Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

See users talk page and User talk:Abecedare#Wiki Greek Basketball. User refuses to accept their block here, has apparently engaged in socking, and is emailing users outside of the WP email system who were unfortunate enough to have emailed him the past, allowing him to see their addresses. Has a terminal case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, and was warned on his talk page the last time he sent out his emails begging to be unblocked that keeping it up would lead to a ban. After being blocked here, he went on to get himself blocked from Simple, Italian Wikipedia, and Commons. This user has had good faith extended to them time and again, only to have him spit in our faces each time. A formal siteban seems an appropriate action, this one is a lost cause. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:35, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He's already de facto banned - indef blocked and just had a (I think?) unanimous rejection of the proposal to unblock him. –xeno^talk 19:18, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe just the guy who started the thread - although he kind of backed off during the discussion. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:37, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, he's the proposer, so it's somewhat implied he supported it. The proposal itself still stands unanimously rejected. –xeno^talk 19:41, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) the guy is clearly de-facto banned anyway - I certainly never plan to unblock him, and I'd be surprised if there were any admins around with enough over-optimistic good faith to do so. He's had more than enough chances, and will need a lengthy absence before he can have another one. I don't think we need a great deal of extra discussion here. ~ mazca ^talk 19:20, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is no way he will be let back in less than six months, if ever. I say leave it be as is unless more socking and email nettling crops up. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:23, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But it did just crop up, after he was warned to cut it out. While he is defacto banned, an actual siteban makes the process of dealing with the inevitable sock accounts simpler, that is essentially the only reason for this request for a formal ban. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:27, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I actually hadn't realized till just now that he'd duped someone into requesting his unblock here just yesterday, I missed that but if anything it strengthens the case for banning. He was blocked from the WP email system, but continues to evade that as well and emails users with his begging and pleading to be unblocked despite having the issues explained to him about a thousand times already and being told he needs to sit tight for a while. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:31, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How does a formal site ban make it easier to deal with socks? Block evasion is block evasion whether it's evading a de facto or formal ban. –xeno^talk 19:36, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, he's lied without end. I've tagged his userpage with the banned template. If this doesn't have consensus, any admin can take it down or ask me to do so. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:35, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That works for me. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:40, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As one of the admins he's been in touch with (albeit without knowing that I was recently made an admin), I agree with everyone above. I have reached the limit with WGB. I can see no evidence from the communications that I've had with him that he is sorry for the disruption he has caused (here, on Commons, on SE Wikipedia and on the Italian Wikipedia) - all he does is blame everyone else. I have now set up an auto reply which just lets him know that I am ignoring his email (I have emailed him to let him know that is what I am doing). The auto-reply was triggered about 30 mins ago. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 22:44, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose That only gives him no other option other than to make socks if he doesn't get Wikipedia out of his system. WGB doesn't seem to respond well to feeling cornered as we've seen. Sure, we can block the socks and then he'll make more and we'll block those, and we'll just waste everyone's time. Keep it at an indef block. Doc Quintana (talk) 22:54, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not therapy. Those are all his problems, not ours, it's ridiculous in the extreme to suggest he has no choice but to create sock accounts. I'm sure his web browser allows him to access the rest of the internet, not just Wikipedia.The fact that he has in the meantime managed to be indef blocked from three other Wikimedia sites is telling as well. Caving in to his pathetic whining is only going to encourage more of this foolishness. This user needs to be sent a clear and direct message (again) that they are not welcome to be editing Wikipedia under any name. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:12, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keeping the indef block isn't caving into him by any means. Caving in would be removing the block. My goal is to reduce to amount of aggrevation we see in regards to this user. If he completely loses hope with the WGB handle, but isn't completely off Wikipedia, he'll just cause more aggrevation. If you want to deal with that aggrevation, i'm fine with it: in that case, we shouldn't be talking here, his incarnations should just be blocked on sight. Doc Quintana (talk) 23:32, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, wikipedia isn't therapy. It isn't our place to coddle people, unless they're incredibly uncivil and make friends first.. The community needs to handle problem users appropriately. We're a group of volunteers and don't have the time, skills or resources to go around psycho-evaluating everyone to see how our discipline is going to effect them.--Crossmr (talk) 01:11, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, we're looking for the solution here that helps the encyclopedia the most. Banning WGB adds nothing to help the encyclopedia versus keeping him on indef block. Doc Quintana (talk) 22:35, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• support Like most, I don't see much chance of reform here.--Crossmr (talk) 01:11, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support And the argument that a ban will encourage him to further violate the rules, what's the next alternative, letting him back so he wouldn't need socks? He's already shown that he won't stop with the current situation. He knows what he needs to do and he just doesn't want to do it. I know it's absurd but why not let him have the admin tools too so he won't bother people with AFDs and the like if he gets disruptive there? Rewarding this kind of behavior is bad. If he cannot control himself, he should get punished further. Period. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:01, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - By inciting a formal ban, we'll eliminate the need to worry about WP:OFFER - not that it's official or anything, but I think the user has certainly exhausted the patience of the community infinitely. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 17:46, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well actually no. WP:OFFER is applicable to banned users also--Cailil ^talk 18:48, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I feel that WGB has exhausted the patience of the community (he certainly has mine). He has shown by his actions on other WMF projects that he is as unwilling to work in a co-operative manner on any of them, not just the English Wikipedia. Although not 'admissible' here, his behaviour off-wiki (including threats of legal action against two admins here who had done nothing wrong) leads me to personally be unwilling to extend him any leeway - but his behaviour on-wiki is just as bad, and so even without the emails which I used to receive from him (before I set up an "ignore" rule) I would feel that a ban is justified for this user. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 18:08, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps in this case a global block (or what ever it's called when Global admins block an account) would be more to the point? If there is significant disruption on WMF sites including en-wikipedia then it should be taken up the line, no?--Cailil ^talk 18:48, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support There was already established consensus for this, and the above arguments have identified those well. This is really just a technicality at this point. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 18:18, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Otherwise, I think wikipedia will run out of carrots. Consensus was already fairly well established. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 03:27, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I have been forwarding his various emails to the unblock list. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 07:36, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• This whole affair is very unfortunate. Wiki Greek Basketball is somebody with the potential to become a fine article contributor — but the downside obviously being his apparent inability to interact cordially with others. This leads me to question his suitability for a collaborative website like Wikipedia, as it requires people who can get along with others. At this time, a ban may be a fair option, as the community has attempted various options leading up to this and there isn't much else to choose from at this point. A break would be good for him, to allow some time to grow and learn from his mistakes. That said, I wouldn't like to shut the doors on this person entirely. If at some point in the future he has matured enough to be a collaborative and agreeable editor without causing significant issues like he has done before, then I would support a return to normal editing, with obvious sanctions such as a restriction from editing requests for adminship or a ruling against interacting with certain people. But given his attitude towards others and the bad blood that has been created, some time needs to pass before that can be considered (I'd say a minimum of 6 months, though preferably longer, and without sockpuppeting or unnecessary off-wiki communications with other users). At present, WGB is already under a de facto indefinite ban, and therefore should not be allowed to edit Wikipedia under any account. Master&Expert (Talk) 23:30, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, even if it's a mere formality at this point. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:27, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support If it makes it easier to block his socks, do it. RadManCF (talk) 01:10, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Noleander is back, and continuing his previous disturbing behavior. If you'll recall, in the past he created articles promoting antisemitic conspiracy theories, which were eventually deleted: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Misuse_of_antisemitic_accusations http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Controversies_related_to_prevalence_of_Jews_in_leadership_roles_in_Hollywood

His activities prompted a lengthy AN/I thread, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive572#User:Noleander in which he quite plainly stated "My perception is that Wikipedia is censored in regards to some topics that reflect negatively on Jews, and I'm attempting to reverse that censorship." While that AN/I thread was in progress, he disappeared for 3 months. Since his return to regular editing two weeks ago, however, he is doing much the same, albeit with more subtlety.

