Misplaced Pages

Outing by User:I Pakapshem

In this discussion , User:I Pakapshem deliberately used what he thinks is my real name (I am neither confirming nor denying it for privacy reasons). This is a clear, brazen attempt at outing. This was not a slip, it was not an accident, and it certainly is not necessary. I would like the comment redacted, and the editor sanctioned. Considering his particularly heavy block log, combined with immediate resumption of disruptive editing upon the expiration of a 6 month block (I Pakapshem's contribution to wikipedia consists of tendentious removals of any material pertaining to the existence of the Greek minority in Albania sourced or not, e.g. , for which he was blocked in the past and which he has now resumed with full vigor ), an indef block would not be inappropriate. He has been warned twice in the past that the next block would be indef . This is a disruption-only Balkan account, with exactly zero positive contributions to wikipedia, and even when he doesn't edit war he manages to disrupt talkpage discussions with incessant inane rants and flaming, the perfect example being here . His deliberate attempt at outing is the final straw. Athenean (talk) 21:25, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Athenean, how would I Pakapshem know your name? I am intervening because I was involved in that discussion. Unless you disclosed it voluntarily how would he have known it? Please do not try to describe the "bad" character of user:I Pakapshem who just came back from his ban (which he respected in full), as many of us have a dirty biography here in Misplaced Pages per Arbmac decisions. You yourself, between User:Athenean and the prior userid (my understanding is that both belong to you), are full of blocks, so please don't make a point as far as User:I Pakapshem experience and enjoyment with Misplaced Pages has been. Can you state that you have NEVER made a mention to that name yourself? --_Sulmues 21:52, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

First I am not going to confirm whether it is my real name or not, but I'll be damned if I know how he thinks that is my real name. For the record, I have never ever revealed my name in wikipedia! You coming here and suggesting it is somehow my fault is an outrageous attempt to blame the victim. I KNEW you would come here and try to disrupt my posting with something inane, but this too much even for you. I also ask that you remove my old username immediately, as I changed it precisely for privacy reasons. Athenean (talk) 22:00, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

(after editconflict) Ok, I removed it, didn't know about your choice, my apologies, but it still appears in your very first edit. . --_Sulmues 22:09, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Athenean's previous nickname was <removed> and that's where I derived <name> from. Nonetheless I didn't know it was againts the rules to use what I assume is somebody's real name. In no way did I brazenly try to out Athenean. I haven't been editing for six months but during those months Athenean got many blocks and restrictions so saying that I'm disruptive when he was threatening and making personal attacks like "Your disgust me" or "Your behaviour disgusts me" just a couple of weeks ago shows that the one causing disruption is him and not me. Once again, I did not know that this was against the rules. --I Pakapshem (talk) 22:04, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I Pakapshem, can you make the link between what you said and what the prior userid was, so that an ignorant person like me, who continuously receives insults from user:Athenean, or the average Joe, can understand how they can be related?--_Sulmues 22:13, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

He clearly doesn't want his personal data revealed so I won't reveal it. Once again I didn't know that he was against that because this is public information, but now that I know it I won't repeat it. --I Pakapshem (talk) 22:19, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not asking you to reveal a diff, but can you confirm that it has come out from his own writings? --_Sulmues 22:22, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

• Note: I have removed the "outed" name from both this page (a lot of revisions needed to have their visibility restricted) plus on the talk page. I have not forwarded a request to CU, as it may be necessary for admins to be able to see the name depending on where this discussion goes. Athenean, when this issue is resolved, if you want the name permanently removed from the histories of both this page and your talk page, contact a CheckUser - at the moment, only admins can see it. I am making no comment on this issue.-- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 23:11, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the redaction Phantomsteve, however there is still the matter of I Pakapshem's sanction. I do not for a second believe him when he says he "didn't know". He has been active for well over a year now, and he knows full well he is not supposed to do that. It was completely uncalled for, and a clear attempt to rattle me. Also disturbing is how Salmues is fishing for how Pakapshem deduced my name from my old ID. It's as if he is trying to figure out who I am. Athenean (talk) 00:17, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't care who you are Athenean, I was trying to understand how I Pakapshem would be able to find your name if you didn't disclose it yourself. In fact if you had disclosed it yourself, I Pakapshem would not be sanctionable, and you are just harassing him, disrupting his enjoyment of Misplaced Pages, and preventing him from making his contributions through this report. To me those names had no relation whatsoever. --_Sulmues 03:20, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Are you kidding me? Even if I had accidentally revealed it, that doesn't give him ANY right to use it. In fact, it's all the more reason for him not to reveal it. Where does it say that it's OK to out people if they have accidentally revealed their real name? I'm really starting to wonder here. Athenean (talk) 03:50, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

@Sulmues: It would be wise to respect this case without creating a mess. It seems that this childish play of disruption is repeating again and again here. If you have nothing to say please say nothing (not speculations and guesses)!Alexikoua (talk) 05:26, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

By the way, it seems Pakapshem has already launched wp:npa's vios, characteristically he claims: I haven't been editing for six months but during those months Athenean got many blocks and restrictions As I see Athenean didn't receive a single block the last year.Alexikoua (talk) 06:06, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

that's a block and an unblock when he agreed to be careful, so why are you saying that he wasn't blocked? I don't know how I Pakapshem found out about Athenean's name(if that is indeed his real name) but I have couple of questions. I Pakapshem claims that he found it because of Athenean's first username, so my question towards Athenean is this:Does your previous username lead to personal details about you found on the net?--— ZjarriRrethues —  11:10, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

My previous username is none of your business. STOP grousing around about it. It doesn't matter HOW I Pakapshem thinks he may have found out my real name, HE DOESN'T HAVE ANY RIGHT TO USE IT IN PUBLIC WHATSOEVER. He did it casually, and knows full well it is unacceptable. And if you ask about any of my names again, I will report you as well. Clear? Athenean (talk) 16:21, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm trying to understand the situation and I didn't ask you for any personal information. It's extremely hard to find someone's personal information online unless they themselves have added part of them or clues leading to them and that was the purpose of my question. I Pakapshem claims that he didn't know

he shouldn't do it and his comment wasn't associated with your personal information so why not agf it?. Btw about a month ago someone posted personal info of another user and I contacted an ARBCOM member to delete it but he told me that because the user himself had posted info that lead to his personal data it was considered public content, thus the user who posted his personal info wasn't responsible for anything.--— ZjarriRrethues —  16:45, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

The situation is none of your business, and your lawyering is tedious. Your questions seem directed at trying to help people discover my real identity. I have no reason to believe anything you or him say, and I have certainly never revealed anything to anyone, so for the last time, stop. If you comment on my old username again, I will ask that you be sanctioned. This is getting real annoying. Athenean (talk) 16:51, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Block evasion by User:I_Pakapshem

It's more than obvious that the specific user was editting 'unlogged' (ip) during his six months block.

This edit: ] (on 30 Sept.) was I_Pakapshem's (as he admits in the msg), while he edited in my talkpage evading a block he received that time. Because of this, his blocking period was extented ] (30 September 2009 Moreschi (talk | contribs) changed block settings for I Pakapshem (talk | contribs) with an expiry time of 1 month (account creation blocked) ‎ (block evasion)). No wonder the same ip address made a number of edits during this 6 months block period ](Greek-Albanian topics included ]). I'm sure that he made additional edits in the same ip range. But this only is enough to to prove that he did NOT respect his block.Alexikoua (talk) 08:39, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

If he made two edits(that updated the article and were useful and not disruptive) a couple of months ago you bringing this now in ANI is meaningless and you being so sure that he made additional edits without a single dif to prove it is a personal attack so you shouldn't make such statements. It also seems that you don't understand the purpose of the block. Admins block users to prevent disruption to the project not to punish them, so your report of an edit that was made 2-3 months ago(and doesn't seem to be disruptive) is meaningless.--— ZjarriRrethues —  11:10, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

It is a block evasion while he PRETENDS that he respected his block. Thank you for agreeing that he evaded his block. Moreover, reporting block evasion isn't personal attack. Most important blocked user do not make ANY edit in any page (apart from their talkpage), else it's against the rules of this community.Alexikoua (talk) 13:38, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Alexikoua now realistically you are the one who is trying to out someone and that someone is me. This edit that I made is of value and it's only one edit done two months ago. My block has expired for three days now and you're trying to get me in trouble for something that happened two months ago. As Zjarri said, admins block to prevent violations and not for previous mistakes that weren't even disruptive. To me this seems to be a clear case of personal attack and assumption of bad faith. --I Pakapshem (talk) 14:18, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

User:Wikid77 canvassing

Earlier today, Wikid77 created the article Amanda Knox (note that this is what was created) after requesting unprotection of the redirect. The article was a clear POV coatrack, but is in the process of being edited. The article was nominated for deletion, and they have now sent messages to certain users canvassing for support: , , . These users had all previously expressed an opinion arguing for the creation of the article at Murder of Meredith Kercher, and the message is far from neutral, and clearly is not in line with WP:CANVASS. The user does not see any problem with their messages however: .

This should be seen as part of the wider behavioural problems from this user at Murder of Meredith Kercher. They have been blocked a few times now, and yet continue with the same sorts of behaviour (just look at the history of the article and their comments in the history of User talk:Zlykinskyja). As such, Wikid77 should be topic banned from anything to do with Murder of Meredith Kercher or Amanda Knox. Quantpole (talk) 22:05, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Question, who is the "we" he keeps referring to? S.G. _ping! 22:24, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I have no idea, but presume it is anyone who agrees with him. Quantpole (talk) 22:40, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Those 3 user-talk-page messages I sent were Friendly notices that the article was available for editing. I stopped sending messages when I noticed the general announcement had been posted within the same hour, at article "Murder of Meredith Kercher" as follows: "Prepare to be amazed: Amanda Knox, complete with lovely painting is now up. Quantpole (talk) 15:46, 9 June 2010 (UTC)" (diff: ). Disregarding the WP:Sarcasm in that message, I think the user, who posted it, is the same user who initiated this ANI topic on canvassing. I did not realize that before; note: I am being accused of posting one-sided messages, but failing to post a general notice, by the person most likely to know that the general notice had already been posted, before I could do it. This charge of canvassing seems to be trying to catch me on a technicality. -Wikid77 (talk) 20:58, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

• Support a lengthy topic ban. Every block he has is a result of editing the Meredith Kercher murder article. A topic ban seems like a good way to keep a productive editor out of trouble. AniMate 22:30, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
• Support topic ban. This silliness has dragged on long enough... Salvio ( ) 22:34, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
• Support topic ban - I agree with AniMate that we don't want to lose a productive editor, and that a topic ban should help prevent that -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 22:46, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
• Support topic ban - Productive editor who at these articles is a complete time sink for many other people, and as shown by their edits today, do not appear to understand - even after it has been explained to them many times - why they are editing in a non-collegial manner (which has now spilled over into disruption). Black Kite (t) (c) 23:08, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
• COMMENT: The 3 posts I made were Friendly notices: I notified users, on their user-talk-pages, who had expressed interest in editing the article, that the article was open, but that there was an ongoing AfD and that the article might be deleted, regardless of merit, due to opposition. I did not recommend they, either, edit the article to prevent its deletion, or contest deletion at the AfD. I did not even link the specific article-AfD, so there was no text that even prompted them to access the AfD page, much less edit it in any particular fashion. The article announcements, to 3 users, who merely expressed interest in editing the article, is not a violation of WP:CANVASS to sway a discussion. I merely informed them that the article might be deleted, even though it was open to editing at this time. I did not pressure them or insist that they express an opinion at the AfD, and did not even provide a link to the AfD discussion. -Wikid77 (talk) 00:14, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
  • I still say this runs afoul of WP:Votestacking. Regardless, your editing in this area has been problematic. I think an extended vacation from it is necessary, even if it is not voluntary. AniMate 00:21, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
• Support topic ban per Black Kite. ~NerdyScienceDude (✉ • ✐) 00:25, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
• Support topic ban to prevent further disruption/canvassing over Murder of Meredith Kercher. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 01:08, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
• Support topic ban, since blocks do not appear to be reinforcing the strong message that Wikid77's contributions on this subject continue to be counter-productive. SuperMarioMan 03:10, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
• Comment about current behavior of Wikid77 Since making a comment here, Wikid77 has left another note for a user here. It's more neutral, but full of pointiness. He has also created an essay at Misplaced Pages:Notability_outranks_POV_disputes. I'll let others judge if it actually makes sense or not, but it appears to be an extension of the arguments he's made at the AfD (and some stuff about Joran van der Sloot I presume). Finally, he's recopied the longer coatrack Amanda Know article to his sand box again . These are not actions most people would take when facing a topic ban. AniMate 05:05, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

The extra "note for a user" that I posted, on the same day, was to a frequent editor who seemed to be unaware of the article, and by the way, had expressed an opposing viewpoint, not a case of me only notifying users of a single viewpoint. As for me continuing to edit the material, I am not currently banned from the subject, and I was the one who created the article text now debated at WP:AfD. Banning me from discussion of an article I created, one day earlier, is a serious problem. -Wikid77 (talk) 20:58, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

• Support as per Black Kite. Dayewalker (talk) 05:10, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
• Support editor admits he only notified a handful of friendly editors, the use of canvassing is appalling. This is the best option to keep an apparently otherwise beneficial editor. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:28, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, I didn't say the editors I notified were "friendly editors" but you raised a good point: I notified 3 people who wanted to edit the article, even if their edits were contrary to mine. Thank you for defending me on that point. Those 3 user-talk-page messages, I sent, are termed Friendly notices in WP:CANVASS, announcing that the article was available for editing. I stopped sending messages when I noticed the general announcement had been posted within the same hour, at article "Murder of Meredith Kercher". -Wikid77 (talk) 20:58, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

• Comment Agree with Bwilkins. The Amanda Knox issue is a wikipedia systemwide issue that needs discussion, not topic ban. Some obscure murderers get articles (some even survive AFD). Some point out "other crap exists" but if articles are subjected to AFD, the AFD process should provide a fair and consistent path. See WP:SimilarTreatmentIsOK. Also BLP1E is raised but it is applied differently. Since murderers are common topics in Misplaced Pages, perhaps the crime wikiproject could develop better guidelines. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 14:57, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, this whole event is to determine the level of notability of Amanda Knox, in a system-wide discussion, at AfD, rather than limiting the discussion to only readers of "Murder of Meredith Kercher". For that reason, I omitted the more private birthdate/parents part of the bio, and focused on her life as a college student (taking online courses), Italian comparison to Carla Bruni and 3 court trials: Kercher, defamation, and new trial about Kercher. Instead of trying to limit views about the article, I have recommended the article be considered by a wide range of readers, such as those from Italy, Germany (etc.), who might only notice the article when discussed in the, system-wide, AfD. Creating an article, as a preparation for AfD discussions, is not a disruptive activity, but rather an action that encourages wider participation. I hope that clarifies why a "productive editor" would create an article, while telling the authorizing admin that it will likely go soon to AfD. -Wikid77 (talk) 20:58, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Apart from the user themselves no one has argued against the proposed topic ban. How do these things get wrapped up? Quantpole (talk) 07:47, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

User:Mootros

Untill today, I didn't know that what happened to me here on WP pages was a clear harrasmenet. according toMisplaced Pages:HARASS#Posting_of_personal_information, it stated that any editor who tries to reveal the identiy of any WP user is to be considered harrasment. I was subjected to this by user User:Mootros several times, and suffered from this, however as a new user, I didn't know at that time that it is something to report. I think it is time now since I now I know.

