. I'm bang on here - I've seen you too long now.Matt Lewis (talk) 10:33, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

I consider the matter closed. GoodDay (talk) 01:45, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Notifying of discussion at village pump

Apologies for posting this here but I felt the community should be aware, and there are lots of eyes here. I've started a discussion regarding Wikimedia fundraising-related emails that are apparently being sent out now. The discussion is at Misplaced Pages:Village pump (proposals)#Discussion of fundraising emails for anyone interested. Thanks. Equazcion 01:46, 20 Feb 2010 (UTC)

WP:UAA

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

Bit of a backlog folks...thanks. – ukexpat (talk) 01:53, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Cleared - thank you. – ukexpat (talk) 02:33, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Questionable comment at User:Keegscee's userpage

Keegscee (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) seems to have admitted to using open proxies as sockpuppets and trolling users that he feels are not acting in good faith on his user page. He also stated that he's retired, but the message was posted ten days ago, and he's still editing. PCHS-NJROTC 02:32, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Non issue. Saying you're retired doesn't mean a damn thing. Brett Favre anyone? Let's not waste time with this silliness. Keegscee (talk) 03:00, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

It's not about the retirement issue; it's about your admission to using open proxies, sockpuppets, trolling, and not assuming good faith, although I mentioned the fact that you're not really retired so that this wouldn't be dismissed because you've apparently left Misplaced Pages. If it's a non-issue, why did you post that you'd probably be reprimanded for your behavior? Like I said on your talk page, I'm not trying to be a prick or anything, but you seem to have confessed to some pretty serious infractions. PCHS-NJROTC 03:12, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, I'll let other people decide my fate then. Vaguely admitting to a crime without any proof or evidence of having committed such crime is not a very solid case. Keegscee (talk) 03:17, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

However, violating Misplaced Pages's policies is not criminal. Your continued assumption that Misplaced Pages works like the United States legal system, and that you're essentially inocent until proven guilty, will likely be seen as disruptive. PCHS-NJROTC 03:37, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

• support an indef block. Admitted disruption, appears to show no indication that they feel they did anything wrong and gives zero indication they'd stop doing it in the future.--Crossmr (talk) 03:40, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
• Support an indefinite block per above. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 03:50, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
• Support an indef block. Now let's get back to some useful editing. Rklawton (talk) 03:51, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
• Question. Which users did he troll? He does a lot of vandalism fighting, so some crap will inevitably land on his page. Pcap ping 04:57, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose How is this "trolling"? While it may be a Bad-faith move, it's not trolling, perhaps his actions may cause drama but nothing more. Look, I get this kind of stuff every day. IP socks comming over to my page and saying "you spelled somethnig wrong" and thats thier first and only edit. If you get something like this, ignore it and move on. No need to bring it to the ANI right?--Coldplay Expért 05:03, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

  He admits on his user page I get much more pleasure out of making things difficult for people that I feel are not good faith editors. I generally do this through the use of proxies so as to be slightly more discrete. Like Dexter, if editors here knew what I was doing, they would probably agree that my actions are for the best of the project, although they would have to reprimand me for my behavior. that he's knows whatever it is he's doing would likely lead to a block but feels he's doing it for the greater good or that he's above the law. He also admits to using proxies to do that. He sees himself as some sort of hero for violating wikipedia's rules and harassing other users. That isn't remotely someone we need here.--Crossmr (talk) 05:58, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

I have indef blocked. The entire point of WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, and WP:HARASS is that users are not allowed to behave in that manner. We expect editors to treat each other with basic respect and dignity, not pick them out and harrass and attack and troll them.

Keegscee admits to ignoring those and to behavior which is blockable. He has defended it here and indicates he doesn't intend to stop. Until such time as he agrees not to, I don't see any option other than to indefinitely block. If he choses to continue to troll via IPs or proxies, we can't stop that - but we can send an unambiguous message that such behavior is abusive and against the community and the project, and not for it. Not being able to technically permanently stop it does not mean that we can't forcefully stop someone from doing so openly and with any shred of community suppport. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 05:46, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

A Check user might also be prudent. He claims it will turn up nothing, but it could be a bluff.--Crossmr (talk) 05:59, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

filed here--Crossmr (talk) 06:05, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

I beat you to it with a quick request in the quick requests section. I don't think this requires more than a quick check request, a full normal SPI isn't necessary to block underlying IPs. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 06:08, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Ah, go ahead and delete that as unnecessary then.--Crossmr (talk) 07:22, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Troll User:98.200.136.176

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

98.200.136.176 (talk · contribs) - could somebody please block the troll? They were already blocked once for contentious editing, and are back, doing the same thing that they got blocked for. Woogee (talk) 03:00, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

They're blocked now. Thanks. Woogee (talk) 03:06, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

BlackJack evading block (part four)

BlackJack (talk · contribs) who is presently blocked for abusing multiple sockpuppets is again evading his block by editing as an IP (86.140.219.117 (talk · contribs)). Could an admin please block this IP? Thanks in advance. --79.71.187.50 (talk) 10:27, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

1. "Labor Day 2003: Nothing to Celebrate". Retrieved 2009-07-29.
2. "About Solidarity". Solidarity National Office. Retrieved January 24, 2010.
3. "Suzi Weissman interviews Mark Weisbrot". Solidarity National Office. Retrieved January 24, 2010.
4. "Labor Day 2003: Nothing to celebrate". alternet.org. August 28, 2003. Retrieved January 24, 2010.