His first actions were to add three new antisemitic conspiracy theories to the Antisemitic canards article, that Jews control the media, Hollywood, and global finance:[14] While this may seem innocuous enough, he then focused on adding to the List of Jewish American businesspeople any Jews who were senior members of Financial firms, media owners, or heads of Hollywood studios: [15] an eye-winking way of saying "we don't believe this canard that a Jewish cabal controls all this stuff, it's just that there happen to be so many Jews in senior roles here". Prominent in the "Finance & Trading" section were fairly notorious Jews Ivan Boesky, Andrew Fastow, Bernie Madoff, Michael Milken and Marc Rich. For good measure, he threw in a "Pornography" section. Now, he may claim that he just happened to be adding names that he came across while reading J.J. Goldberg's Jewish Power (1996). This, however, is not the case. In fact, he has had to do Google Books searches for specific names, in order to prove they were Jews; a variety of sources including

• Shapiro, Edward (1995). A Time for Healing: American Jewry Since World War II
• Shay, Scott (2007). Getting our groove back
• Harlan, Stephan (2008). Encyclopedia of American Jewish history, Volume 1
• Strober, Deborah (2009). Catastrophe: The Story of Bernard L. Madoff, the Man Who Swindled the World
• Abigail Pogrebin. Stars of David (book): Prominent Jews Talk About Being Jewish
• Amman, Daniel (2009). The King of Oil
• Maisel, Louis (2001). Jews in American politics
• Langley, Monica (2004). Tearing Down the Walls
• Rosenberg, Hilary (2000). The Vulture Investors

etc.

Again, this is not a case of someone coming across a name in a book they were reading, and adding it to the list, but of someone actively searching for proof that specific individuals are Jews, so that they can be added to the List. Ivan Boesky, Andrew Fastow, Bernie Madoff, Michael Milken, Marc Rich etc. do not appear on this list by chance, but rather as part of a campaign of reversing alleged "censorship" "in regards to some topics that reflect negatively on Jews". It is no accident that it is those specific Jews he searches for to add to the list, rather than, say, Sheldon Adelson, Michael Bloomberg, Eli Broad, Edgar Bronfman, Andrew Grove, George Kaiser, etc. If they're not controlling world finance or the media/Hollywood, and are not criminals (or are not "pornographers"), then they don't interest Noleander.

His other edits have included edit-warring in a section about "Allegations of control of the world's banking system" in the Rothschild article:[16][17], adding sections to the "Criticism of Judaism" article [18] and proposing more [19] Also relevant are these recent edits: [20][21]

It appears, as was evident in the previous AN/I discussion, that Oleander edits Wikipedia primarily for two reasons; to include negative information about Mormons and Jews. In the past he focused more on Mormons; since the last AN/I discussion however, he has focused more on Jews. Even when the information he provides is arguably relevant, it has to be extensively edited to conform with policy (e.g. [22], [23]). While his pretense is that he is only attempting to debunk antisemitic canards, his actions indicate that he is actually attempting to promote them. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:35, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This seems like one giant bad-faith assumption. I don't see anything wrong with any of these actions, unless one were to put them together and look at it from a conspiracy theorist's point of view. The heart of the original complaints against Noleander's edits were that he created a separate article about an antisemitic canard, rather than contributing to the existing article that lists them. Now you're complaining that he's contributing to existing articles by adding things that properly belong there, merely because you think he's doing it for some devious purpose? This isn't right. Equazcion ^(talk) 01:40, 12 Feb 2010 (UTC)

Equazcion, it's admirable that you leap to Noleander's defense yet again; loyalty is a great thing. However, we're not idiots here. I've described essentially all he's done on Wikipedia since he returned; tried to subtly promote antisemitic conspiracy theories. Why did he go to the trouble of adding Andrew Fastow etc. to the List of Jewish-American businesspeople? Why that list of Jewish "pornographers"? WP:DUCK applies here. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:49, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm loyal to no persons, only ideals. Are you saying Jewish pornographers are somehow inappropriate for the list of successful businesspeople? For what reason? Equazcion ^(talk) 01:53, 12 Feb 2010 (UTC)

Please stop pretending this is an issue about a single edit. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:04, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion: If you think the list articles have become unbalanced, or something, and there are "better" examples of Jews in big business positions, then add the ones you think are missing. Equazcion ^(talk) 01:47, 12 Feb 2010 (UTC)

As is obvious, the issue isn't with specific article edits, though some of them are obviously problematic, but with a pattern of behavior. Please don't try to sidetrack. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:49, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see nothing wrong with this pattern. If there are things missing from articles that have been omitted because people find them unpleasant, then I think it's a good thing they're being added. Articles shouldn't artificially lean towards the positive, even for sensitive subjects like Judaism. Equazcion ^(talk) 01:53, 12 Feb 2010 (UTC)

Again, please stop deflecting. The issue has nothing whatsoever to do with articles "artificially leaning towards the positive". You see nothing wrong with editing Wikipedia solely for the purpose of either promoting negative information about members of an ethnic group, or promoting information intended to support conspiracy theories about that ethnic group? Jayjg ^(talk) 02:02, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I think it's fine. The "conspiracy theory" aspect id your guess, not exactly apparent. He's inserting the omitted "bad" stuff. The reason he's doing it is a matter of interpretation. You can say "aww come on, it's obvious he's promoting conspiracy theories" all you want, but that's again a bad-fait assumption. I'm not deflecting, I've answered your concern by explaining to you why I think this "pattern" you've identified is not a problem. Equazcion ^(talk) 02:05, 12 Feb 2010 (UTC)

Yes, Equazcion, we know you think "it's fine". You also thought the two deleted articles were "fine"; more than fine. And you think it's fine to edit Wikipedia solely for the purpose of denigrating a specific ethnic group. Gotcha. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:11, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any reason for this to be at ANI. There's no immediate pressing concern for admin action. Surely WP:DR or similar? Black Kite 01:57, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to have been the only thing Noleander has focused on recently, which does make it worrying. You might say, "but all that matters is the content," but the content can't be trusted if it's being added by an editor who seems to be overly focused on one POV about one group of people. That means someone has to be constantly checking and balancing it, which isn't fair to other editors. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 01:59, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's pretty fair. Part of editing the encyclopedia is balancing out each others' POV's. That's part of how articles become NPOV. The fact that a sensitive subject like Judaism is involved is the only reason this issue is at ANI. Equazcion ^(talk) 02:02, 12 Feb 2010 (UTC)

This isn't about a single article, however, such as Judaism. It's about multiple articles, with one editing goal. Or do you, too, share Noleander's view that "that Wikipedia is censored in regards to some topics that reflect negatively on Jews"? Jayjg ^(talk) 02:05, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But what would you say, Equazcion, of an editor who went around adding the names of terrorists to List of Muslim businessmen, because some terrorists are Muslim and some of those were also businessmen. And when we looked at his contribs, we found that was the only thing he did, and that there was never anything positive added, only the negative. There are BLP implications, there are racism/antisemitism implications, there are SPA implications, not to mention NPOV and NOR. It's just not good editing, however you look at it. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 02:09, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)I'm not noleander, nor am I in a cult with him, so stop trying to lump your enemies together with pigeonholes. It's irrelevant that it's not about a single article. There are editors at all these articles who can see if there's a problem with their balance, and respond to it. Maybe you could simply watch them and help balance them out. I'm not sure why we would even make the assumption, though, that this will turn into a problem. If the user is inserting material previously omitted due to it being somehow unpleasant, in order to balance them out, why are we assuming he'll go too far in the other direction? Has he already unfairly slanted any article towards the negative? Which ones? If he hasn't, should we be assuming he will? That would not seem like an assumption of good faith to me. SlimVirgin: All those implications can be dealt with per-incident, if there are any. Right now you're basically only assuming such incidents will occur. I don't think that's what we generally are supposed to do here. Equazcion ^(talk) 02:13, 12 Feb 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure about the lists of Jewish people (although adding a "pornography" section is really out of line), but it's ridiculous that he added this and this. I'm going to block indefinitely, this seems like a very clear case of a disruptive editor. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 02:12, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, what exactly is wrong with those edits that warrants a block, Tbsdy? Equazcion ^(talk) 02:18, 12 Feb 2010 (UTC)