1: He tried to reveal information about my IP, possible work/study place here: Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive616#User:Kushsinghmd (originated from a range of IPs in Canada owned by McGill University and Bell Canada) Mootros (talk) 20:20, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

and again said:

2: Talk:Research_fellow#Courtesy_break Are you not based at a McGill University? I thought that's in Canada. Mootros (talk) 23:17, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

is this acceptable behaviour ?

I am asking for a severe punishment to this user for harassing me and for deliberately violating WP rules.

also All these personal information (whether or not it is true) including the quoted information in this incident report should be permanently deleted from all WP source data. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kushsinghmd (talk • contribs) 19:28, June 9, 2010

An IP address is not the same as posting location information, and if you yourself reveal said information (i.e. clearly editing with both your username and IP), then it is not considered "outing" as you have voluntarily posted that information publicly. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:05, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

He had no knowledge that this was your IP address, only that someone editing using the IP was editing the same page you were editing, so he wasn't outing. Inadvertently editing while logged out may reveal your IP address, which is noted at WP:LOGGEDOUT. His speculation about your location wasn't wise, but if it hasn't been repeated it doesn't amount to harassment. Fences&Windows 01:24, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

• so if this is not harrasement, then what is value of trying to get into such personal information like this, which includes IP, location and possibly work /study place?! why should one publish it, and even more deliberately asked me ?!!! Kushsinghmd (talk) 04:03, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

• Kushsinghmd, I thought you agreed previously to stay away from Mootros? Why am I seeing you at ANI again about this? - NeutralHomer • Talk • 04:09, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I agreed to stay away, and I think I did. This is an old issue (before the agreement) and it hasn't been resolved cause simply I didn't know how could I categorize the violation, untill today, I know the best terminology of that previous act. Kushsinghmd (talk) 04:30, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Old issue means it should stay old. Don't be bringing up the past. I think there is a rule about that somewhere. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 04:39, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

No, that was not discussed in the past, therefore I wouldn't consider it old. Plus the fact, that I am offended that such material is on WP for all this time, while the faulty is set free with such unacceptable deeds! Kushsinghmd (talk) 04:50, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Um, considering you have your email address posted on your profile, I find it odd that you think his questioning if you were a specific IP to be offensive. A simple google search on said email reveals far more, including your real name and your previous username here, than an IP. If you have privacy concerns, I'd recommend having your own user page oversighted instead of complaining about such a general question that does not really tell anything about you as you could have simply said "no, not me". -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 04:56, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Anma raises some good points. I think this should be oversighted and swept under the rug and you two go back to not talking to each other like you had previously agreed upon. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 05:00, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

@ Anma: Email is not a personal thing, and you can't identify anyone from his email unless it is an institution email.

@ all:Please someone answer my question: what is value of trying to get into such personal information like this, which includes IP, location and possibly work /study place?! why should one publish it, and even more deliberately asked me about it using that information ?!!! is there any good reasoning other than harrasement ?! Kushsinghmd (talk) 05:04, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

• Please all, think about this first before you comment. If by some way or another I knew the IP of you, and I knew that you are located in University of Oxford. And while severely disputing and in the top of discussion, I tried to tease you to show you that I know where are you and said: Hey, how is the weather in london. Till here could be OK, but even more I continued harrasment, saying: hey, isn't the univesirty of oxford is in London? think this is all in UK!... is there any value from such odd discussion, other than me showing that I know your personal information and that I can get you !!... please if you can provide me with a better reasoning, please do.

Please remember what should one do if got any personal formation about another WP user ? according to WP itself, they should NEVER talk about it. WP even states that if a user retracted his public information, that information should not be revealed by any other WP user anymore.

Thanks Kushsinghmd (talk) 05:11, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Regardless of what Mootros did (on which I have no knowledge or opinion), Anma's warning is a really big deal. Please do a simple google search on your own email address--you name, phone number, location, and interests are all immediately available. You've self-outed, so to speak. Doesn't matter to me, but it seems pretty dangerous in this day and age. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:20, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

First that is not true. I did the google search as you asked, and I got 4 irrelevant results. Therefore it is almost impossible to get such specific personal information through a free web email. And please do the search yourself, to make sure. Second, please someone answer to my question: what is value of trying to get into such level of details about personal information like this, which includes IP, location and possibly work /study place?! why should one publish it, and even more deliberately asked me about it, using information he collected and thinking it was right?!!! remember that this was at the most heated moments. is there any good reasoning other than harrasement ?! Kushsinghmd (talk) 05:28, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Kushsinghmd

• Neutralhomer, I believe Kushsinghmd is referring to your comment, above: I wash my hands of this user and his persistant "I didn't do it" and "I can't here you" crap. You have, if I may say so, failed to wash your hands of this user. Which is no crime, though I fear you're in danger of prolonging an unhelpful thread. Kushsinghmd, I couldn't care less about "carp" or "crap". I am far more interested in whether or not the original comment about you being a SPA was correct or not. Carping on about Neutralhomer's earlier comment is a distraction and is unhelpful. TFOWR 22:40, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Not sure why I didn't get an edit conflict with you when I closed this. Feel free to reopen if you think it would be productive, I was just trying to get these two to give my watchlist a rest. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:44, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

"Feel free to reopen" - for the love of all that's good in this world, no ;-) TFOWR 22:48, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi all, is there a chance that you admins can work on the primary problem first, instead of reopening secondary issues ? thank you for you positive interventions Kushsinghmd (talk) 22:55, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

User:Xtzou

User:Risker has blocked User:Xtzou as a sock of a blocked account. This is a problem for me as Xtzou was my GA Reviewer. Since he has been blocked as a sock, does that void my GA article's review? - NeutralHomer • Talk • 02:02, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Unless there is any reason to believe that the review was not carried out properly then to do so would seem needlessly wasteful. A quick look at their history shows that they were involved in a lot of GA reviews and I couldn't see anyone questioning Xtzou's ability to review. Which article are you referring to? Someoneanother 02:16, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

More an issue for WT:GAN than ANI, but if the review is complete, you needn't do anything. If the review was incomplete, just remove his note from WP:GAN for another reviewer to take it up. As an aside, I'm slightly curious as to which block was being evaded. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:29, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I took it to WT:GA per Risker's request. He also said since it is complete, it isn't a worry. I was just worried that since he was the reviewer that would null and void the review and the GA. I will leave the post at WT:GA up just in case anyone else wants to comment. Thanks HJ. This can be marked resolved if you wish. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 02:32, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

• Comment: I demand request to see some evidence. Xtzou was probably the best GA reviewer we had. --William S. Saturn (talk) 03:12, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Answered on User talk:Risker. --William S. Saturn (talk) 04:20, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

• Curious as to who they are supposed to be a sock of, as I'm not seeing any template on their user page. Technically, the GA review should be CSD under G5, and the review reset to allow a legitimate reviewer redo it (so basically would revert back to being a nomination). However, in my various experiences with socks, whether something they created and done is reverted/deleted seems fairly dependent on who the socker is. Personally, I'd want the GA reset myself, just to avoid the question of whether it was done correctly. At min, you may want to ask another valid GA reviewer to just check over, make sure the GA review was done correctly, and to basically "take ownership" of it to validate the result. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 04:22, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
  • They are confirmed to be a sock of User:Mattisse. You can see the discussion on User talk:Risker, as indicated above by William S. Saturn. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 04:29, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
  • For the record, unless someone finds a serious flaw in one of the GA reviews, I would not be inclined to alter or redo any of the assessments. I did take a look at some of the reviews and articles whilst reviewing the situation, and I did not see any inappropriately lenient or stringent GA reviews; they all appeared to be reflective of the quality of the article. Risker (talk) 05:17, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
    • I concur with Risker's assessment. No need to redo the GA review. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 06:00, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

User:Snottywong/userboxes/ARSbackfire

I'm starting this here because I've been involved with the user on one AfD. The userbox (which I've already nominated for MfD indicates this user's intention (which he's carried out on over 20 articles earlier this evening) to !vote to delete in any article that's been nominated for deletion, and hence for rescue. In many cases, he has added ARSnote early in the discussion, giving the false impression that the article had been flagged for rescue that early in the discussion.

I'd request that the user be formally admonished for such behavior and directed to participate in a collegial, rather than overtly partisan manner in the future. Jclemens (talk) 05:08, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Tell me you didn't use your tools to revert all his edits. I can see you did, but what were you thinking? AniMate 05:21, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

And upon further investigation I see you are in an ongoing dispute with him. Unacceptable. AniMate 05:27, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

That's exactly what he did. See my complaint below at Misplaced Pages:ANI#User:Jclemens abuse of rollback rights. Jclemens claims that I blindly vote to delete every page listed on ARS. However, he is fully aware that I have voted to Keep several articles listed on ARS, and I have skipped over others that I couldn't conclusively determine a vote for. His comments on my user talk page prove that he was aware of this. The rest of my comments on this matter can be found below in my own complaint. SnottyWong talk 05:29, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Please explain to me how I could possibly be aware that you reviewed articles for deletion and didn't comment one way or the other on them. Which ones were those? Jclemens (talk) 05:47, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

So, AniMate, let's explore that. Did I block him? Nope. Did I unilaterally topic ban him? No, but I did ask him to discuss here before continuing. Did I change anything related to the one AfD on which we're actually in dispute? Nope. Am I an ARS member? Nope. Was I the one who threw the {{rescue}} on the article related to the one AfD on which we're actually in dispute? Nope. So, how much more uninvolved do you really want me to be in the face of reactive disruption?

So really, here's the sequence of actions:

1) I rescued an article.

2) He !voted delete after I'd added reliable sources.

3) I pointed out how his efforts failed to dis-establish notability.

4) He went and !voted delete on a ton of other {{rescue}}'ed articles.

5) He created a userbox touting his efforts and their motivation.

6) I MFD'ed the userbox, reverted the AfD's in which I was uninvolved, and brought my actions here for discussion.

Again... how is this me becoming emotional or misusing tools? Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 05:56, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I am a tad concerned that an older user with a totally uneventful edit history suddenly became almost 100% involved in deleting articles on 28 March 2010, almost as though he were a totally different editor. Out of the last hundred AfDs he has !voted on, he has a total of 5 "keep" !votes. From March 2007 to 26 October 2009, he was absent from AfD entirely. I fear that by so acting as a pure predictable !vote, and becoming known, that his !votes will achieve the same value as Ikip's did on the other side. Collect (talk) 12:14, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Do you think the account has been highjacked? Unlike Ikip, Snottywong gives valid reasons for his opinion, and hasn't been disruptive. Verbal chat 12:24, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

User:Jclemens abuse of rollback rights

ALSO SEE Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_comment/JclemensZacharyLassiter (talk) 08:16, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

User:Jclemens has taken it upon himself to rollback all of my recent !votes on multiple, unrelated AfD's (approximately 20 of them). His reasons for doing this are the following:

1. He has interpreted a personal userbox that I recently created as a de facto admission of guilt to bad faith editing.
2. He has become emotional during an argument we've been having on an AfD for (presumably) one of his articles: Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/50 Cutest Child Stars: All Grown Up.

Jclemens has not made any attempts to contact me for an explanation of my userbox prior to rolling back all of my !votes (unless you count the MfD he started on the userbox). Furthermore, this message he left on my user talk page proves that he is fully aware that I have voted to both to keep and delete the various AfD's in question, which proves beyond the shadow of a doubt that I have not been editing in bad faith. These keep votes were made long before any of this happened, and long before the userbox was created.