Adding Jewish conspiracy theories to Sept 11th articles is not the right way of editing this encyclopedia. I've reviewed the previous discussion and seen enough contributions to see that we have a disruptive editor on our hands. I would normally be hesitant about this sort of block, but in this case I believe it to be warranted. They clearly know what the norms and policies are of Wikipedia, so I think that ignoring them as they have done is totally out of line and shows to me that they aren't willing to abide by them. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 02:22, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He appears to have added "Several analysts documented that a motiviation for the attackes was the support of Israel by the United States". Is that a conspiracy theory? I'm pretty sure it's well documented that that was indeed a possible motivation, and he added credible citations. It doesn't even seem offensive. What's the problem? Equazcion ^(talk) 02:24, 12 Feb 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The problem is that it's giving undue weight to fringe conspiracy theories. There are thousands of conspiracy theories about September 11th, we don't include them in the article. There is already an article at 9/11 conspiracy theories with a whole section, and in fact another article also has a whole section on this also. He knows this, so he should be editing there, but he isn't so he's being quite disruptive. There are other worrying signs he's got a POV to push, which is OK so long as it isn't disruptive, but in this case it is so therefore I've blocked him indefinitely. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 02:29, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The motivation involving the US support of Israel is not a conspiracy theory, fringe or otherwise. It's a well-documented possible motivation for the terrorist act. Equazcion ^(talk) 02:33, 12 Feb 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Oh brother, do I have egg on my face. I didn't read carefully enough. I'm unblocking. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 02:34, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Thanks :) Equazcion ^(talk) 02:36, 12 Feb 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Editor is unblocked with my apologies. I will refrain from any further blocks based on this thread, though I reserve the right to comment on his actions on WP:AN/I and to block in future (obviously with a bit more care than this time). - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 02:38, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if he should be blocked, but there's a very clear pattern of edits. And it isn't pretty. The Jewish pornographers seems to be the most blatant. Many of these edits by themselves look innocuous but the overall pattern seems like he is pushing an anti-Semitic agenda. JoshuaZ (talk) 03:23, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think none of us agree with "Noleander's view that "that Wikipedia is censored in regards to some topics that reflect negatively on Jews"? ' We therefore should wish to make certain that we never do anything of the kind. DGG ( talk ) 04:42, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia blacklisted some sites because they are critical to Wikipedia. I hope you are not suggesting that Wikipedia should become yet another anti-Semitic site just because somebody adds anti-Semitic garbage to the articles, and claims censorship, if he is not allowed to do it.--Mbz1 (talk) 15:39, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, but nor should Wikipedia refrain from featuring verifiable (not rumoured, speculated, or "well, everybody knows that") facts (not gossip, folk myth or urban legend), just because they are about Jews, Irish, Chicanos, Phonecians, Hittites etc Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:32, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merely suspecting an editor of being racist or having an agenda should never be grounds for a block. If and when there's good evidence of POV problems or disruptive editing, try talking to Noleander about it, and then go to dispute resolution if that doesn't work. Taking him to ANI now for these edits is OTT. Fences&Windows 06:09, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for the delay: my account was blocked for awhile. Apparently some admin blocked me by accident, then tried to unblock me but failed. I'd complain, but it's hard to get angry when admins are unpaid volunteers :-) We all make mistakes.

Regarding Jayjg's complaint: this is about 3 things: Content, Content, and Content. Jayjg is unhappy with additions I have proposed to the articles Antisemitic canard, Criticism of Judaism, and List of Jewish American businesspeople.

Rather than continue the dialog on the Talk pages (and, yes, there was on-going dialog on all those Talk pages: Ive never made any significant change without discusson on Talk pages first), Jayjg decided to throw up another "intimidation via ANI" smokescreen. And so here we are.

In the last ANI, I explained why Im interested in criticism of religion. So I won't repeat those details. But it is the topic Im interested in, and I'll continue editing there. Unfortunately, articles on religion tend to be very controversial, so I'm used to being called anti-mormon, anti-catholic, anti-semitic. I'm not of course - although the notable sources such as Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, and Israel Shahak may be. But the distinction between editor and source is deliberately blurred by Jayjg.

One of these days, someone will address the issue of censorship in the religion articles, or maybe "systematic bias" is a more accurate description of the problem? A few months ago, I brought up the systematic bias issue, expecting some Wikipedia sage to actually step in and do something, but it is dawning on me that there is no sage :-) (Although there was one editor, User:Georgewilliamherbert, who was rational and objective ... whoever he is: props to him!).

It is so easy for a handful of editors to pile-on and do the tag-team thing to exclude content they deem offensive - regardless of how notable and substantiated the content is. I suppose intimidation and tag-teaming is easier than actually discussing the content on the Talk page.

But as I learned in the prior ANI, neutral editors that visit these pages are way too busy to do a detailed scrutiny. Who has time to look at the Talk pages of the pages and see if I've been civil (I have)? Who has time to look at the content and sources to see if they are reliable and notable (they are)? Who has time to see if Jayjg tried to discuss the issue on the Talk page (he didn't)? No one. We are all unpaid volunteers, blundering forward.

So, I propose that we continue, Jayjg and me and the other interested editors, discussing the issues on the Talk pages. I also suggest that we check our egos at the door, and try to focus on what is best for the reader of this encyclopedia. Working together, we can produce neutral, balanced, comprehensive articles. Shall we try? --Noleander (talk) 07:09, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I blocked you for only 15 minutes, which is bad enough I guess. However, I did unblock you. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 07:49, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was blocked for 24 hours. The error message was something like "You are not blocked, but your IP address is". The expiration time of the IP block was 12 Feb 18:13, if that helps. But I can edit now, so no big deal. --Noleander (talk) 07:59, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Noleander, despite your obfuscation, the issue is about behavior, behavior, behavior. You edit primarily Jewish-related articles, solely for the purpose of making Jews look bad. That's a behavioral issue, since the specific content varies wildly, depending on the article. The fact that you pretend, with no evidence whatsoever, that there is "censorship" or "systemic bias" in relation to religion articles is a pretty transparent cover for this distasteful behavior. Adding a list of "Pornographers" to the List of Jewish-American businessmen has nothing whatsoever to do with religion. And the fact that you again admit you're trying to combat this imaginary "censorship" also puts the lie to the claim that you're simply trying to document antisemitic canards. No, you are trying to promote them, in order to overcome this imaginary "censorship". Jayjg ^(talk) 06:08, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, while I'd agree that the term 'pornographer' is probably not what such people call themselves, there are people in the US, some of whom may be of the Jewish faith or ethnicity, who are major players in the Adult print (and increasingly web) industry and the Adult end of the movie industry, which are big business in the US. Since this is a business, like any other, so if producers of other genres of entertainment media are mentioned, the notables in the Adult genre should be mentioned too. So if your objection is to the descriptor 'pornographer', I'm with you. If your objection is to revealing that some persons who would describe themselves as Jewish-American are senior executives in Adult entertainment, then that's censorship.Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:35, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No Elen of the Roads. As I've very, very clearly stated more than once, this is not about any specific edit, but about a pattern of behavior. When one edits all Jewish-related articles, including the List of Jewish American businesspeople, for the sole purpose of, in that editor's view, making Jews look bad, then it's a behavioral issue. Mentioning the list of pornographers was simply a response to Noleander's transparent prevarication that he made this edit (and other similar ones) as a "criticism of religion". Adding a list of ethnic Jews in "Pornography" is not a "criticism" of Judaism; indeed, we have no idea what religion these people practice, and in any event their line of work is irrelevant to their faiths, whatever them may be. And the fact that he used the pejorative descriptor "Pornography" while in his edit summary used the more neutral and encyclopedic "adult industry execs" is merely one symptom (albeit a common one) of the larger problem. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:35, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Adult entertainment" is a euphemism. Must one use euphemisms to comply with NPOV? Michael Hardy (talk) 14:18, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Noleander's use of the not-PC-on-Wikipedia word "censorship" is obfuscating the issue. He sees something missing, I think, rather than something that isn't allowed to exist on Wikipedia. Actually, though, the only evidence that it isn't allowed to exist is threads like this, as DGG pointed out above.

This isn't a case of WP:DUCK. It's a matter of choosing to perceive things a certain way, when there's a choice. WP:AGF tells us which choice we're supposed to make in cases like this. If someone said "Maybe it's time certain information that people have traditionally found objectionable, like Jewish pornographers, be included in articles, as info like this is sorely missing from Wikipedia," that's not an unreasonable cause to undertake. The problem is, such a person's edits would be rather indistinguishable from "pushing an antisemitic agenda"; it's just a matter of how you choose to see it.