It's apparent that Jclemens is letting his emotions get the best of him, and using his rollback rights to act on those emotions. I respectfully request that all of the rollbacks he has performed on my edits be undone. Whether or not his rollback rights are taken away (or some other punitive action is taken) is not something I can comment on, but I will leave that up to the admins who can better make that judgement. SnottyWong talk 05:19, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I've skimmed the edits he reverted. All were reasonable delete or keep comments, with rationales that showed Snottywong had actually looked at the articles. Personally, I think you should ditch the userbox, but Jclemens pretty clearly abused his tools here. I'd undo his reversions but I'm going to be off for about an hour. If nothing has changed when I get back, I'll undo them myself. AniMate 05:41, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

There's no question in my mind, AniMate, that many of his rationales were otherwise appropriate. The rate, focus, and virtually unanimous skew of his !votes, combined with the initial version of his userbox, clearly show bad faith. Jclemens (talk) 05:46, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

No, the rate focus, and skew do not imply bad faith. Come on. If SnottyWong's single goal in life is to prune wikipedia of non-notable pages, and he's found a way to find such pages, then there is nothing bad faith about that. The box is arguably an attack, but even that does not imply bad faith. Please assume good faith. ErikHaugen (talk) 03:43, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

1) Please post diffs that you allege show me "becoming emotional".

2) I did, in fact, contact you after I had reverted your disruptive edits. Please highlight a requirement that disruptive editors be contacted before their disruptive edits are corrected.

(Interjection by DustFormsWords) - WP:AGF suggests you probably shouldn't be declaring edits disruptive at all until you've talked to the person who made them.

(response to interjection: You may feel free to insert "which I perceived to be", if you prefer) Jclemens (talk) 07:19, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

3) Prior to this discussion you have changed your userbox to be less directly offensive. Let the record show that I interpreted the prior version of the userbox as prima facie evidence of bad faith, not the revised version.

4) My rollback rights are not a discrete privilege; as an administrator, I would have to be desysop'ed for them to be removed.

Overall, if the user is going to be less blatant about blanket !voting deletion on anything flagged for rescue (With the exception of Upstate New York, which proves nothing) and going to fade into the rest of the deletionist camp, then there's really nothing particularly actionable here. But !voting in ONLY debates flagged for rescue, doing so in an overwhelming one-sided manner, and explicitly stating in a userbox the ARS-centric motivation for doing so is disruptive editing. Jclemens (talk) 05:46, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

• From my (non-admin) perspective having come into the matter, they were bad reverts, admittedly triggered by what was (at that time) a pretty inflammatory userbox. Jclemens doesn't appear to be escalating the matter (other than in the heated response above), it's certainly far short of being worthy of a block or a de-adminning, so surely there's not much to be done here other than ask everyone to consider more friendly ways of interacting in future? - DustFormsWords (talk) 05:49, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Jclemens, please undo your rollbacks. There is indeed something actionable here, but it isn't Snottywong's edits, or even his userbox. Your argument is defeated by the fact that we have dozens of different ways that deletion discussions are sorted and lists created all over the place. There's no difference in someone electing to participate in discussion where the ARS has tagged an article, and electing to participate only in discussions about history, biography, transport, LGBT issues, or Hornepayne. Frankly, I am hard-pressed to understand why you think misusing one administrator tool is different than misusing another. Risker (talk) 05:54, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

So, Risker, if a user were to follow every LGBT AfD, !vote delete on most of them, and then created and placed on their user page a Userbox saying how proud he was to be reducing the homosexual influence on Misplaced Pages, that would be OK? I gotta disagree. Jclemens (talk) 06:04, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

A (very) brief search through the ANI incident archive reveals that this may not be the first time that people have had a problem with Jclemens' actions as an administrator. Perhaps a review of his adminship is in order after all. I have not gone through the past complaints in detail as I'm about to get off for the night and go to sleep. I will take a look in more detail tomorrow to see if there is a pattern in the past complaints. If anything, it's obvious from his comments above and his continual arguing that he still doesn't understand what he did wrong, despite the fact that no one has taken his side yet. SnottyWong talk 05:57, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

So, rather than defending your edits, you'd rather this focused on the person who cleaned up your disruption? Yeah. All past complaints on my administrative actions are available for public view.... Including all the people who've previously commented there, for instance. I welcome the scrutiny. Jclemens (talk) 06:02, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Snottywong seems to have voted perfectly normally in all the AFDs that he was involved in, he included a vote, and a valid and pertinent policy reason. His edits at AFD were not IMO in any way disruptive. On the other hand, you've gone through and removed a whole bunch of votes based entirely on his philosophy expressed on a completely different page. This is both wikistalking and disrupting the AFD process.- Wolfkeeper 06:07, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

So you don't view the expressed motivation for the edits to "counteract the implicit canvassing by the Article Rescue Squadron" to be in any way disruptive? That is, even when editors are clearly acting in a partisan fashion, as long as they follow the letter of the law, they're OK? Isn't that what WP:POINT is all about? Jclemens (talk) 06:12, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Just revert the reverts, Jclemens. Even if you were right about bad faith, this wasn't the appropriate action to have taken. The closing admins are on the whole sharp cookies that I have a lot of respect for, and they're not going to be tricked into unwarranted deletions by spurious arguments. If an AfD turns on something Snottywong said it will be because it was a good argument, and that's the best reason for letting them remain I can think of. - DustFormsWords (talk) 06:16, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Also, for what it's worth, my impression of the whole matter is that Snottywong got frustrated with other editors (as we all do from time to time) and created a userbox expressing that frustration. When it was pointed out to him the userbox was offensive, he immediately changed it. It doesn't indicate anything more than very natural emotions, a momentary lapse of judgement, and a general willingness to work in harmony with an often difficult community. Extrapolating it into a series of bad faith edits is, itself, something that overlooks the principle of assuming good faith. - DustFormsWords (talk) 06:21, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

You left out the bit where he jumped into more than a score of AfD's flagged for rescue with the expressed purpose of deleting them in between the part where he got frustrated and created the userbox. Other than that, I don't disagree with your summary. Jclemens (talk) 07:18, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

If he'd gone through and just typed "Delete not notable" or similar next to every rescue-tagged AfD, then you might have a point about WP:POINT. But on the ones I've looked at, he did include valid rationales (i.e. on Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/ZipcodeZoo he says "All refereces are primary" and he's right). So it wasn't just a case of blind !voting - I note he took over an hour to comment at all those AfDs. You can argue about the motivation behind it, but you can't remove valid comments based on your own opinion of his motivation, I'm afraid. Black Kite (t) (c) 06:30, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Spending an hour sounds like a lot of work... but then you consider he !voted in over 20 (anyone feel like counting the exact number?) and has asserted that he looked over more rescue-flagged AfDs and didn't comment in them. I've never disputed that he included valid rationales, just pointed out his disruption in doing what he did. Jclemens (talk) 07:05, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

WP:POINT is when you're actually disrupting the wikipedia by actually doing something you disagree with to prove the point. Following the letter and maybe spirit of the rules is to be admired; trying to keep every single article because it might, someday, be reliably sourced, even though it isn't at the moment (which is more where some of the ARS are coming from) really isn't on. We need rules in the Misplaced Pages, they minimise arguments.- Wolfkeeper 06:36, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Please don't make this about the ARS. This is about Jclemens abusing his administrative tools. AniMate 06:46, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) This isn't the first time Jclemens has used tools unwisely to "defend" the ARS (of which I am a member). He should revert and be asked not to use his tools in this area again except in cases of obvious and clear disruption. Verbal chat 07:08, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

This was obvious and clear disruption. Again, I'm not an ARS member and never will be. Jclemens (talk) 07:16, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Claiming that you are not a member, when you are so closely tied to the ARS, does not make you uninvolved and is not particularly convincing. Please justify the clear and obvious disruption with diffs in the section you created below. Verbal chat

I'll agree there was obvious and clear disruption... from you Jclemens. His AfD votes were supported by policy, and you have zero support for your actions. Undo them now, please. AniMate 07:31, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't object to someone else reinserting those edits, but if you want me to do them myself, I need to be convinced that the edits are themselves not disruptive, not merely that my actions were out of proportion to the disruption. That may seem like hairsplitting, but I won't re-do edits that I personally believe are disruptive. Jclemens (talk) 07:49, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Time to start answering some questions

I've directed questions in the above thread to a number of users. If anyone would care to convince me that my actions were incorrect, the way to do that is by engaging in civil discourse. I would welcome it if any editors, and not simply the original editors to whom those questions were addressed would focus on my position that Snottywong's edits were in bad faith and disruptive. Once his actions have been appropriately evaluated by the community, then we can look at what I did in response to them. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 07:16, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Please justify removing AFD !votes that had valid and relevant rationales. Verbal chat 07:25, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

(ec) The edits were expressly made in bad faith, as evidenced by the original version of the userbox under discussion. I rolled them back as disruptive and explained my rationale to the affected editor. Jclemens (talk) 07:31, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, I did not check all of the diffs, but , , & do show an irresponsible use of rollback. Rollback is used to revert vandalism and vandalism only. The edits you reverted are clearly not vandalism. The Misplaced Pages definition of vandalism is very narrow; and in these 4 cases you silenced Snottywong's comments on the AfD. That is disruptive editing, as your edits represented a damage to open discourse. > RUL3R_>vandalism 07:30, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

You appear to be operating from a position that those were legitimate edits, which I do not. I have never called them vandalism, I have called them disruptive. Jclemens (talk) 07:33, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Under what criteria is it disruptive? I see a valid !vote with a proper rationale. If adding {{ARSnote}} is disruptive to you, you discuss with the user. You do not rollback every edit the user makes. > RUL3R_>vandalism 07:38, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

"Rollback should be used only for reverts that are self-explanatory – such as removing obvious vandalism; to revert content in your own user space; or to revert edits by banned users who are not allowed to edit." The edits you reverted do not fall under that description. Jafeluv (talk) 07:37, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

You're referring to the user-level rollback policy. I rolled back his disruptive actions as an administrator who was uninvolved with the AfD's in question. Is there an assertion there that all administrator use of the "rollback" button is restricted by WP:ROLLBACK? I've never understood that to be the expectation. Jclemens (talk) 07:42, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

The principle is the same. Do not wikilawyer. > RUL3R_>vandalism 07:45, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Umm, what? Of course the policy applies to administrators as well. Where did you get the idea that it didn't? Jafeluv (talk) 07:47, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't think a claim that rules don't apply to admins is going to go down very well. Verbal chat 07:48, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

This is why RfA can't have nice things. > RUL3R_>vandalism 07:50, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I find it amusing that the guy succeded 80-2-3 > RUL3R_>vandalism 07:55, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

wat Jafeluv (talk) 08:02, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

HAHA, sorry, my bad. I meant this. Still amusing though, 77/2/0. > RUL3R_>vandalism 08:07, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

For reference, the reverted AfD !votes can be seen here. Jclemens also warned the user on their talk page, saying "Were I not already involved with you on one discussion, I would have already blocked you for disruptive editing." Jafeluv (talk) 07:28, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

To answer a question you posed to me (So, how much more uninvolved do you really want me to be in the face of reactive disruption?) If you're to involved to block, you're too involved to do mass rollback. I want you actually uninvolved. AniMate 07:35, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I have yet to see anything which justifies Jclemens actions, and he has admitted to being involved in a dispute with this editor about AFD. Jclemens, please stop this and don't do anything like it again. Verbal chat 07:37, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

"Stop" what? I've not done anything related to the user or dispute in question since I raised the issue here. Jclemens (talk) 07:40, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

By "stop" I mean undo your actions and either apologise or withdraw gracefully, and not repeat such disruptive tool use in relation to the ARS ever again. Verbal chat 07:44, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

That's an odd usage of stop. I will apologize when and if I am ever convinced that my actions were wrong in that Snottywong's behaviour was not disruptive. So, if you want an apology for him... by all means, address the topic of his actions, rather than my response. Jclemens (talk) 07:52, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Have you noticed how much support your actions have? Unless you are able to show how each one was disruptive, please undo your rollbacks (which also broke rollback rules). Verbal chat 07:57, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

The rollbacks have already been reverted by myself and others, except one that had already been closed. I've asked Sandstein to revisit the closure, just in case it would have affected the result. Jafeluv (talk) 08:02, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

This would be a while different issue if Snottywong had just gone ahead and voted delete on all the articles while giving simple reasons. However, looking at his edits, it looks like he indeed did look into the subject and voted reasonably. His votes were, in my view, clearly not vandalism or disruptive. He was participating the the AfD process legitimately. Regarding his userbox, I believe his changing of it after receiving a notice shows that he is acting in good faith and has no intention to disrupt Misplaced Pages. Netalarm 07:41, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, there has been no evidence presented of any wrongdoing by Snottywong, whereas Jclemens misuse of rollback has not drawn any support. Verbal chat 07:58, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Removing others' comments in an AfD is not a step to take lightly. Even !votes cast by sockpuppets are typically just stricken, with an explanation. Removing !votes cast by someone whose philosophy you disagree with is a very troubling lapse of judgement. I understand that you were concerned about the userbox, and starting the MfD was not an inappropriate response. However, moving on to mass rollback -- apparently without awaiting any response from the editor in question or any answer to your "Is this disruptive?" question -- is very questionable. That you still do not appear to believe you've done anything questionable is... baffling, frankly. This isn't good conduct for an admin. Shimeru 09:28, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Proposal

Can we ratchet down the hysteria?

Okay, we all know that Jclemen's use of rollback was wrong and that DRV is going to overturn and relist any AFD closed as keep if it has been tainted by having a vote struck, but am I the only one who thinks this is wholly uncharacteristic for an experienced, sensible and very well balanced editor? Please can we step back and give Jclemens space to review his actions and hopefully self correct without the pressure that this bout of ANI hysteria has injected into this dispute? I can't help worrying that something is affecting Jclemens and that we need to avoid making it worse. Spartaz 08:11, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

He decided to rollback 20 or so edits by a user who didn't do anything wrong. If he wasn't an administrator, his rollback would be removed. Administrators shouldn't be held to a different standard. AniMate 08:14, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Not arguing at all that he was right in his actions. Spartaz 08:29, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

In fact, administrators should have a higher standard. Admins are trusted by the community as a whole, whereas rollbackers only need the trust of 1 admin. > RUL3R_>vandalism 08:20, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I think you mean support above, but anyway I'm willing to give jclemens more time to cool off and then explain his actions. Verbal chat 08:21, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I should have phrased that as a question, apologies to AniMate. Verbal chat 08:33, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

No worries. AniMate 08:36, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

(EC)I appreciate your willingness to stand back a bit and give Jclemens some space. Ratcheting down here will help and there are plenty of DR options available if given them space to think doesn't help. Anyway, thanks again for listening and being reasonable. Spartaz 08:27, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, let's give him some rest. But I would support a temporary suspension on rollback on AfD, at least until this matter is resolved. > RUL3R_>vandalism 08:23, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Put it this way; if he does it again before the matter is resolved, a more serious remedy would be considered. Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:29, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, any repetition would probably lead to summary desysopping which is a significant enough act that we shouldn't allow the ANI lynchmob to add extra pressure on Jclemens that might further erode their good-judgement. That's why I'm asking for space. Spartaz 08:31, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is looking for his head, but an admission that this was a wrong action would go a long way to shutting this down. If he's unwilling after some time to reflect... AniMate 08:36, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I think this was a very serious breach of the trust we place in administrators to commit to the principles of Misplaced Pages. Reverting !votes on AFD is implicitly assuming bad faith, and in the situation there was very little justification. Rollback should only be used against vandalism, and it was simply cowboy adminship to resort to it in this situation. If Jclemens is unwilling to apologise or at least understand that he has made a mistake here, I think his position in the community should be re-evaluated. Thanks. Claritas § 12:05, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

• Can I ask what the people posting to this ANI hope to achieve? Going on at length here is likely to ratchet up the drama level. If there is actionable evidence of misuse of admin rights, JClemens should be subjected to a request for comment in the first instance. Stifle (talk) 12:23, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
• (And I'm not saying this because Jclemens's actions were appropriate; they weren't, but a long dramatic discussion here helps nobody.) Stifle (talk) 12:31, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Part of the problem is that if this weren't an admin they would have had their rollback rights removed pronto, and there wouldn't be any more drama. The appearance of this is that being an admin means you are protected if you misuse tools. Quantpole (talk) 12:46, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
    • No arguments from me on that one. But if it is desired that Jclemens should be subject to a sanction, RFC or RFAR is the appropriate place for this. Stifle (talk) 13:31, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
• (EC) It looks like User:Jafeluv has already reversed all the rollbacks, so that part of the issue is dealt with. The problem with it being done at all is two-fold: first, as already well noted, this was a wholly inappropriate use of rollback. If Jclemens felt Snottywong's AfD comments were disruptive, he should have left a note or struct them, but only if he had been an uninvolved editor. Considering the back and forth between these two at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/50 Cutest Child Stars: All Grown Up, it was wholly inappropriate for Jclemens to take action against Snottywong in any way at all. Rather, he should have done what he did finally do here, leave a note (though far more neutrally noted and with a better dose of WP:AGF) here so that a neutral admin could review the situation. As for his complaints against Snottywong, I think Jclemens did over react and let his issue from the AfD spill over into his view of the edits. Like others, I reviewed Snottywong's comments, and all were grounded in policy and showed that he did actually look at the articles and issues in question. This is not a newer editor doing rampant deletes or keeps, and he wasn't doing a copy/paste blast. The userbox, while amusing, was probably a bad idea while in the middle of doing AfD reviews, but I can at least understand Snottywong's frustration. Some basic civil discourse would have likely gone a long way here versus rolling back and then MfDing the box. I agree, the hysteria is over the top and it seems several folks calling for rollback rights to be removed do not realize that it is technically impossible without desysopping (which most of the same folks seem to agree is going too far). I think the main thing needed now is for Jclemens to take a step back (hopefully with a good night of sleep) and see how his actions seem inappropriate, admit the error, and move on. My non-adminny view. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:36, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

• The fact that Jclemens continues to not admit the error is what is causing this discussion to continue and escalate. The fact that he performed the rollbacks is one thing, and could be chalked up to a mistake or emotions getting out of hand. The fact that he is an admin on Misplaced Pages, and he still cannot see or admit that he did something wrong is what is truly troubling. I find it hard to believe that an admin can't understand that a userbox is an opinion. It might be humorous, it might be totally fictional or false. You can't base your actions as an admin on someone's userbox. If I create a userbox that says "This user likes to kill infants by twisting their heads until they pop off", then you can't use your CheckUser permissions to find out my IP address, call up my ISP and find out my address, and call the police to come arrest me. Userboxes aren't evidence of anything (even if they are poorly worded and are suggestive of an admission of bad faith edits), especially when there is other evidence which suggests that my edits are not in bad faith. SnottyWong talk 16:55, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
• To be honest I think that the ARS system is a primary cause of this. It is actually a form of canvas, you're inviting people to an AFD to vote keep; and it pushes the idea that you shouldn't ever delete anything. That's not... it... we have standards. We have to have standards. The ARS needs to be watered down, I agree that if articles can be rewritten or improved then they should do that before the AFD closes, but the guys from ARS (including Jclemens in the particular AFD that triggered this) are fairly consistently voting to keep articles that have no reliable sources at all; on the grounds that it 'might' be referenced later. On that basis absolutely any unreferenced article can be kept forever. We're supposed to be summarising reliable sources not unreliable sources. That needs to stop right here, right now.- Wolfkeeper 17:27, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

RFC/U?

ALSO SEE Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_comment/Jclemens

• Being somewhat new to the world of admins abusing their tools, I have not yet had the privilege of contributing to a RfC or RfArb. I would like the opinion of other uninvolved users here as to whether a discussion on this matter should be started at WP:RFC/U. It appears that this behavior is a pattern with Jclemens. To be clear, everyone makes mistakes. However, admins in particular need to be able to realize and admit when they've made a mistake, and they should be capable of apologizing and fixing their mistakes. Especially when 50 people tell them directly that they've made a mistake. The pattern that I'm referring to is that Jclemens appears to be unusually resistant to admitting that he has made a mistake. He generally responds with relentless arguments and wikilawyering. A review of some of the past ANI's involving him show a fairly clear pattern: . My feeling is that Jclemens has not yet learned from his mistake (and even still, at this time, has not yet admitted any wrongdoing with respect to this situation). This troubles me. Not because I need an admission of guilt or an apology from him for my ego or for my fragile emotions, but because I truly believe that this is behavior unbecoming of someone who is trusted with admin tools. Please let me know if you think this behavior warrants further discussion at RFC/U, or if starting such a discussion would be out of line or unnecessary in this case. Thanks. SnottyWong talk 18:06, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

No point. It would be quite simple for an admin to say to jclemens that due to their misuse of rollback, they should not use that feature for the next x weeks/months. As I have said above, if they were not an admin, there would be no discussion, as rollback rights would have already been removed. Forcing people to jump through hoops like RFC/U over something like this simply shows that the admins commenting here are not interested in fairness. They should treat admins the same as those without the flashy bits, or not be an admin. Quantpole (talk) 20:25, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

However pure your intentions it doesnt seem unreasonable to have decided your delete voting spree along with the confrontational user box might have been disruptive or at least likely to cause a WP:Battle. Jclemens likes a peaceful accademic environment, including when that means going against the interests of the ARS. for example a few weeks back he deleted a thread on the ARS board advising that a squad member was in trouble on ANI. With hindsight, Jclemens seems to have been wrong to roll back your edits, but as you say everyone makes mistakes. As fellow volunteers it doesnt seem either best practice or collegial to insist on an apology unless we've been personally insulted. It especially doesnt seem helpfull to start time consuming proceedings against an admin who is clearly overall a massive net positive. Please take note of what Spartaz has to say, he isnt exactly known as an inclusionist. :-) FeydHuxtable (talk) 20:32, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

To be clear, I don't require an apology from Jclemens. However, I believe as an admin, he should be capable of admitting that he made a mistake, and fixing that mistake. As it stands, Jclemens continues to argue that he was right, in the face of all of the admins and users who have told him otherwise. Another admin had to revert his rollbacks, because he was unwilling to revert them himself. It is this reluctance to admit one's mistakes which troubles me, and if there is a clear pattern of this behavior, then should this person really continue to be an admin? That is the question I would like to get comment on in an RfC, but being unfamiliar with the process, I'm unsure if it would be appropriate. However, I'm leaning towards starting an RfC. SnottyWong talk 21:00, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

If you believe it warrants an RfC, then I would say go ahead. That's what RfC is there for. Before you do, though, you should be aware that, aside from the time and attention involved, you'll also be inviting close scrutiny of your own edits. Sometimes these things boomerang. Best to know what you're getting into. Shimeru 21:24, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

@FeydHuxtable - A new hater This crossed the line. Talk about WP:Battle. The title of the section says it all. - Josette (talk) 21:11, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Barring some sort of intervention from ArbCom, an RfC/u is the next step here. Since there has been virtually no support for Jclemens actions (aside from FeydHuxtable, an extremely loyal ARS member) I don't think you have to worry about any boomerang effect here. AniMate 21:28, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I didn't have a problem with that discussion. I thought it was kinda funny actually. SnottyWong talk 21:27, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

(EC) Agreed...as did creating User:Milowent/userboxes/ARSRevolution in obvious direct response to the current MfD leaning towards keep, their own remarks in the AfD that apparently started this conflict between JC and Snotty, and leaving this note on the Snotty's talk page. That said, honestly, she is not the worse for promoting the Battle mentality of ARS...if any RfC is needed, it needs to be in dealing with ARS as a whole. The canvassing (both on and offsite), constant personal attacks, battle mentality, etc etc. Far too many are making such remarks as that, that people think it is "more fun" to delete articles than edit them, and other such crap. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 21:33, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Rollback has the potential to be abused in a content dispute. The ability can be granted or removed by any admin. Therefore, it is seen as an "easy-come, easy-go" tool, and there are explicit guidelines and limitations surrounding its use. In many ways, it is like Twinkle or other generally available tools - it doesn't give you the ability to do anything that any other ordinary editor cannot do; it just makes those actions more convenient. This is rollback, as it is seen by the majority of Wikipedians. For admins, things are different, because rollback is bundled with the real tools - the ones that do things that non-admins cannot do, such as block editors and delete articles. In this case, it's very unfortunate that Jclemens used rollback, because it has distracted discussion about what he did with considerations about how he did it. What is the difference between what would have happened if he had not used rollback, and where we are now? The edits were, after all, reverted by ordinary clicking on ordinary "undo" buttons. The difference is, of course, that people are calling for the other tools to be taken away. And of course if a non-admin had done this they would have lost the rollback bit. Any admin could have removed it, and a week later any other admin could have restored it in good faith. That isn't an option here, and we shouldn't be treating this situation as if it was. Two good solutions to this sort of situation - which is by no means unique to this admin - might be to unbundle rollback from the admin bit, such that it truly becomes an easy-come easy-go low-power tool that can be taken away from admins just like anyone else, or to recognise that the technical details are less important than community consensus, and impose a ban. SHEFFIELDSTEEL 21:35, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't say rollback per se was the problem. I think the choice to revert (removing others' comments from an AfD) was the primary wrong. Use of "admin" tools to do so might've been an additional lapse in judgment, but this isn't a situation where using "undo" instead would've made things okay. Shimeru 01:41, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Unbundling rollback would be a good idea, but until then I don't see why you need community bans to limit the use of rollback by administrators. All that needs to happen is another admin says "Due to your misuse of the tool you are not allowed to use it for (however long)". That way admins are treated the same as ordinary users. No need for extensive discussions or anything. Quantpole (talk) 07:39, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Jclemens' Responses

In this section, I will post three different sections dealing with what I perceive to be the three outstanding questions:

1) Can administrators use rollback on non-vandalism edits?

2) Were Snottywong's actions disruptive?

3) Was I sufficiently impartial to be addressing the perceived disruption?

Comments are welcome, but I'm going to be responding in stages, and it may be some time between posts. Jclemens (talk) 21:41, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Administrator use of Rollback on non-vandalism edits

Here's what the current instructions are for the Administrator use of rollback.

• Misplaced Pages:New admin school/Rollback “Conventionally, administrative rollback is only used to revert simple vandalism or large amounts of mistaken edits (such as when a bot malfunctions). Using rollback to revert conventional good-faith edits is frowned upon because it leaves no useful message to the editor you are reverting and implies you thought their edit worth nothing more than the treatment of a vandal.”

“The "rollback" button also appears on the "Contributions" page associated with each editor. If you have examined a number of individual edits by an editor and determined that they all deserve(d) to be removed (for example, they all consisted of inserting the same WikiSpam), you may decide to roll back all recent edits by this editor. This can be done using the "rollback" buttons on the editor's contributions page.”