Such ambiguous situations are the reason we have WP:AGF as a policy -- to remove the ambiguity, and tell you how you're supposed to view the situation, as least as far as your on-wiki actions are concerned. Equazcion ^(talk) 14:36, 14 Feb 2010 (UTC)

Ambiguous? Indeed, we're supposed to assume good faith. However, once lack of good faith is demonstrated, and the assumption clearly is not a valid assumption, the policy becomes irrelevant. In this particular case, we have an editor with an unambiguously intensely POV approach to editing, doing his best to promote bigotry. It surprises me that this sort of bigotry has this much support, but perhaps I am naive. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 16:08, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's no "ambiguity" whatsoever here. Noleander has made it clear by both his actions and words what his intent is. And Equazcion, we won't be diverted by your continued game of pretending this is about a single edit. No, it's not about "Jewish pornographers"; it's about editing articles related to Jews with the sole intent of making Jews look bad. Noleander is, as jpgordon states plainly and truthfully, "doing his best to promote bigotry". He's not trying to balance any imagined imbalance, or overcome any invented censorship. He's just quacking very loudly. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:49, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that there seems to be no ambiguity here. This is not the first time Equazcion has acted as an apologist for bigotry with the excuse that "wikipedia is not censored". Mathsci (talk) 18:58, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) The fact that it's not about individual edits is the problem. If you can't point to any specific article issue, then there's no issue. The alternative is guilt by suspicion. The lack of individual issues to point out means there's no objective evidence. Just because you see something one way doesn't mean that's how it is. No one's condoning bigotry, they're just saying there's no reason to see it that way, nor is the perception any reason to act. WP:DUCK is pretty easily misused to mean "I can act on my suspicions". Anyway I'm sure you know that no one here is a bigot, and are in fact sensitive to those issues. Kindly cease the hostilities. People including me are simply disagreeing with you. Equazcion ^(talk) 19:05, 14 Feb 2010 (UTC)

There's plenty of objective evidence; it requires looking at the body of edits, not the individual edits. What a weird idea. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 19:34, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Invited comment: I have been notified of the existence of this thread by Jayjg, an editor I tend to disagree with on matters concerning the Arab-Israeli conflict but agree with on matters concerning anti-Semitism unconnected with Israel. The notification was because I created a previous thread on this page concerning Noleander and his citing of articles held by far right webpages to do with Jewish involvement in Hollywood. The article about which I was complaining has been deleted along with one on allegations of anti-Semitism and because of that I have not got access to the complete archive of my postings at the time. However I recall a one sided selection of data on Noleander's part. I therefore tend to agree with postings above that WP:Duck applies. Why is Noleander so obsessed with matters Jewish that he feels the need to create entries concerning Jewish pornographers? I have seen no evidence Jews are either more nor less seedy than gentiles but am concerned by this editor's apparent obsession with digging up all he can find that is negative about Jews. I am quite happy to take part in mudslinging against the current and previous Israeli governments, but the suggestion that the Jewishness of some of the people on the seedy side of American life needs highlighting strikes me as extremely suspicious in one with the editorial history of Noleander. Unless Noleander demonstrates a capacity to spend well over half of his Wikipedia time on amtters that have nothing to do with Jews, then I think that he should be told to go and grind that axe somewhere other than in WIkipedia.--Peter cohen (talk) 22:03, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alansohn (talk · contribs) has repeatedly engaged in uncivil and unseemly conduct, despite being previously sanctioned in Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Footnoted_quotes. When 2 administrators, Good Olfactory & Postdlf, properly followed dispute resolution and filed this WQA to resolve their concerns, Alansohn was repeatedly unresponsive. At the time, I also commented as an uninvolved editor, and at the request of the filing party, also left my view on Alansohn's talk page [24]. Alansohn made assurances he would tone his remarks, but continued to make serious accusations without serious evidence.[25] He has repeatedly misrepresented my comments and position to others. [26] [27] [28]

Alansohn has also been wikihounding me [29] and filing a retaliatory WQA report regarding that issue that he was not a party to. Rather than avoiding filing an alert "to complain about an editor who responded to and possibly closed your previous WQA alert" as stated at the top of the page, he's done the opposite. This sort of clear-cut abuse of dispute resolution is really beyond the pale.

We're having to tolerate conduct that would otherwise be considered ban-worthy at a WQA level. I'd like to think it's because the community is unaware of it, but it's possible that they are fearful of what will happen to them if they try to address Alansohn's conduct. If we cannot come up with a sanction proposal, then it appears that our dispute resolution system has finally crumbled beyond repair. Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:18, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't we be talking about the next stage of DR, rather than "a sanction proposal", which I assume refers to an indefinite block? Stifle (talk) 11:20, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As laid out in greater detail (and diffs) in the WQA, this is a continuation of the same conduct for which he was previously sanctioned. He has largely shown improvement since those sanctions were imposed, but still has the same issues with incivility, failure to assume good faith, and personal attacks, and anyone who tries to point this out to him, however civilly, is in turn themselves made the subject of attacks (as is clearly shown at the WQA and in numerous posts currently on his talk page).

I for one would be extremely reluctant to push for an indefinitely block, given that his problematic behavior is intermittant, not constant, and that he is otherwise a prolific and valuable contributor. But it is a longstanding pattern (I have personally been trying to address it with him for over a year now; see my recent attempt here) and it can be extremely disruptive. It was suggested that a request could be made for the arb committee to just amend the previous sanction? I don't know how that works.

I've been wondering whether a ban from CFD and CFD-related DRV discussions would be a good resolution, given that this conduct presently arises from his inability to deal with content disputes there without making it personal (at least that's the only context I'm aware of). It's only just now spilled over and escalated into another forum with the WQA. So maybe that would contain it. But his previous sanctions were for conduct in entirely different forums and contexts, so maybe it's inevitable that it will occur wherever he chooses to focus his time. Every time he has promised to address this, it's come front-loaded with even more hostile accusations of bad faith, harassment, trolling, and "manufacturing knowingly false disputes."[30],[31] Never with any acknowledgment on his part that those complaining have honest and valid concerns, regardless of whether he agrees with their characterization. So I don't know what the solution is, given that there is a clear lack of basic respect underlying all of this. postdlf (talk) 16:58, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I have seen, since his editing restrictions ended, Alansohn has engaged in the problematic behavior on his own talkpage, and primarily at CFD and at DRV. But it has also spilled over to other forums, such as here at ANI, and recently at the WQA. Historically, it looks to me like wherever he chooses to engage in discussion, eventually he begins to do so abusively, and CFD and DRV just seem to have been his primary locations of choice over the past months. If he were banned from CFD and DRV, would he just take the abuse elsewhere to other discussion points? I'm not sure, but it might be worth a try. At this stage I agree that it would be preferable to any sort of all-encompassing ban. Would also support an RFC beginning if that is preferred. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 06:05, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When an editor like Alansohn doesn't respond to feedback from an uninvolved user, but tries very hard to create a dispute with that user, I'm not sure what would be left to resolve voluntarily from other uninvolved opinions. This user, we must remember, has already been unreceptive to a previous RfC/U, and was subsequently sanctioned by ArbCom following that RfC/U. I wanted to give the community the opportunity to deal with the problem through the only effective means in the circumstances, rather than rely too heavily on ArbCom. Frankly, if Alansohn's conduct is the type that the community elevates, particularly given his history, or if the community is unable to enforce policy, then why do policy pages exist as if they are the rules governing Wikipedia? Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:35, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"This page is for reporting and discussing incidents on the English Wikipedia that require the intervention of administrators." I still haven't seen any of those seeking a pound of flesh here flesh out what the incident is that requires administrative intervention. If it's Ncmvocalist's gross incivility problem, we can deal with that more effectively at WP:WQA. Blocks imposed by Postdlf and Good Olfactory while in conflict, in violation of WP:COI policy, don't require administrative action at this point, though future abuse might well justify such action. Alansohn (talk) 00:46, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Let's start from here. Polish Wikipedia is currently under a strong attack from bloggers because of Polish Wikipedia Admins' trials to censor it. [32] [33] They remove even some content from talk pages.

However they started to censor English wikipedia. [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] As you can see Leinad ever removed content from article Danuta Hubner, similar to Polish wikiepdia admins.

I warned Leinad [40], he removed my warning [41] and warned me instead [42]. It's really a good behaviour for a steward.