• Help:Reverting#Advanced_features “if you use the rollback feature other than for vandalism (for example, because undo is impractical due to the large page size), it is courteous to leave an explanation on the article's talk page or on the talk page of the user, whose edit(s) you have reverted.”

At the same time, it's clear this topic has been a point of discussion for the last several years. This smattering of past discussions seems vaguely representative, and it definitely shows that while “administrators must only use rollback on vandalism!” is one position, it is not universally held.

• Misplaced Pages:Admin_accountability_poll#The_rollback_button_should_only_be_used_in_cases_of_clear_vandalism.2C_or_reverting_oneself
• Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive15#Using_rollback
• Misplaced Pages:Non-administrator_rollback
• Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive173#Administrative_rollback
• Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive617#Rollback_misuse From a cojuple of weeks ago.

Thus, those who assert that administrators are held to the same standard of usage (vandalism only) as non-administrators clearly have some backing for that assertion. The instructions, as currently written, do not prohibit my actions.

At the same time, it is clear that those speaking up in this thread believe that the actions I've taken do not mesh with current expectation of administrator rollback use. I would encourage those who believe that current instructions to administrators on rollback use (the top two links, above) differ from expected norms to modify those pages, perhaps starting an RfC as appropriate. I, as any other administrator, am incapable of reading the community's mind, and encourage full and prompt updates to relevant pages when the community's mind has indeed changed. Jclemens (talk) 21:44, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't wish to wikilawyer; however, Misplaced Pages:Rollback feature does not discriminate between admins and rollbackers; the fact that the lead reads

The rollback feature is a very fast method of undoing blatantly unproductive edits, such as vandalism and nonsense. The name derives from the data management term rollback, meaning an operation that reverses the effect of changes made to a database.

Rollback is available automatically to all 1,727 Misplaced Pages administrators, and there are 3,489 accounts with the rollbacker permission. In total, 5,216 accounts have rollback rights.

leads me to understand that all users who can use the tool are expected to follow the relevant guideline, especially Misplaced Pages:Rollback feature#When to use rollback & Misplaced Pages:Rollback feature#When not to use rollback (in the latter, by the way, there's a reference to the fact that admins can't have it removed, short of being desysopped). I don't wish to appear naive, but, since admins are just editors who can use more tools than the average Wikipedian, I don't think that they can be expected to follow a different set of rules. Salvio ( ) 22:36, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I completely agree that the instructions to administrators on how and when Rollback can be used differ from those given to all users. While it's reasonable to infer that WP:ROLLBACK applies to administrators, there are plenty of other indications that it has not been universally so held, including the explicit directions on administrative use which allow far more leeway. Jclemens (talk) 22:55, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

In other words, the rules which everyone else has to abide by don't apply to admins. It's nice of you to say so so plainly. Quantpole (talk) 07:35, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Have they ever?  Giacomo  07:37, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Well no. But usually there is some sort of pretence that they're the same as the rest of us, just with a "mop and bucket". Quantpole (talk) 07:41, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Snottywong's disruptive AfD edits

At the time User:Snottywong first commented in the AfD, he made reference to the ARS. The article had been tagged for rescue by another editor and Snottywong's immediately prior edit was to the AfD of another page that had been tagged for rescue. As you might guess from the titles, 010 Editor was the first article on the list of articles flagged for rescue, 50 Cutest Child Stars: All Grown Up the second.

At this point, it's reasonable to suspect that Snottywong, who has never been previously involved with the article, only participated to (as he would later admit) “ to counteract the implicit canvassing by the Article Rescue Squadron by regularly reviewing articles tagged for rescue, and voting to delete most of them.” No biggie—he's not being disruptive at that point.

Well, everything is proceeding along just fine. Snottywong engages in some typical AfD shenanigans, attempting to put words into other editor's mouths, denies the reliability and sufficiency of reliable sources, and whatnot. While annoying, it happens all the time, and sources tend to win out. At that point, Keep !votes clarly outnumbered deletes.

Later, I notice a new thread on my watchlist. This prompts me to investigate Snottywong's contribution history, where it is clear that he has systematically gone through and !voted delete on only articles tagged for rescue, with a single keep vote for a no-brainer keep (Upstate New York), and then proceeded to crow his derision in a userbox, which has since been modified after I nominated it for deletion.

Snottywong's spate of editing to AfD's constituted disruption, by his own admission. Cynics may well note that his only “crime” was admitting he intended to “counter-canvas” the ARS. His own userbox, since toned down somewhat, explicitly admitted bad faith by both accusing the ARS of canvassing and explicitly stating that his intent was to influence the deletion process by only commenting on {{rescue}}-tagged articles. Thus, no matter that his rationales were relatively reasonable, he fundamentally violated WP:HONESTY by giving presumably valid deletion rationales that had nothing to do with his actual motivation expressed in the userbox. That constitutes disruptive editing, in my interpretation and action. Jclemens (talk) 22:57, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

• Given that you'd seen that and drawn those conclusions, Jclemens, what would've been the most appropriate response?—S Marshall T/C 23:42, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Given the reaction of the community to what I did do, had I to do it over again, I would have simply removed the non-chronologically placed {{ARSnote}}s and manually marked his edits with an {{spa}}-like note in each affected documenting his pretextual voting. Jclemens (talk) 23:59, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
    • Thank you. Ladies and gentlemen, it sounds to me like Jclemens has learned from this, which means we're already in one of the top 1% of AN/I threads for achievement.—S Marshall T/C 00:11, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
      • I'm not completely convinced. So would Jclemens be happy if all of the people that frequented ARS had their votes labelled with "an {{spa}}-like note" to indicate their pretextual voting. To be honest that would probably be fairer than what he's proposing, a fair number of their votes are along the lines of "This article is currently without reliable references, even though people have looked, but could be referenced some time before hell freezes over, maybe, so I'm voting KEEP!!!!!". The fact that they're a member of a group of (largely) inclusionists also needs to be considered perhaps? I mean if they're on the up-and-up and not effectively vote stuffing they wouldn't mind, right?- Wolfkeeper 03:13, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
        • Absolutely! If anyone uses a {{rescue}} as a flag to get votes without improvement, that's a misuse of the ARS. Now, the ARS are pretty much guaranteed to be inclusionists, so if one stops by, improves the article, and then MORE stop by and say "great job!" to the first guy and !vote keep... that's fair game. Article Rescue (whether or not done by ARS) is for taking worthwhile articles that don't initially meet standards, and doing the actual work of improving and sourcing the article such that by the end of the AfD discussion, the nominator's rationale no longer makes sense because the objections have been answered by improving the article. Jclemens (talk) 04:54, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
      • Sorry, but how is labelling a long time contributor a single purpose account a positive way to handle the original situation? Could you imagine the uproar if every ARS member was labelled {{spa}} at AfD? Quantpole (talk) 08:09, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Involved, or not?

WP:INVOLVED is without a doubt the least clear of the guidelines at issue. Seriously—go read it now.

What are “cases in which they have been involved”? Does the fact that Snottywong and I disagreed in an AfD prohibit me from reverting his disruptive edits to entirely unrelated AfDs? Apparently, some Wikipedians think so, but the last time I reverted another admin's AfD closure on the basis that he had been INVOLVED with me in a prior dispute, I was chastised for invoking INVOLVED in that fashion. Really: every time I think I know what the limits of INVOLVED are, I'm told I'm wrong by someone. I would genuinely appreciate it if that section of the policy were discussed and clarified.

My fundamental reasoning was that Snottywong's participation in an AfD in which I was already a participant did not restrict my ability to correct his disruptive actions in other venues. The concept that an editor can start a dispute with an administrator as a way to prevent that administrator from taking corrective action is WP:BEANS material, but that appears to be what many editors are suggesting. The pretextual !votes in ongoing AfDs were clearly in a position to cause (admittedly minor and non-urgent) damage to the encyclopedia by contributing to presumably otherwise encyclopedic material being deleted, and called for a remedy.

I intentionally avoided the most straightforward immediate solution to Snottywong's disruption—blocking him—in part on the basis that that would affect his ability to participate in the AfD in which we'd been disputing notability. (The rest of the rationale, somewhat ironically, involved my lack of desire for drama that I anticipated might follow such a block, as well as the fact that he was not currently making disruptive edits. I intentionally chose rollback as a least invasive method to repair the disruption) Likewise, I considered and intentionally avoided remedies, such as the single-administrator-imposed topic ban, which have had poor community support in the past.

Overall, I think the suggestion that once an administrator is INVOLVED with an editor to the bare extent of disagreeing in an AfD, that administrator becomes forbidden to engage that editor in an unrelated corrective action is not supported by the current wording of WP:INVOLVED, which states in part “Warnings, calm and reasonable discussion and explanation of those warnings, advice about communal norms, and suggestions on possible wordings and approaches, do not make an administrator 'involved'.”

Since INVOLVED is the most ephemeral of the policies, I accept the community's feedback that I should refrain from fixing such disruption myself in the future, with the caveat that the appropriate policy section really needs to be clarified to encompass current consensus. Jclemens (talk) 05:33, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Overreacting is bad

SnottyWong overreacted to Jclemens actions. Then Jclemens overreacted to SnottyWong's actions. Now ANI is overreacting to joke section titles like "A new hater". This looks like Conflict escalation. How about dropping the sticks and walking away from the matter. If Snottywong makes clearly wrong AFD !votes then we can discuss this again. (Meanwhile, Snottywong has opened Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Jclemens, someone please make a statement saying that the dispute has been brought out of proportion, so I can endorse it.) --Enric Naval (talk) 00:02, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, overreacting is bad. But then so is stuffing an article with dubious references in the hopes that no one will check them, so that it will be kept at AFD, which it now appears that Jclemens was doing with article in question. Jclemens apparently overreacted when he was more or less found out by SnottyWong. And the majority of of the keep votes in the AFD are ARS members. None of this is filling me with warm fuzzies.- Wolfkeeper 05:30, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Um, no. Every reference is legit and I have accurately characterized each one in the article and discussion. Jclemens (talk) 05:35, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Man, Wolfie, you're giving me a bad trip with all your negatively tinged comments about ARS. No matter, I'm off to vote keep on articles like Milowent's High School Lunch Schedule (2001), because its my impression that you think that's what editors who like to improve content do. I feel bad now that I ever noticed Snotty's dumb 'ol userbox and commented on it at ARS talk with the (intended to be humorous) "new hater" comment. Some people get more upset than I do about sentiments like Snotty's about being in favor of deleting all possibly marginal content. I take a more long term view, because from what i've seen, deleted verifiable content almost always returns to the project in some other article (or even in the same article recreated), so deletion is not very efficient at improving the project. We add 10x more articles per day to the project than we delete, so this is inevitable. JC was doing a good job with that article, regardless of whether the consensus ends up deleting it. There was no evil cabal to save an article about an admittedly vacuous 2005 TV special on former child stars. However, I have started an article on Gary Coleman's first feature film, User:Milowent/On the Right Track, which I could not believe was not already covered. It received widespread press coverage, including reviews from Gene Siskel and Janet Maslin. All are invited to participate and drop this drama. Its a funny movie. Gary Coleman stars as an orphan who lives in a locker in a train station. Who wouldn't love that?--Milowent (talk) 05:54, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I think that adding refs you don't seem to have read is a form of lying to the reader.- Wolfkeeper 06:04, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I read every single ref I added. Pretty sure I read every single one which was already there. I have Lexis-Nexis access, which means I can access content that Google cannot. On what basis would you presume that I'd added anything without reading it? Jclemens (talk) 06:13, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

i'm glad JClemens admitted his fair share of blame... i agree that makes this AN/I less dramatic... people who make mistakes with no regrets need a warning to learn their lesson... but i think jclemens showed that he's learned that he can find a less dramatic way of handling this stuff.. i hope snottywong will consider scaling back the drama too. i'd hope he could try to generate more light than heat on issues that bother him like ARS... his userbox is creating a WP:BATTLEGROUND by borderline-attacking a specific group of editors... and it really would be better for wikipedia if everyone took a step back from the borderlines of incivil behavior... at least i hope he doesn't make a habit of borderlining and he's actually been civil and reasonable to me personally... as for ARS i think it might be fair to ask that someone who adds the rescue template should be obligated to add "this article has been tagged for rescue" to the deletion discussion itself just so it is easier to police for canvassing versus good faith improvement... again i think that's a fair improvement that would reduce drama.. Arskwad (talk) 07:44, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

National Review Online directs readers to ongoing AfD

An extremely misleading National Review Online blog post has publicised Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/The Gore Effect‎, which I started yesterday. I fully expect that this will have some disruptive effects on the AfD; it would be helpful if people could keep an eye on it to keep any mischief under control. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:07, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Would it be worth semi-protection of the AfD to prevent disruption? Mjroots (talk) 08:27, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Doesn't look as if there's been a whole lot of actual disruption yet, so that seems premature. The "not a vote" banner has been added already, and AfD admins are generally pretty good about handling AfDs that have had outside traffic driven to them in this way. If we get a lot of vandalism from new accounts and IPs, we can semi it then. Shimeru 09:36, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

i've had the complete opposite experience.--Crossmr (talk) 10:14, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

That blog post has been up for well over 24 hours now. Looks like the good readers of NRO are not terribly disruptive. Good to watch it, though. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 20:08, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Can someone block this IP?

212.44.42.66 keeps vandalising Junior Apprentice and it appears that they have a history of bans. Thanks. KingOfTheMedia (talk) 12:25, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Sounds as if WP:AIV would be the place for this? David Biddulph (talk) 12:29, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Ya, incidents like this go to AIV, but there's only one recent warning (and 3 incidents of recent vandalism). I'd suggest issuing more warnings before you report this. Netalarm 12:31, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

(e/c x 2) WP:AIV is really the place to ask for vandalism blocks. However, since you're here, I see three problem edits but no recent warnings, and I'm not inclined to block at the moment (generally warnings should be left first before a block is made). Instead, I've left a "level 3" (of 4) warning, and if vandalism continues, please report this at AIV. Thanks, Bencherlite 12:32, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

When an IP has a history of blocks (I see four previous blocks , escalating from a few hours up to three months), and where vandalism resumes shortly after each preceding block has expired, there's no need to issue additional warnings. This is not someone who has made an innocent mistake or who might be confused about what the effects and consequences of his actions might be. AGF, as they say, is not a suicide pact. Just reblock (as you've now done). TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:07, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

User:Redaktor

User:Redaktor has made two arbitrary edits to Gaza flotilla raid in less than 24 hours, violating the WP:1RR restriction on the page. Each of them contained multiple reverts for numerous points which were extensively discussed and agreed upon in the talk page, and also multiple POV insertions. Their first edit was undone following a discussion and agreement on the talk page. They have been warned on the talk page and their user page repeatedly. Despite that, they made another edit. The diffs are and . --386-DX (talk) 13:10, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Your diffs are wrong, I think you're mistaken about how much they reverted. Their actual edits to that article can be seen by looking at their contributions. They been warned for 1RR and NPOV for these edits already, and they not edited since. Any repeat of such actions and I will happily block if made aware of it. Fences&Windows 17:32, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Will someone kindly explain what I am guilty of? I did not intend any POV and thought my edit was purely factual. And I didn't realize I was reverting anything! Sorry if I have trod on anyone's toes. --Redaktor (talk) 23:06, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

User:Ucomarketing

I would appreciate if someone could review the recent edits by Ucomarketing (talk · contribs) of University of Huddersfield. It seems fairly obvious this editor works for the university and some of the edits may fall foul of the NPOV policy due to the conflict of interest. The "Uco" in the username, Ucomarketing, probably means University Campus Oldham which is part of the University of Huddersfield, so potentially there is a username policy issue in addition to the NPOV/COI concerns. Whilst I have warned the user about editing this article due to the apparent conflict of interest, I am cautious about getting any further involved due to a relationship I have with the university and so I would very much appreciate attention from someone else here. Thanks. Adambro (talk) 13:42, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Reviewing the edits, I'd have to agree. All of their edits to that article have been very promotional in nature and they seem to have a pretty clear WP:COI issue, especially seeing their one response (the note on your page) mentioning that "we need to update the University profile information". You've already left them a warning, and I've left another, but as they seem to be ignoring the fact that their edits have now been reverted by at least three different editors and your explanations of COI, an admin may need to step in to more fully get their attention. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:51, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Spam-username blocked. Name and edits show clear promotional intent. JohnCD (talk) 15:35, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Block request

• PolskiNarodowiec1985 (talk · contribs) (notified of this thread)

This nationalist/racist rant and the all non-constructive contributions should suffice for an indef block/ban, ex ovis pravis non bona venit avis. Note that the rant was posted after they had received a whole bunch of warnings already on their talk page. The account has been quiet for four days now, but the ability to return should be disabled given that mindset and record. The subsequent IP edit is also of concern:

• 24.21.40.64 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

That Vancouver IP deleted a comment made in 2006 (!) as racist, accusing the editor of being an asshole and the like. Whether or not the IP is right in deleting the 2006 comment, they deserve at least a stern warning for the language used, and it should be checked if it was not the above user editing while logged out (quack quack). Skäpperöd (talk) 16:51, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

The comment that the IP deleted is the following one: Polish chauvinists need to lighten up. Changing the name of a wiki page would not boost polish per capita GDP, which is (surprisingly to the Poles) much lower than Germany's, not to mention other Germanic nations like Switzerland. It's sad that the once glory of Danzig is gone and now it's slowing being transformed into a slavic city. The civilised world now treats Danzig as a lost city like Athens and Constantinpole. The city is still there but it will never be the same. In my opinion such comments are not acceptable and the IP was correct to delete it.  Dr. Loosmark  17:10, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

The comment from four years ago was hardly worthy making a fuss about though. I've warned PolskiNarodowiec1985 for their attacks and NPOV violations; if the reappear and continue more of the same, let me know and I will block them. I have also warned the IP who reported this for making personal attacks. Fences&Windows 17:22, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Received uncivil comment by REGICUAZA who is also exhibiting WP:DE after repeated pleas to stop.

A new user has been reverting long-standing edits on the article List of best-selling albums worldwide with non-reputable sources, and has also written rude language on my talk page (it had to be deleted by another user using WP:HG).

Initially, I just thought that this user didn't understand how to edit correctly, but even after repeated civil attempts, and a comment on the user's talk page, the user did not stop.

I do not know what to do. Reverting their edits is becoming very tiring, and I don't think they know the conseuquences of their actions. BalticPat22Patrick 19:02, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

taking a look. ⇒SWATJester 20:07, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Ok, 1) you are both in violation of the 3 revert rule. So stop reverting. That being said, he is making a number of changes, and while you are correct that blogs are not reliable sources, his changes have included yahoo.com, which IS a reliable source. Finally, the comments on your page were not rude, they are an attempt at him communicating that he is frustrated by your reversions. So, in summary, it looks like this user wanted to contribute something, misunderstood a rule, and you ignored his efforts to communicate with you. Doesn't appear like any action is necessary at this time, but you both need to review your editing styles and communications. ⇒SWATJester

20:12, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

First of all, his edits have been reverted by another user. Secondly, I did communicate to him (on his talk page), and he wrote on mine in response to what I wrote to him. Personally, I think my communicaton with the user was more than satisfactory. He just chose not to heed my advice to read the rules of WP:V. Also, I am aware of the revert rule that I broke. I do try to avoid that as much as possible. Lastly, I did find his comments rude. He didn't need to use that sort of language, regardless of what he thought. It's uncivil and unwarranted. I've been here long enough to know when someone is being curt, and I didn't appreciate his comments. Thank you for researching this, though and I hope I don't have to be forced to come on here again. BalticPat22Patrick 02:54, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

He wrote on your page words to the effect of "You are frustrating me, haha thats a joke. I'll let you edit it then." There's nothing rude or inappropriate about that language, and definitely nothing uncivil about it. ⇒SWATJester 05:36, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

IP 83.38.89.212

See where he makes a clear attempt to make it seem like Christian1985 is making a threat. Instead, I suggest that the IP has gone far beyond the pale in this ongoing harassment, and should be blocked - that sort of edit (clearly from one of the IPs who have harassed him in the past) ought to be sternly trampled upon. Collect (talk) 19:54, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Reverted and blocked. I've dealt with this vandatroll before, and will smite any further reincarnations brought to my attention. -- zzuuzz 20:11, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! Collect (talk) 20:24, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Disruptive IP editor

• 99.141.254.167 (talk · contribs)
• 99.141.250.125 (talk · contribs)
• 99.142.7.232 (talk · contribs)

This newly arrived user seems to be a sockpuppet account. He has been removing images and adding unsourced captions to History of the race and intelligence controversy in an unhelpful way: he never refers to WP:RS, just his own extreme point of view. All the images added to the article were carefully chosen to match and complement the text: the reasons for removing them are irrational ("unnotable" for Cyril Burt, Lewis Terman, Stephen J. Gould, etc, etc) and verge on vandalism. He has removed images with captions which were multiply sourced, evidently without bothering to check any of the sources: he just knows he is right. Some of the images were newly uploaded to wikipedia after painstaking research and have been transferred to commons by others. This editor has adopted a similar WP:BATTLEGROUND attitude on PIGS (economics), which has included forum shopping and edit warring on the article against an established editor. I would request that these articles be semi-protected or that this edit warrior be blocked. His edits are tendentious and none of them seem geared to helping improve content on this encyclopedia. He seems to pass WP:DUCK as a sockpuppet (possibly of a banned user?). Mathsci (talk) 19:57, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Would it be related to any at or ? S.G. _ping! 20:28, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I do not know. Two sockpuppets of User:Jagz have been blocked recently, but he edits from Florida. Thank you for semi-protecting the page, which I requested a while back. Mathsci (talk) 20:55, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

These are my only edits to that article, or related subjects. My edits are civil, well-reasoned, supported and constructive. Mathsci has taken exception to my pointing out that the people pictured in a Weather Underground FBI poster were neither involved in the incident mentioned nor had even formed their organization at that time. He also takes exception to a well supported and informative caption to Galton's image that I added - as well as every single edit, possibly even character, I've typed. I have made no edits to the article text itself, my only contribution has been in relation to images and captions. The numerous false, general and unsupported by even supposition accusations that he's made are hardly appropriate.

And yes, for those wondering, I am that 99.X ip editor that gets hauled here from time to time for being well, an ip. One would hope that my possibly 30,000+ edits over what is now approaching a decade would at least allow me to point in my defense to my supported, civil and honestly constructive good faith edits in my defense. Thank you for your time.99.141.250.125 (talk) 20:30, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Very few of this IP editor's edits seem to have been constructive. He first removed almost all of the images against consensus because "wikipedia is not a gallery". But each image was intimately related to the text and often the captions were sourced: this is common for history-related articles, at least the ones I've helped write as a wikipedian volunteer (Porte d'Aix, La Vieille Charité, Europe#History, Auguste Pavie, Handel organ concertos Op.4, Robert Yerkes, etc, etc). At each subsequent stage the IP editor provided constantly changing reasons for removing the same images, almost all of which contradicted wikipedia policy. I have no idea how an editor suddenly chances upon an article like History of the race and intelligence controversy currently under discussion in an ArbCom case. In circumstances like this there is zero prospect of good faith editing, just common-or-garden disruption for its own sake. Of course this IP editor might have some plausible explanation ... he might also tell us if he has previously edited under a registered wikipedia account and, if not, how he is so familiar with the noticeboards cited above on which he has forum-shopped. Where are those 30,000 + edits of which he boasts? Mathsci (talk) 20:55, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

(ec) One of the interesting things about your style Mathsci is your ability to just produce a bunch of unsupported, general and quite uncivil accusations. Just saying something doesn't make it so. You've now made numerous accusations against me and still more self-serving mischaracterizations. My diffs and ref's have been produced to support my claims, and my edit history is available to you - please support your claims. At this point you resemble nothing so much as a Tasmanian Devil cartoon throwing off all manner of attack in the hopes that someone else will unthinkingly repeat the unsupported.... Hardly activity constructive to the encyclopedia mission.99.141.250.125 (talk) 21:08, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

On at least one of these images 99 seems to make a good case. This image has been challenged and hence policy requires that it be directly supported by a reliable source. I also note that this is a content dispute and there seems to have been no attempt to resolve it by dispute resolution. 94.196.199.229 (talk) 21:16, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

My editing style, dear newly arrived editors, is based on encyclopedic knowledge (you know what we academics teach to people in universities), neutrality and academic sources. On the other hand 94.196.199.229 seems to be an editor that has suddenly materialsed here, possibly through off-wiki coordination. How on earth does such an editor in his first two edits comment on a talk page and then WP:ANI? Which off-wiki websites have an interest in issues connected with "race and intelligence", linking folks in such separated places as Sheffield and Illinois? Um, well, ... Mathsci (talk) 21:36, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't know about Race and intelligence but I saw a notice of this thread at User talk:99.141.254.167 (which I had been the original poster to and so it was on my Watchlist). I've had a very poor experience with this editor also. I'm the editor having problems with this 99.141.*.* at PIGS (economics). 99.141.*.* persistently over-writes the text with a new version and fails to productively discuss these changes on the talk page - or say what the issues with the current text are. My main concerns relate to synthesis, OR and his/her approach to sources in general.