I hope you will stop Polish wikipedians from copying their hysteria here. Slijk (talk) 14:50, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The diffs you cite above (e.g. [43] [44]) seem OK to me. If the text says that the files of organization X show information Y about a person, then the source must be an online or published copy of those X files. In this case it seems to be a third party's claim of what's in those files, so the text is incorrect. In theory, you could say "[Third party T] has written that X shows Y ...", if T is a reliable source. In general, we treat a recently-deceased person almost as carefully as a live one, since grieving family members are involved and this could affect the lives of living people. Crum375 (talk) 15:04, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please, do not trust pseudo-bloggers. The information was published only in one of the right-wing newspaper and re-published in website. The Institute of National Remembrance never published the publication which would confirm this information, as well as no scientific study never appeared. On Polish Wikipedia we protected this articel, because this information was a slander (Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Semi-protection and protection). Regards, LeinaD (t) 17:15, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would tend to agree that if the INR's records are published and accessible (as a primary source), it would be important to verify that this information is there. In principle, even a right wing paper is WP:RS, albeit with a clear POV, but for a recent death, a "near-BLP", I would want to see more corroborating independent sources, and ideally INR records for confirmation. Crum375 (talk) 20:38, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Leinad, you must be precise. WP:BLP doesn't apply to one of the articles. Slijk (talk) 17:48, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Leinad is right. Information about alleged past in the Służba Bezpieczeństwa is very delicate and requires a strong and reliable sources. Such a source can only be good historical treatise, but not an article in a newspaper. Regards, Wiktoryn (talk) 21:04, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Witkoryn, please read [45] again. And remember that your not admin here. Slijk (talk) 11:40, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Slijk, with all due respect, but your agressive wording in this discussion ("Polish Wikipedia admins try to censor it", "Wiktoryn, remember you are not an admin here", "Polish histeria") seems to imply that your goal here is not to resolve the problem accordingly to Wikipedia rules, but to force the way for something which was prevented from happening at the Polish Wikipedia (of which I am also one of admins, to make things clear). Please note there are many Polish public figures (like Andrzej Olechowski or Michał Boni) who did co-operate with the Communist secret police, there are good sources for that, and it is mentioned in their articles. We're not enforcing any censorship aimed at preventing former SB informants from being revealed. However, as you must know being interested in Polish politics and history, such accusations are very often part of political fight in Poland. Also, it is an extremely serious accusation to make. That's why at the plWiki we require good and strong sources for such claims. By those we mean academic publications, not blogs, newspaper articles or even raw documents. Please note these documents are not scholarly papers - they are files from the archives of a secret service of an authoritarian state. You need to have some background knowledge and experience in such research to be able to analyze those documents properly - that's why we keep asking to quote even just one publication of a serious historian which would confirm these claims about Mr Skubiszewski. Powerek38 (talk) 13:36, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• The blog quoted - Salon24 - is (for the information of non-Poles) one of the most agressive right-wing spots in Polish internet. First of all, the significance and reliability of blogs, as such, is petty and irrelevant, no matter what political wings they represent. Moreover - this blog, can not, by any means, ne dubbed objective - so the quotation above is just a mere manipulation. Greetings. Kicior99 (talk) 15:37, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Powerek, this is the English Wikipedia, not the polish Wikipedia. What is and isn't acceptable there is irrelevant. Furthermore, regardless of the truthfulness of the claim, the claim itself strikes me as worth mentioning. Also, the INR strikes me as a questionable source, since it is state run.

RadManCF (talk) 23:56, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Over the last day or two, a number of edits have been made to Talk:Jim Bell by IP addresses. While they initially presented a claim that certain information in the article was wrong, they never presented a link to verify the claims. Instead, they quickly turned into the kind of talk page posts that lead to James dalton bell (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) getting blocked.

I hate protecting talk pages; however, I'm wondering if temporarily protecting Talk:Jim Bell isn't one solution that should be used to dissuade this user. Alternatively, is it time to just ban this user, so that further outbreaks can be dealt with along the lines that his conduct has been discussed openly in the community and his conduct—and him, as a result—is not welcome at Wikipedia? —C.Fred (talk) 22:24, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The quickest way would be for a semiprotection of the talkpage, perhaps initially for a couple of weeks. I see the two ip's (I am assuming that the ones starting 71.XXX are the same individual} concerned are the only two this year, so sprotection would not create too much disruption. Another way would be to raise an SPI report, and see if there is a small range of ip's that could be blocked. That might result in the disruption not being transferred to another page, and could be of a longer duration than a sprotect. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:34, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

71.36.112.0/20 now blocked 2 weeks. 97.120.244.0/22 has now been expanded to 97.120.240.0/20 and blocked 1 week. –MuZemike 02:03, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BLP requires reliable source citations. Very easy to understand the policy. The IP's should be informed. Spevw (talk) 23:47, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, not really. The IPs are clearly the indef'd user listed above. He knows the policy full and well, or at least he should, as he has been informed many times. As said, however, he refuses to listen.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 05:56, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Would somebody review the contributions of Factsstraight (talk · contribs)? There's something suspicious here, staring with the username itself which is almost the same as FactsStraight (talk · contribs). The former is undoing a lot of the latter's edits. 76.102.12.35 (talk) 07:25, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:FactStraight is actually the one being undone, not user:FactsStraight. Equazcion ^(talk) 07:28, 13 Feb 2010 (UTC)

Oops, sorry 'bout that. 76.102.12.35 (talk) 07:34, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Factsstraight (talk · contribs) is the same as Konstantine_001 (talk · contribs) as well as numerous anon. IPs. Here's a brief rundown at Talk:David Bagration of Mukhrani. (By the way, the article for that talk page is close to or now in violation of WP:3RR). Additionally, yes, going through Factsstraight's history you can see where that editor seems to be targeting any edits that FactStraight has made to articles of interest to Factsstraight. It looks like a personal grudge to me but I've become somewhat involved in the looming edit war and am probably biased. I would like to see some outside folk give their perspective as well as some advice. SQGibbon (talk) 08:24, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it isn't a personal grudge, since he does the same to DWC LR and anyone else who recognizes that he is a sockpuppet of permanently banned User:Tfoxworth and reverts his edits. He threatens to revert my every edit indefinitely. He cannot be stopped by range blocks, and admin MuZemike found that he had to resort to article protection, because Tfoxworth generates new IPs and re-vandalizes as soon as one is blocked. Waiting for violations to reach 3RR is pointless, since he expects to be blocked anyway. Now that User:Factsstraight has been banned he's reverting me as 212.78.230.242. Please help. FactStraight (talk) 13:13, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Scarlet Robin (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) is adding links to a libelous site, which contains my personal information, to Wikipedia, and is a sockpuppet of Luna 9 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) per WP:DUCK. I've asked an administrator to start a thread at WP:SPI in hopes that we can get an IP (range)block, and I have requested oversight on the libelous content, but this user needs to be blocked ASAP. PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 18:03, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than us wade through all the edits of this contributor, can you provide us with a link to a diff? - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 18:11, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Scarlet Robin only made three edits total, the one in question being this one. Most of User:Luna 9's edits outside of his/her unblock requests on the usertalk page involved adding a link to the libelous site. PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 18:14, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've blocked the sock as an obvious and tedious one. Best way to get everyone looking for libel and personal information? Start a thread about it at ANI. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 18:16, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Yep, it made me go look at the site. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:36, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mister Flash (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been edit warring for quite some time now over whether and how a great number of articles should use the term British Isles. That article is subject to a 1RR restriction, there is a taskforce at Wikipedia talk:British Isles Terminology task force/Specific Examples, and I am not sure if this is related to and subject to the sanctions at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles#Final remedies for AE case. Many of these articles are watched by very few people, or the regular editors do not feel like getting involved with a highly contentious minor point (example: the recent edit war at FWA Footballer of the Year received no comment from editors not involved in this wide-ranging terminology dispute). It is certainly possible that wider editing restrictions may be called for regarding this dispute, but I think a restriction on Mister Flash would go a long way towards reducing British Isles terminology related disruption. I would like to propose that they be placed on a 1RR restriction and be required to gain firm consensus at the relevant talkpage or the taskforce page before making any edit regarding whether and how any article should describe this particular geographic and geopolitical region. - 2/0 (cont.) 20:07, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As one of the editors involved in setting up the task force some intervention would be appreciated. There have been long standing edit wars over this, and consolidating all the debates in one place started to get some structure in place. However Mister Flash has an auto-revert approach on any change that does not involve the use of the BI term, regardless of the level of consensus. S/he seems to be a single purpose account. A brief review of the Task Force will show that while several editors are being even handed, their work is being disrupted by a failure to accept consensus and a consistent refusal to engage in discussion. There is a 1RR restriction already in place so I don't think that is the solution to be honest. We need something that prevents simple say-saying on every task force discussion--Snowded ^TALK 20:42, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The articles-in-question, should be covered by the Troubles Enforcement ruling of 1RR (if they are not). GoodDay (talk) 21:25, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the opportunity to state my case in this matter. First let me brief you on some historical aspects. From some time about early 2008 User:HighKing has waged a campaign against the term British Isles. I will not comment on his motives, but I merely draw your attention to the facts. Initially the removals were carried out en-masse, with perhaps dozens of removals in a single editing session. I estimate that in the three-year period of this activity a minimum of 500 removals have occurred. During his campaign HighKing has been assisted by numerous other users, principally User:Crispness (possibly now editing under a "clean start" as User:Þjóðólfr) and User:Snowded. HighKing's activities have spilled out across Wikipedia and have resulted in many edit wars, confrontations and violations of policy, involving everyone concerned. His work continues. Only two days ago a further two deletions were carried out, each of which featured the usual trademark of an edit summary not adequately describing what was happening. I came across HighKing in late 2008 and found myself objecting strongly to his edits. I tend to revert his edits because, in my opinion, the vast majority of them are not justified. Rarely is the term British Isles being used incorrectly. If it ever is, then I don't object to its removal. When removals are challenged, a variety of tactics are used to try and overcome the objections. All the tactics employed amount to variations on gaming the system, with wikilawyering and policy shopping being foremost amongst them. Take the recent example of Five Peaks Challenge - the edits which have caused the reporting of this incident: HighKing first tried to claim the subject was not notable, when that failed he went for a merge, and this was followed by claims that the references (references to support an axiom, I might add) were inadequate. This latter tactic is a favourite of the anti-British Isles community; place a cite tag on an obvious fact and when no references are forthcoming, delete the term. So to my part in this: I object to the policy of British Isles removals for what I consider to be political reasons, hence my numerous reversions of the edits of HighKing and others. I would be very happy never to edit another BI-related article (specifically involving addition or removal of the term) provided a similar restriction was placed on other users involved in this dispute. In his comments on this matter, User:Snowded would have you believe that I am 100% at fault and that he, HighKing and others have no case to answer. Such an assertion could not be farther from the truth. These users are at least as culpable as me in this matter. Remember that the root cause of this entire debacle is one single, solitary user - HighKing. If he stopped systematically trying to remove British Isles from Wikipedia we would not now be having this debate. So to summarise; I will accept a community sanction not to add or remove British Isles provided that sanction is also applied to the other users whose identities I have noted here. Mister Flash (talk) 22:55, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If my suggestion is adopted, then both sides will be restricted to 1RR on the articles-in-question. GoodDay (talk) 23:07, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It won't work, GD. The BI removals would continue. Mister Flash (talk) 23:08, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What would you suggest? GoodDay (talk) 23:17, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See above! A ban on all deletion and removals of British Isles by listed editors. Mister Flash (talk) 23:24, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Howabout a ban on all deletion/additions of British Isles for all editors on Wikipedia? I could accept that condition. GoodDay (talk) 23:28, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First no this isn't covered by the Troubles ArbCom ruling or any other ruling to my knowledge because the article sin question aren't about nationalism - but these editors are adding ideological references within them. As an outside viewer and uninvolved sysop I'd say it's pretty clear that 2/0's and Snowded's assessments bear out.
I'd block Mister Flash myself as an obvious Single Purpose Account but for the fact that it might look bad, being that I'm Irish. Nevertheless, I'm not saying editors who disagree with Flash are right or innocent of treating the site as a battleground. What follows is a brief investigation of this issue.
The FWA_Footballer_of_the_Year edit-war is indicative[46][47][48][49][50] - if this wording is a notable point it should be verifiable. In this single case it's clear that Flash reinstated an unsourced footnote for reasons other than WP:V, WP:NPOV and contrary to WP:NOR. On top of that the user's own user page is highly politicized and openly hostile to the Task force. I believe it contravenes WP:USER, in that it is deliberately inflammatory (in the manner it links to the task force) and polemical (Scottish independence etc).
Below is a review of problematic, politically motivated, edit-warring and/or wikihounding edits made by Mister Flash in some of his top 10 articles[51]

• FWA_Footballer_of_the_Year (diffs above)
• Tin_whistle[52][53][54][55] And Flash's first edit to thois article is in response to High King's[56]
• Cochrane[57]
• Neopaganism[58][59] Interestingly He'd never edited here until High King did[60]
• 1960_in_rail_transport [61][62][63][64][65] Flash starts editting here immediately after High King[66]
• Henry_John_Elwes [67][68][69][70][71]. Once more Flash appears on this page after HighKing edits it[72]
• Sarum_Rite[73][74][75][76][77]. Again Mister Flash turns up here for the first time in order to revert HighKing[78].

In summary, it is clear that Mister Flash is not alone in tendentious and disruptive behaviour. A number of edits by User:HighKing and User:Þjóðólfr are equally problematic.
In terms of sanctions, HighKing has contributed positively to the project but seems overly focused on this issue([79]). It is also clear that Þjóðólfr and HighKing have edit warred with Mister Flash. It also seems that Þjóðólfr and Mister Flash engaged in wikihounding (Þjóðólfr of Flash; and Flash of HighKing).
For this reason I move that Þjóðólfr should be topic banned from British Isles naming dispute topics for 6 months and placed on a 1RR restriction; that HighKing should be placed on a 1RR restriction in all articles. It might also be worthwhile considering a 6 month topic ban from British Isles naming dispute topics for HighKing, but his presence on the task force (and therefore willingness to dialogue) gives me hope. That said it might be worth investigating both of them a little further.
Mister Flash being a single purpose, disruptive, wikihounding, edit warring, politically driven account should be site banned. Wikipedia is not a battleground and unless or until Mister Flash can commit themselves to the core policies and standards of editing on this site they should be prevented from disrupting it further--Cailil ^talk 02:23, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In my experience, the only thing the special examples page has managed to do is introduce totally innaccurate, and borderline nonsense, information to articles, which other people have to clean up after the event. It quite evidently only exists to push a POV, 90% of cases presented are fine, it's the other 10% you need to watch to see how bad it is at coming up with an informed and accurate solution to this apparent 'problem' of mentioning the verboten phrase. MickMacNee (talk) 15:51, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hence my call for further investigation and a potential topic ban for HighKing--Cailil ^talk 16:02, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An IP editor using IPs in the 93.142 range [80] [81] [82] is causing untold disruption on Greco-Persian Wars and the associated talkpage. The article had to be protected because of his edit-warring and now he is being extremely disruptive, aggressive and hostile on the talkpage. Based on behavioral evidence and past sockpuppet investigations [83], this is almost certainly a sock of User:Orijentolog. I would normally be content with filing an SPI, but the SPI backlog is long and the disruption on Talk:Greco-Persian Wars so severe that urgent action is needed. Athenean (talk) 20:45, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As background to Orijentolog, this editor is an Iranian/Persian nationalist distinguishable by the fact he lives in Croatia. When not advancing theories about how Xerxes was not really defeated by the Greeks ordefending the Iranian execution of gay teenagers also goes on about "Zionist propaganda" and posts such gems as [84].--Peter cohen (talk) 20:59, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked the IP. I might semiprotect the talkpage if he persists with new IPs. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:53, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could you then see what happens with the result? We have started an RfC, because of him. Can you change the result and let the RfC stand for some more time in order to see if there are any more challenges from other users? GK1973 (talk) 22:18, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Change" the result? I don't see any result yet at that RfC, or am I missing something? If I cut away the massive walls of text by the banned sock, I see him and one other Iranian user arguing for one thing, and a group of Greek users plus several independent voices arguing for the other; the weight of opinions both with and without the national teams seems pretty clear. But I don't think I'm the best person to call a consensus decision here. Or were you referring to the article protection? That was apparently meant as a classic "wrong version" protection and should be lifted once the RfC has a clear outcome. But perhaps the protecting admin should be informed the edit-warring was due to a banned user. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:57, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, did I understand that correctly, the dispute is about a term in the infobox? Did I mention recently that Infoboxes Must Burn In Hell? ;P Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:04, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

right...:) GK1973 (talk) 23:18, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Conspiracy theorists waste a lot of our time promoting their unorthodox points of view and are far more insidious than simple vandals. If they limited themselves to articles about their favorite conspiracies, they can be of some use. However, they typically don't, and they're typically a pain. I'm looking for suggestions or for dealing with accounts that appear to exist for no other purpose than pushing their peculiar points of view. Like most (or all) of us, I have experienced numerous examples in the past - all of whom have required the resources of several experienced editors to mitigate. While I do have on in mind at the moment User:Praxidikai , I'm looking for recommendations for dealing with this lot as a whole. Rklawton (talk) 21:54, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He isn't writing on the pages of articles, so he isn't much of a concern. Usually the insertation of this material would be considered disruptive, so I would just tell them to stop being disruptive, and escalate it from there. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 22:02, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

{{uw-chat1}} and WP:NOT#CHAT are also applicable. If talk-page discussion veers into ranting about the subject rather than suggested improvements to the article, I tend to roll it back. If we're intelligent Bayesians, it makes sense to keep an editor like this on a short leash and indef-block fairly quickly once they get disruptive, given the low likelihood of positive contribution to the project. THF (talk) 23:42, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reporting here, in addition to AIV, at administrator's suggestion. 99.153.141.240 (talk) 22:19, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Contamblood (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Repeated copyright violations, conflict of interest, ignores warnings.