Third opinion were got during the forum shopping exercise pointed to above but 99.141.*.*'s ears appear to be closed to these. He/she overwrote the text again today. I was going to post to Misplaced Pages:Mediation Cabal (or simply ditch my interest in that article) but since this thread is open ... --RA (talk) 21:09, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

RA, I restored the version that you supported as, "That looks much better. I still have some issues but the approach is a better grounding than the previous version from an encyclopediac point of view IMHO. ... Nice rewrite. A very good basis for the article going forward."(1) I also have fully engaged you on the Talk page where you have failed to respond (with the exception of your withdrawn comment) in nearly three days. Our issue is simple, one sentence.99.141.250.125 (talk) 21:15, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Are you happy to go to mediation (actually Misplaced Pages:Third opinion is more like it)? --RA (talk) 21:19, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I've responded to your talk page.99.141.250.125 (talk) 21:28, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Replied with a suggestion. --RA (talk) 21:43, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Time for the community ban of Brucejenner

He has made many sockpuppets for almost a year now and I'm surprised he has not yet been banned. I propose a community banning of Brucejenner to hopefully force him to give up. 188.28.83.178 (talk) 20:34, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

You appear to have been speared by checkuser. --S.G. _ping! 20:40, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

User:Libb Thims/Saudi Carnot

User:Sadi Carnot was banned by ArbCom for 1 year for creating hoax/fringe articles such as human molecule, human thermodynamics and human chemistry (see deleted edits for originals). These promoted the odd ideas in the self-published books of an author called Libb Thims. Carnot has just created a new account User:Libb Thims, and has begun to replace his self-promotional fringe theories in Misplaced Pages and seems to compare his previous ban to book burning and himself to Galileo. I recommend reverting the spam/COI edits of Thims and blocking him for an extended period of time, since I don't think Thims is here to improve the encyclopedia. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:37, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I shudder to see this editor back. That said, you'll have to point out to me what he has done that would allow anyone to block him. Human molecule seems to check out, and his edits to Steve Fuller (sociologist) are to point out that Steve Fuller thinks the whole concept is hogwash. He has taken the step of identifying himself as linked to the old Sadi Carnot account. I think he bears extremely close scrutiny, as his previous contributions consisted of subtle vandalism by chronic distortion of references, misrepresentation of sources, and outright fabrications.—Kww(talk) 22:24, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

See Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Human_chemistry for an analysis of the claims that this is a real field of study, not a metaphor or joke. The first sentence of the "new version" of the human molecule article bears a strong resemblance to the one that was previously deleted. Tim Vickers (talk) 22:33, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm very familiar with that AFD. I lobbied for an indefinite ban on Sadi Carnot on the basis of that group of articles. It didn't happen, so we can't act as if it did. It won't take much for me to support a block on the basis of him having returned to his old ways, but he hasn't quite done so yet.—Kww(talk) 22:43, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

That Human molecule seems to check out is... dubious. 2600-odd atoms of iron? Every hemoglobin protein include four heme groups built around an iron atom, and hemoglobin is around 30% of every red blood cell; which means that 2600 is at least five or six orders of magnitude too small for a single cell. Even being extraordinarily conservative about the number of red bloodcells in the average human (10) is generally accepted), that "formula" would be some 18 orders of magnitude too small. — Coren  02:02, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

"Checks out" in the very limited sense of "accurately reflects the statements made in the quoted source."—Kww(talk) 03:43, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I am against banning Sadi Carnot. I think that the whole focus on him before he was banned and after he was banned was not healthy. Before he was banned his edits were wrongly accepted as gospel and after he was banned, the focus was only on removing his book promotions. But the fact that the core thermodynamic articles were deeply flawed eluded everyone until I became involved in that area (that was after he left in 2008) and rewrote articles such as Helmholtz free energy and Fundamental thermodynamic relation almost completely; they are more or less in the same state today as after my rewriting.

Reading something ridiculous about human chemistry is not going to do much harm. But reading a flawed explanation about basic thermodynamics can do real harm; clearly the focus on Sadi alone did not help to correct this more serious problem. Count Iblis (talk) 02:18, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, somebody who sounds like they are making sense and who pretends that they are an expert in a subject can inflict real damage on our articles. In a sense I'm asking for preventative action here, since once Thims' "ideas" have been spread about some more it will take a long time to unpick his tangled web. Tim Vickers (talk) 03:04, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Request about Athenean

Athenean is a user who currently is under a 4-month editing restriction of 1RR. He has been blocked several times and in the past has also been under another 3-month 1RR in Balkans-related topics Since he was put under restrictions he has become extremely agressive and makes constant personal attacks like this one.

• Athenean's from his first edits after joining wikipedia in 2007 exhibited a battleground behavior. In his third edit he asked on the WikiProject Greece talkpage from the other Greek users to unite and fight against the nasty Albanian propaganda

• Athenean's reverting explanations(wp:idontlikeit often are based on defending attempts to claim Greek history and heritage
• Athenean also has edit-wars frequently in Cyrpus-related articles. His edits are based on his ethnic purity belief that The reason Greek and Turkish Cypriots are so similar is because Turkish Cypriots are basically Greek Cypriots who converted to Islam
• In the past Athenean has supported content of User:Haiduc who promoted pro-pedophilia articles. Athenean supported with a keep vote Haiduc's article Albanian pederasty, in order to preserve defamatory content regarding Albanians. This attempt was pointed out by many users, like Moreschiit is highly disappointing to see the usual Greek nationalist crowd turning up here to keep this, mostly to spite the Albanians
• Personal Attacks, Threats and Harassment:
• Against Sulmues (talk · contribs):
• 'Against Kushtrim123 (talk · contribs):
• Against Balkanian`s word (talk · contribs):
• Against ZjarriRrethues (talk · contribs):
• Against Joe the Dessaret (talk · contribs):
• Against Piasoft:

Many of his edits involve the region of Epirus, important in both Albanian and Greek history. From the start Athenean's goal was very specific Not only is Epirus and its inhabitants uncontestably Greek, but they have been so from earliest antiquity

As he explained in his first edits in 2007 he intended to fight Albanian propaganda. Some of his edits while fighting against Albanian and other information he considers propaganda :

• reverted seriously pov albanian version. makes you think himara is a suburb of tirana or something
• sneaky but ineffective
• His battleground and spa mentality to prove the absolute Greek character of Epirus goes as far as adding the category ancient Greek cities in Gjirokastër a city founded in the 12th century AD
• must remain vigilant in the face of Albanian nationalism While reverting to a previous established version Athenean, in this edit Athenean decided to add his own POV by making Saranda an Albanian majority town as 94% ethnic Greek.
• Removing whole referenced sections Where di you come up with this CRAP?
• The current treatment of the Greek minority by the Albanian government reveals an intense paranoia
• Removing whole referenced sections Illyrian is NOT the ancestor of Albanian
• Accusing User:Future Perfect At Sunrise of upholding double standards Mighty generous of the Misplaced Pages community not to ban "the lot of us". Imagine that. In any case, you can spin this however you want, but "we take into account group X's sensitivities on this particular matter but not group Y's " is still a double standard, no matter what.
• Further accusations against Future Perfect At Sunrise regarding the Republic of Macedonia
• Battleground mentality regarding Slavophone minority of Greece let's cut the crap, shall we?
• Accusations regarding numbers of the Greek minoritynumbers are impossible to come by, as a result of deliberate Albanian government policy.
• Removing(edit-warring) notable Slavic Macedonians from notable people sections of modern Greek cities articles:I don't see how she is notable, and wikipedia articles can be created by anyone. A wikipedia entry by itself is not sufficient to establish notability.nope, no English language non-RoM sources are used to establish notability. A minor politician with no fame ooutside her country.Since the section is entitled "Notable people", the criterion for inclusion is notability. Ethnicity is only a criterion for POV-pushersper WP:NOTABLEthe usual makedonskian POV: Let's find every trivial politico and insert him in Greece-related article to make Greek Macedonia seem more "Macedonian"not notable, not from kastorianot a SINLGE English language WP:RS used to establish notability, burden of proof is on you, not meper WP:NOTABLE and WP:NCGN (Jagnula Kunovska Athenean was removing as not notable was a member of the legislature of Macedonia and founder of a major political party).

Athenean edits articles related to Cham Albanians, an Albanian minority in modern Greece(Epirus periphery) and tried to diminish their presence by edit-warring continuously.

• [http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Albania&diff=prev&oldid=184680409 the only Albanians there are post-1991 immigrants This is a characteristic example of what Athenean has tried to promote in all his edits related to this population.
• While there is a vibrant Greek minority in Albania, there are no more Chams in Greece. Not one.
• Long time edit-warring by removing(edit-warring) Albanian names from Cham Albanian settlements not a single native Albanian speaker.

• Removing(edit-warring) whole referenced sections regarding Cham Albanians as redundant or not notable paragraph is redundant per WP:NOTABLE(the supposedly not notable event is the Assembly of Preveza)
• Removing notable Cham Albanians no english-language refs=not notable(searching in google books reveals many references about the person, but Athenean decided to ignore that) really? because is says (in Albanian), and the title is albanian, and the author is albanian. do you think I'm stupid or something?)rv, not notablerv POV-pushing

individual is not notable. Stop this.Not ok to have half the article taken up by one trivial individual Eventually he stopped removing Jakup Veseli a signatory of the Albanian Declaration of Independence as not notable from the notable people section after intervention of rollbacker User:Blurpeace. It is sure that if Blurpeace hadn't intervened Athenean would have continued edit-warring.

• Starting AfDs about (Cham) Albanians politicians with support under restrictions users(no article was deleted):

Athenean started all these AfDs to delete these Albanian politicans some of which were born in modern Greece. User:Phil Bridger pointed out that: I'll note that we still haven't had one delete opinion here from an editor without a Greek or Serbian point of view. Do you really think that trying to delete mentions of important people from your neighbours' history will do anything other than reduce the respect that the rest of the world has for your nation?

• His nationalist tendency and disruption is such that he even called UNESCO productions about Albanian culture as lunatic

Conclusively, I ask from the administration to indefinitely ban Athenean from Balkan topics including articles, talkpages, discussions about users that edit them etc.--I Pakapshem (talk) 21:06, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I'll say it preemptively: Athenean, don't bother responding to this, it's not worth it, and we don't want to have yet another megabyte of squabbling between the lot of you guys. To fellow admins: consider banhammering the complainant, for the truly odious battleground mentality demonstrated here, which is more or less all he has ever done on this project. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:22, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

There are too many links to ignore it, so I suggest someone uninvolved review it. In fact I myself won't comment but leave it to admins.--— ZjarriRrethues —  21:25, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I think my report is reasonable and should be checked by neutral people. For example calling other people disgusting like Athenean has done is extremely dirsuptive.--I Pakapshem (talk) 21:30, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Support this report. --_Sulmues 21:31, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Another childish initiative by Pakapshem, just after his long-term block (which he hadn't even respected and edited unlogged) launches the most funny&bad faith report. Agree per Fut..Alexikoua (talk) 22:32, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Another insult by one of the close collaborators of Athenean, after a latent baid faith report on one useful and non disruptive edit that I made while on ban. --I Pakapshem (talk) 22:41, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Athenean yet again displaying arrogant and disruptive behaviour by editing out with the comment "pfffffft!" the simple notice of User:Sulmues here: --I Pakapshem (talk) 00:00, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Ban Both user:I Pakapshem and user:Athenean: its clear they both are being uncivil and disruptive. ZacharyLassiter (talk) 01:03, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I don't thing that a 2 days experienced user can have a good picture of all this mess. The case is clear: Pakapshem is an EMBARASSMENT in this community. Already two administrator wonder (Fut. Perf. above and Edjohnston ]]]) why he has not received his indef ban yet.Alexikoua (talk) 06:25, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Alexikoua why are you insisting on ignoring his report and making personal attacks against him? This is a very disruptive violation of civil. I have told you all before to comment on the content of the report not the user who started it.--— ZjarriRrethues —  08:22, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

AdonisBlue

This 'new' editor (21:20, 10 June 2010) AdonisBlue (talk · contribs) created (21:20, 10 June 2010), has started removing references to "Greek" from articles ie Finiq, Phoenice and/or changing it to Albanian. I recall something about a sock doing this? Anyone recall? --220.101 (talk) 21:51, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

It seem the report I was thinking of is immediately above this section re Atheanean. --220.101 (talk) 22:08, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

User:Mathsci (disruptive & tendentious)

The user Mathsci is throwing a fit and trashing discussion at this talk page: Here is but a representative sample, here he adds repetitive text without thought: Note the turning on it's head of Misplaced Pages practice & policy, rather than support items for inclusion he demands secondary sources from those who question an items notability. Providing a secondary source (and creating a new standard equal to that we require for inclusion) to support an argument for non-notability is upside down. Also note that numerous sections do include supporting refs which are used to support arguments regarding weight and accuracy. One such section in which he demanded a ref - had Five supporting cites. Five.

Numerous examples exist from just the last few hours, one editor made the simple observation, "This image has been challenged and hence policy requires that it be directly supported by a reliable source." Mathsci's response? He told the Ed. to basically stuff it. Then comments from Mathsci's regarding his ownership of the article, "Unfortunately you (a) don't get to edit the article and (b) don't get to dictate what discussions here are about." all interwoven with a ceaseless litany of unsubstantiated, uncivil and irresponsible accusations of the lowest kind. Absolutely deplorable behavior and beyond acceptable standards. Yet, it appears to be stock in trade for Mathsci. 99.141.250.125 (talk) 23:09, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

(There's a related thread above. --RA (talk) 23:15, 10 June 2010 (UTC))

(ec) This editor probably should be blocked. At the moment he is supporting himself by citing papers written by Otmar Freiherr von Verschuer on twin studies. This is a primary source, written in 1939 by a German scientist considered as an expert in Rassenhygiene, who in 1942 solicited from his former assistant Josef Mengele at Auschwitz concentration camp blood samples from the corpses of twins for his experiments in Berlin. The edits of this IP editor constitute trolling in the worst possible taste. He now states that, because the article was a transcript of a lecture given to the Royal Society, it is therefore acceptable as a WP:RS for writing wikipedia articles. Comments like this are certainly not good faith editing in any sense of the word. His contributions at the moment seem to be scraping the bottom of the barrel: he is somewhat reminiscent of Fourdee (talk · contribs), banned by Jimbo. Mathsci (talk) 23:26, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Breathtaking. What a remarkable mischareterization of a discussion over this sentence: "Removed Burt, not notable and undue weight - Twin studies have been academically documented continuously to this day from back over 100 years...." The entire exchange can be found here:. Everything from my simple claim that Twin study's have been conducted for over 100 years - to the astonishing application of Godwin's Law ... .99.141.250.125 (talk) 23:35, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

{ec}I'll also add that his reprehensible, unjustified and unsubstantiated attack on me here above is but further evidence, if any were needed, that Mathsci is eager to stoop to any level in his uncivil efforts to harm. His near every sentence is an accusation that I'm a Fucking Nazi - and he does it all the time. Absolutely disgusting. Me: "Twin study's have existed for over 100 years". MathSci's reply, "You're a Nazi." Just one of dozens of exchanges in which Mathsci always stoops to questioning - nay implying, another Ed's motives. Unacceptable.99.141.250.125 (talk) 23:57, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