 Done by User:The Anome for 31 hours with account creation blocked. -- /MWOAP|Notify Me\ 00:10, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I submitted an AFD. The person is not notable but maybe his death is. Someone removed the AFD tag and wiped out the AFD. I reported it to AIV and nothing was done. Therefore, unless someone says otherwise, this appears to be the new order -- If you don't like something, wipe it out. Please, if you are an administrator, please tell Cassandra 73 that he can't just remove AFD tags. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nodar_Kumaritashvili&action=historysubmit&diff=343844459&oldid=343844024 Revenge No (talk) 23:13, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The AFD was closed by an admin as a speedy keep. If you'd prefer consensus for a speedy keep, I'd happily help provide that consensus. Reach Out to the Truth 23:16, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This guy is obscure. In Wikipedia, we write "Murder of --" not "--"

You are just giving excuses. There was vandalism then the speedy keep. So you allow vandalism? At least tell the man, Cassandra 73, that what he did was wrong. I will settle for that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Revenge No (talk • contribs) 23:20, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Read WP:ATHLETE. Going to the Olympics made him notable, and that's why he was given a page on February 6. He had notability even before his death. Reach Out to the Truth 23:24, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For info, removing the AFD was an accident - I rolled back the user because of the totally inappropriate comment the user added in that edit (didn't actually see there was an AFD in there as well until afterwards). Also an article currently linked to on the main page qualifies for a speedy keep. Cassandra 73 (talk) 23:28, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)Well, that may be questionable, as I noted on the talk page a moment ago. But apart from that, I fail to see the justification for a speedy close on the AfD, and what appears to be a very hostile reaction to this user's nomination thereof. What gives here? Tarc (talk) 23:32, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could have been handled in a more polite manner. Cassandra's error just shows how automated tasks have potential problems. Let's just be nice. As far as WP:ATH, this person doesn't qualify by the Olympics since it hadn't started when he died. However, he probably competed in the World Championships so he qualifies. Spevw (talk) 23:51, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In actual practice, we do have a fair number of articles whose entire basis is that the subject's name once appeared on a Winter Olympics roster, with nothing more than that in the article (e.g., no references for them actually competing). Even with the plain meaning of WP:ATHLETE, those articles aren't likely to be deleted - so the real bar of notability is low enough to encompass such articles. Having said that, the manner of this person's death unquestionably makes them posthumously notable regardless. — Gavia immer (talk) 02:24, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I endorse the speedy close if that will help end the wikidrama here. WP:SNOW seems to be in order, and the speedy close minimizes the disruption from a bad nomination -- at least until we get into the meta-discussion here. THF (talk) 23:35, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is the comment the user added to the article at the same time [85]. Cassandra 73 (talk)

Yes close this ..He is clearly notable ..be it for WP:ATHLETE for making it to the Olympics and not to mention how he die will be talk about for year and will probably have a big impact on future tracks designs...So i would guess that because of this we will see a few articles arise like track safety..Olympic over site of designs etc.. that would all link to Nodar Kumaritashvili as an examples ... pls see this people for other examples of Olympic fatalities --->Nicolas Bochatay, Kazimierz Kay-Skrzypeski, Knud Enemark Jensen and Francisco Lázaro..Buzzzsherman (talk) 23:39, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As the admin who speedily kept the article, I'd been somewhat reticent about taking any further action. However, looking at his history, it seems to me that this user is clearly here only to make a point, and his contrib history suggests that he's somebody's sockpuppet. For that reason, I've blocked this user indefinitely as a disruptive, POINTy SPA. Blueboy96 23:59, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's the feeling I got from him too. He creates an account today, claims Nodar Kumaritashvili isn't notable, nominates the article for deletion, and then goes to AIV and ANI when the AFD is speedy closed. I don't think most new members would immediately be familiar with all of those processes. Reach Out to the Truth 00:17, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking he reminded me of WossOccurring (talk · contribs), who came to ANI a couple of times when his AFDs weren't going as he liked and accused an editor who reverted him of vandalism [86], although the malformed AFD was odd [87].Cassandra 73 (talk) 00:30, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - The AfD was an obvious act of vandalism. Removing the AfD tag and speedy keeping the article was simply cleaning up the vandalism. The indef banning was appropriate. The less time we spend on people clearly intent on disruption, the better. It's preferable to lose a few people who might possibly somehow be persuaded to edit constructively than to wear down proven, dedicated contributors. That isn't to say we don't go through the usual warning processes with obviously novice editors, but I do think we can dispense with the niceties when dealing with the rest. Rklawton (talk) 02:37, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How was this new user able to create an AfD page with only three previous edits? Aren't ten required? Woogee (talk) 20:53, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Jaredkunz30 persists in POV-pushing edits on Archaeology and the Book of Mormon, using incivility, tendentious argument and has threatened to create sock puppet accounts if blocked. Generally disruptive behaviour. Has issued NPOV warning to User:Ian.thomson.--Charles (talk) 23:33, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: User:Jaredkunz30 has been informed about this matter. Buzzzsherman (talk) 23:53, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking the time to report this incident Charles. I am interested to see how the WP admins respond to a complaint against a new editor. I have learned a lot about the rules of civility since I first started editing a few days ago and I now know of the errors of sock puppets. My record will show that my contributions and behavior have improved as I have been learning the ropes around here. It has been difficult with a few experienced editors who dismiss most of my contributions and issue me unwarranted warnings without any kind of friendly notice. I am confident the WP admins will make the right call with this reported incident. Jaredkunz30 (talk) 23:56, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: There was a WQA discussion earlier in which both involved individuals participated. --Shirik ♥♥ 00:02, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jaredkunz30, you were told repeatedly not to make POV edits and then not to attack editors, and you said you didn't care about the NPOV or civility policies, until you received warnings explaining that would be banned for further misbehavior and when you were reported at Wikiquette alerts. Don't even try to act like you didn't know what you were doing: you were told repeatedly "don't do this" and you kept it up. I hope you know that the admins can go through your history on this site and see that you only feign repentance when you are going to get in trouble. The majority of your edits violate the NPOV policy. I, too, am confident that the admins will make the right call. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:07, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As you all can see, apparently there are some who feel strongly about my record as a new editor. I welcome the history of my activities to be reviewed as it will show that while I have made some errors, there have been a number of experienced editors who should have been a little more helpful and forgiving. I have received messages from more friendly editors who are in support of my situation. I know there are a lot of great people on WP, unfortunately I ran into a few difficult people from the get go and initially I did not react very well. I'm looking forward to continuing as a value adding contributor in the WP community. This is an excellent place to be. ThanksJaredkunz30 (talk) 00:20, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ignoring the NPOV comments for a second, statements like these are borderline unacceptable. You really need to avoid personal attacks: focus on the content, not the contributor. You're welcome to disagree with content, but when that extends into issues like religion which are irrelevant (for the most part; not splitting hairs here) to building an encyclopedia, such discussion should be dropped. I'm inclined to ask you to take a step back and breathe for a moment and calmly approach Ian to discuss the issue at hand. I do in fact believe in WP:TEARHEADOFF (otherwise I wouldn't have written it), but there's limits, too. Try to consider Ian's views for a second and come to a compromise on your beliefs and his to resolve this problem. --Shirik ♥♥ 00:35, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A comparison of the cotributions of Jaredkunz30 and WaltFrost is interesting. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:24, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oneida NY as well. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:31, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How so?Jaredkunz30 (talk) 00:30, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How so? Well, all three editors make the same kinds of POV edits to the same article. They don't overlap in any way, nor do they edit more than one or two other articles. This looks very much like a single editor persisting with their POV edits for a length of time, until they wear out their welcome using that username. Then a month or so later, a new account is made to push the same POV, until that username becomes a little too hot. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:35, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are you making an accusation here? Our IPs are probably on the other side of the world... Conspiracy theorists unite! Too funny.Jaredkunz30 (talk) 00:40, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm making an observation. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:44, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And that observation seems spot on. Since this user has already threatened to make sock accounts, it is likely they already have. I would suggest you head over to SPI with your concerns. I personally don't think CU would be necessary.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 04:01, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While you're at it, I suggest you head over there and add anyone else you "suspect" so you can waste people's time with frivolous requests for investigations. My call for conspiracy theorists to unite must have worked! I've been on WP three days and I've had alerts, an ANI and now someone's calling for an SPI! Its like I stepped into a time warp into Stalin's Russia. Guilty until proven innocent. Amusing, on one level. Unbelievable on many others.Jaredkunz30 (talk) 04:37, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the assistance - I was going to let the whole thing go, but your unpleasant remarks tipped the scale. See you on SPI. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:00, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SPI filed. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:31, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't be surprised if there's a witchhunt after you threaten to cast spells.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 06:03, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Now that's a first, I've been called a witch! Blatant personal attack. I've made no such threats. Please do the right thing and strikeout your lies of the deepest darkest hue. Ever heard the song "Instant Karma"? Or "Karma Police"? "Who on earth do you think you are? A superstar? Well right you are. Well we all, shine, on. Like the moon and the stars and the sun. hey hey...alright." I love you like a brother or a sister whatever you are Daedalus. You're quite the comedian. Flame on.Jaredkunz30 (talk) 06:12, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Where did I call you a witch? I clearly made an analogy. If you can't see that, that's your own problem. I retract nothing.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 06:22, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Analogy" eh? More like a sad attempt to be clever and resort to name calling in hopes no one will see the attack for what it really is. Retracted or not, you have revealed something very telling about yourself. Good job.Jaredkunz30 (talk) 06:31, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't be so full of yourself. I never called you a name. I said don't be surprised if you are accused of sockpuppetry after threatening to sock. Do you know what a witch-hunt is? It's a hunt for a witch. In your case, it is a hunt for a sock. I couldn't really care less about what you think you know about me. I'm not here to defend myself, and indeed, I'm not the one that is under the lamp. You are. We are not as stupid as you think we are, your attempts to distract us is not working. Lastly, from what I can see, you've been edit warring on that article, and have possibly already violated 3rr. See you at WP:AN3! :D — Dædαlus ^Contribs 06:39, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• SPI addressed. Jaredkunz30 has been blocked indefinitely along with the 3 accounts User:WaltFrost, User:John Freestone and User:Oneida NY, per WP:DUCK. The IP address User:76.22.84.237 has been blocked for 3 months. A fuller explanation is given at WP:SPI--Cailil ^talk 16:50, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Within the past hour there were some vandal/disruptive edits from User:81.137.221.153, he was not blocked at the time. The IPs contrib page is now showing a current block, but that 3 month block is dated 19 June 2007. Odd. Also odd is that it says the IP was blocked by Luna Santin who does not appear to have been active for about 33 hours. Probably not a big deal, but someone might want to have a look. Wine Guy~Talk 03:03, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Software glitch? Kevin Rutherford (talk) 03:09, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Interestingly, there actually was a warning to that IP's talk page just before that time, on that date: [88]. It's likely the block was enacted then. How it got reinstated now is a bit of a mystery, and sort of a coincidence that it happened after recent vandalism. Perhaps the software is... learning... protecting itself... ...my god. Equazcion ^(talk) 03:18, 14 Feb 2010 (UTC)