At no stage have I written, "You're a Nazi". I have written on this page that your editing patterns suggest sockpuppetry. Mathsci (talk) 00:37, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Bullshit. You're a liar. You compared me to Fordee, you tied me to extremists, "Regardless of secondary sources like that, he, like those on many external websites," and you attributed my thoughts to those of a Nazi seeking to further POV in almost every exchange, often without even the pretext of decency "The primary source you have produced, however, reveals a lot about yourself." ... etc, etc,...99.141.250.125 (talk) 00:57, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

It is true that the article has been semi-protected precisely so that this kind of disruptive editor cannot edit it. Above, he doesn't feel any need at all to refer to the 1995 book edited by Nicholas Mackintosh on Cyril Burt, Cyril Burt: Fraud or Framed?. Regardless of secondary sources like that, he, like those on many external websites, simply happens to know the WP:TRUTH. Mathsci (talk) 23:49, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

For those interested, here is the link that 99.141.250.125 supplied . Mathsci (talk) 23:57, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I have no idea why 99.141.250.125 is using such extreme language ("Fucking Nazi"). Perhaps, when he has calmed down, he could explain why exactly he used the above reference, since he was evidently aware exactly who the writer was and his position as director of the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute of Anthropology, Human Heredity, and Eugenics in Berlin during World War II. Is he playing some kind of elaborate game on wikipedia? Mathsci (talk) 00:02, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

WTF has any of this to do with me challenging a captioned portrait's claim regarding the over 100 year history of Twin study's? Are you somehow trying to argue that I'm wrong - that Twin study's don't date back 100 years? Or are you just trying to demonstrate how obnoxiously disruptive & tendentious you are? Get a grip. And somebody please stop this madness. .99.141.250.125 (talk) 00:04, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

You are the editor who chose to cite a 1939 paper of Otmar Freiherr von Verschuer to make your case: he became a member of the Nazi party in 1940. You could have chosen any other paper by any other author, but no, that's the one you chose. Please could you clarify why you cited that paper? Mathsci (talk) 00:25, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

You called me a Nazi because I cited a lecture given at the Royal Society entitled "Twin Research from the time of Francis Galton to the Present Day" to support my simple contention that modern Twin study's dated back over 100 years to Galton.

To call someone a Nazi in order to avoid the subject, a subject that was the anything but contentious or disputed claim that Twin study's date back over 100 years, is a textbook example of the most egregious disruptive & tendentious editing. Your disgusting behavior is truly unacceptable. Seriously, I find your easy, common and repeated use of character assassination on myself and others to be a true stain on the project.99.141.250.125 (talk) 00:37, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Serious allegations of this nature normally require some kind of diff. I've searched the talk page for "Nazi" and I can't find any statement that vaguely represents what you're claiming. Are you perhaps looking at the talk page of another article and mistaking me for another editor? Meanwhile, could you please answer my question about your specific choice of source. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 00:50, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Does it get anymore disruptive & tendentious than to have a treacly little troll ask this, "Meanwhile, could you please answer my question about your specific choice of source." immediately following my just posted statement to which he is directly responding, "I cited a lecture given at the Royal Society entitled "Twin Research from the time of Francis Galton to the Present Day" to support my simple contention that modern Twin study's dated back over 100 years to Galton." You're either unable to comprehend simple statements or you're a seriously warped individual that derives joy from frustrating your fellow contributors. .99.141.250.125 (talk) 01:07, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

The funny thing is that, despite these protestations, Burt Affair exists. Mathsci (talk) 01:33, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

My only point, my only wording, my only simple sentences have never said anything other than twins have been subject to study continuously to this day from more than 100 years ago - and you're a lying scumbag Troll to continue to mis-attribute all these other outlandish claims to me. Your actions here really do bring into question your character. It's not a pretty sight.99.141.250.125 (talk) 02:33, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

"Lying scumbag troll"? Too far. 24h. Black Kite (t) (c) 02:42, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

• Ahem. AN IP who has only been editing for 2 days, almost exclusively in this topic area, 2nd edit ever is a Mathsci revert? Obvious sock is obvious. This is the sort of bad-faith AN/I fishing expedition that should be frowned upon. Tarc (talk) 00:56, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I've been editing here since before 9/11 and may have more than 30,000 edits at this point. And no I really don't feel like getting an account at the "encyclopedia anyone can edit" today. Forgive me if I'm not feeling all that wikihappy after being called a fucking Nazi for daring to state that Twin study's date back over 100 years. .99.141.250.125 (talk) 01:00, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

You would have to provide diffs to support this kind of allegation; and you have not yet explained how you came to quote Verschuer and an 1874 paper to support your claims about twin studies. Nicholas Mackintosh's 1998 book IQ and Human Intelligence has a succinct statement about Cyril Burt's fabrication of evidence on twin studies on pages 75-76. That's the normal way these things are checked on wikipedia. Nobody will believe your claims about being a regular editor of wikipedia. They would if you were editing under a registered account. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 01:21, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

What are you doing, writing an example sheet for "disruptive & tendentious" editing? How many times do I have to respond to your bullshit? Here's the verbatim quote response I posted above, which itself is a quote ... of a quote: "Does it get anymore disruptive & tendentious than to have a treacly little troll ask this, "Meanwhile, could you please answer my question about your specific choice of source." immediately following my just posted statement to which he is directly responding, "I cited a lecture given at the Royal Society entitled "Twin Research from the time of Francis Galton to the Present Day" to support my simple contention that modern Twin study's dated back over 100 years to Galton." How often do you wish to repeat the same lying bullshit?

And frankly, your behavior and complete absence of ethics, honesty or decency does little to encourage me to associate myself more formally with a group that would allow such people as yourself such leeway. 99.141.250.125 (talk) 02:33, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

User:Caden

I've tried to be patient, i've asked the kid to cool it. Just won't listen. There are two problems; endless accusations of censorship and conflict of interest and; no attempt to argue his point (i.e. "is too!" "is not!" etc...)

Over the past week or so:

• June 2 "The biggest problem I see here is the non-stop distruption of Bali ultimate and PhGustaf who appear to be working together as far as I am concerned after a long look at both their history. Both remove well sourced content WITHOUT consensus, both are POV pushing non-stop, and both are trying to censor the article. This is not how wiki works. Caden"
• June 2 Ouside editor opines that he liked some edits that i made. Caden: "Nope sorry I disagree. The current version is the biased, censored POV of both Bali ultimate and PhGustaf. It is NOT neutral at all."
• June 3 comes to my talk page to ask if a conflict of interest is why "you're fighting so hard to remove anything that sheds a bad light on (The New York Times) in regards to the Holocaust" (and no, I haven't stopped beating my wife either). I told him I had no involvement with the paper, now or ever. He also asked if i'm "working with PHgustaf to control the article." I told him I wasn't, that my only overlaps with that editor are in public forums on wikipedia. At this point, he responds: "::I don't believe you. Not a single word. As for your cheap shot above, I'll ignore your childish attack on me. And feel free to take action against me all you want. I know how to handle bullies like you. But do remember, the next time I see you accusing IPs as "socks" or next time I see you attacking newbies I will be sure to report you to ANI where you will be blocked. You are warned." (The Ip in question was soon blocked as the sock of a banned editor; the other editor has been around for 2 years, though i've probably treated him a little roughly). I told Caden to buzz off.
• June 10 (didn't edit between June 3 and today) Says in response to another editors question about whether i'm willing to work with that editor that neither I nor two other editors are willing to collaborate and that "all three are working together to censor truthful (sic) facts" ... "call my honesty bad faith or whatever bullshit wikipedia excuse that you can find to hide under. I'm tired of the game playing by Bali and his team." I ask him to stop personalizing a content dispute, and stop with the attacks. He responds: "And why don't you stop your distruptive agenda driven goals here? What's your relationship to the New York Times? Why are you fighting so hard to protect the New York Times? You called the IP and Cimicifugia "liars" but the only liar I see here is you" etc... I did in fact call the IP (a sock of User:Malcolm Schosha) and the other editor liars earlier; perhaps my use was unkind. It's possible that massive cleanup i did on that article (which involved misrepresntation of the contents of multiple sources) was the result of a misunderstanding on the part of the other editor. .

What intervention am i seeking here? Just someone getting the kid to desist with the attacks, particularly the assertions of an agenda and a conflict of interest, and to either engage with actual content questions if he wants to participate or shove off. As some know, I don't much care for civility game playing and everyone goes off the handle now and then. The problem here is that he won't stop, and his participation on the talk page seems to only be about stirring up a fight (even the sock of Malcolm had something to contribute about the content, much as i disagreed with him).Bali ultimate (talk) 23:19, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Having reviewed the history of Talk:The NYT/Holocaust article who's exact name I forget and don't want to look up, and a few related user talk pages, I agree that Caden needs to dial back the attitude. I've had a run-in or two with Bali, if I recall correctly, so this is not an example of one of his friends saying this. Caden, you're being disruptive on that already-charged talk page, aren't helping, and are doing some of the things you're accusing Bali of doing. If your talk page discussions are not productive, then look for other steps in the dispute resolution process; don't turn it into a battleground. Bali, while I'm here, you'd make things a lot clearer for outside reviewers if you'd take a little more care with emotionally charged words like "lying", or saying things like this, even if you feel goaded. People calling each other names makes it very difficult for uninvolved people to figure out what's going on and intervene, or indeed, for outsiders to have any desire to do so. That said, this is not a "pox on both your houses" opinion; Caden, you've stepped over the line a little, and need to scale back. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:48, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Having been here before with this user, I've left him a message. Completely up to him whether he takes any heed of it, of course. Black Kite (t) (c) 02:39, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

User talk:Hblackhawks

This user has already been blocked for abuse of editing privileges . He then made this edit that triggered another warning for using the talk page as a forum. He then decided to make another degrading comment , then blanked the page . I think this has gone far enough. Nicholasm79 (talk) 02:45, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

His post-block comments don't seem that bad to me, I'd just advise you to stop watching his page. There's no need to get into an argument on someone else's user page, especially when they're indef blocked. Dayewalker (talk) 03:00, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

(ec)The comment didn't seem to violate WP:CIVIL, and it's within a user's right to blank their talk page. He's blocked, so I'd suggest that we just let it drop.  --Joshua Scott (LiberalFascist) 03:02, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

If you say so. I have no issue with him, and he can blank his own talk page, but I don't think he really has the right to make snide comments about other editors or Misplaced Pages like he did. Nicholasm79 (talk) 03:04, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually, editors who are blocked are disallowed from removing current block notices from their talk page, so I have restored the block notice. Kindzmarauli (talk) 05:31, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

It depends on how and when they remove talk from their page. It isn't a user's "right" to blank their talk page. Users do not own their talk pages. They are given some latitude with them but it is not carte blanche to do whatever they want.--Crossmr (talk) 07:52, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Don Martin (public affairs)

This is a strange one. This AfD focuses on a land developer in Austin who also published a book of old postcards from the area. I question the notability of this individual, but the most aggregious aspect of the article is the other editors involved, all of whom seem to have some personal motivation to ensure the article only focuses on the positive aspects of the individual's life, while circumventing any attempt at adding data (verifiable) that would balance the article. I seem to be the only editor on this AfD who thinks the article should be deleted, except for the original nom, and the others are viciously adamant that it be kept, which smacks of WP:COI and WP:NPOV. I have had edits I've made to the article reverted when the edit was intended to make the article more concise and encyclopedic, while the edit reversions always favor showing only the positive aspects of this person. It is believed that some people close to the individual are actually editing the article while he himself has weighed in on the discussion page, which leads me to believe he might have been writing it himself at some point, possibly while signed in as someone else. Additionally, the name of the article is actually the name of his business, which seems a method of using Wiki for free advertising. Some outside help and opinions would be appreciated. Nineteen Nightmares (talk) 03:09, 11 June 2010 (UTC)Nineteen Nightmares

Investigating. ⇒SWATJester 05:39, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, I agree with you on the AfD, but the consensus is overwhelmingly to keep. Part of the problem with this article is that the things that seem like a resume here are actually also sourced assertions of notability. That being said, it's difficult to identify which one of the users involved would be the COI users -- since the article looks fairly decent at the moment, I'd suggest that the additional eyeballs from the AfD ought to keep whitewashing out, and if there's further problems try the COI Noticeboard or other DR measures. But I'm not seeing any obvious admin action needed here. ⇒SWATJester 05:46, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Comment per the subject of the article requesting input of uninvolved editors I have made an RFC Talk:Don_Martin_(public_affairs)#Review_of_Nightmare.27s_Removals_of_Citations ZacharyLassiter (talk) 07:05, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

67.187.229.14

67.187.229.14 (talk · contribs) was blocked for 1 month as a sockpuppet (of whom I don't know...probably another IP). The block having just expired, the user has resumed the exact same activity (genre trolling) with a vengeance...26 POV-based genre changes in the last hour, without any sources or discussion, often removing sources to genres he/she doesn't agree with. Already warned with {{Uw-genre2}} but no reason to suspect the warning will be heeded, as numerous warnings had no effect the last time around. Suggest an immediate reblock for a longer period of time. --IllaZilla (talk) 03:31, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

• Support ZacharyLassiter (talk) 06:45, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
• Support No doubt the ban has had absolutely no effect whatsoever. GetDumb 07:45, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

1. http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=List_of_best-selling_albums_worldwide&oldid=367249753
2. http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=List_of_best-selling_albums_worldwide&oldid=367250660
3. http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=List_of_best-selling_albums_worldwide&oldid=367259971