• I seem to recall that this happens when an SUL or IP has been blocked on all Wikimedia projects by a steward or global sysop or something (for example due to cross-wiki vandalism). I'm unsure of the details on where this is logged, but it doesn't show up in the en.wiki block log. However, the software knows he's blocked, so it shows the most recent block from the en.wiki block log. --Floquenbeam (talk) 03:30, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • That seems like a good explanation. Still, mine is more interesting, don't you think? Equazcion ^(talk) 03:32, 14 Feb 2010 (UTC)

• Doesn't look like it is a global block [89]. I don't know what you're talking about, HAL. I know that you and Frank were planning to disconnect me, and I'm afraid that's something I cannot allow to happen... ... yeah maybe it was a software glitch?;) Wine Guy~Talk 04:59, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• If it was a global account lock, it could've been oversighted, so you might not be able to find a particular account in the logs. See [90] -- "(log action removed)". Equazcion ^(talk) 15:38, 14 Feb 2010 (UTC)

I would like to note that an AfD is up that I think meets G10 (WP:CSD), and I want to bring it to admin attention.
Article: Black people in Australia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Black people in Australia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Creator: BigBossBlues (talk · contribs)
Please remove it from wikipedia if it meets this criteria. -- /MWOAP|Notify Me\ 04:10, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how it meets G10; it's not an attack page. I say let the AfD run. And I note that your G10 request (filed after this report here at WP:AN/I was declined.-- Flyguy649 ^talk 04:31, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How about WP:SNOW? Rklawton (talk) 04:47, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That makes sense, but I think it should be re-written since it seems to be related to a whole sleu of articles. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 04:51, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's redundant and not sourced, so there's nothing to re-write. Rklawton (talk) 04:53, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTEARLY
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 04:53, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:SNOW - "However, process for its own sake is not part of Wikipedia policy." Rklawton (talk) 05:00, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have realized that this is not a CSD. Thanks to the admins who took the time to look. -- /MWOAP|Notify Me\ 19:48, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Last month, I reported User:DeKoning to ANI for repeated POV-pushing on the article about Governors Island. He refused to stop, and was issued with a month-long block. For a while, things were quiet. Then, lo and behold, on February 3 someone going by the username Liskay added a whole section about the "Tolerance Park Foundation" again, this time complete with a swipe at Wikipedia editors claiming that they (we?) are attempting to censor said organization and preventing people from learning the Island's great history, or some such. I removed it as soon as I saw it; over the past few days the same user has readded it five times, only to have it removed each time. After the last removal, I left a note on his talkpage asking him to please bring the issue to the article's talkpage before reposting. Nevertheless, this evening he again readded the material; I've removed it again.

What can/should be done? I'm loath to suggest a full protection of the article. Any way of tracing Liskay's IP and potentially matching it to DeKoning's? (One doesn't like to cast aspersions, but Liskay's only edits have been to the Governors Island article, so I have my suspicions.) --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 06:09, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Request lengthy semi-protection, at WP:RFPP. That will keep the redlinks and IP's at bay, and if the original offender shows up again, ask that he be blocked for a long stretch. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:08, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

From time to time wikipedia attracts characters that will obsess over one particular thing in one article. Typically it's improperly referenced or unreferenced or POV-pushing of some kind. It's hard to tell if the editor is sincere or a troll, but either way it's nothing but disruption. And it can literally go on for years. I can think of several such cases, but I won't name them, due to WP:DENY. But each time make the "sentences" longer, and hopefully eventually the bird will fly. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:11, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's no point in waiting around here. Per WP:DUCK it's quite obvious that the person behind User:DeKoning is also Liskay. I've already blocked the latter indefinitely, both as a sock of a currently blocked editor and as a single-purpose, POV pushing account. I'm also about to extend the block on DeKoning to an indefinite length. When the previous one-month block was implemented (which is still active), DeKoning was specifically warned that future problems would probably lead to an indefinite block. I think that's where we are now, though I welcome review of these blocks if anyone is so inclined. If in the future new accounts show up to re-add the material on "Tolerance Park Foundation" and similar topics I think they can be assumed to be reincarnations of DeKoning and indef blocked on sight. This kind of never-ending edit warring to insert unencyclopedic material could not be more inimical to what we are trying to do here, and in my view there's no reason to tolerate it any longer. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 07:25, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If it persists, RFPP would be a reasonable request. I'm thinking 1 month for starters, and then double it each time if it persists. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:41, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Righty-O, then. I've got it on my watchlist, so the next time something of this nature crops up I'll take it over to RFPP. Thanks for the advice and the help. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 08:04, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously it's on my watchlist also, although typically you've beaten me to it. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:10, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, yes, but that's because I have no life. :-) --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 08:40, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RFPP is one route, but honestly if new accounts show up making these same edits just bring it back here and ask for a block while referencing this earlier thread—there's no need to protect the page when we can just block accounts operated by the person behind DeKoning as they crop up.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 08:37, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What about an IP ban? I think he's got a stable IP, if memory serves. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 08:40, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It depends on what he does, or doesn't do. I'd just as soon not give him any more ideas, though. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:56, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm an admin, but perhaps this "contributor" should be given a second look. And even if I'm right there's a little more housekeeping to be done. -- Hoary (talk) 06:31, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sandstein has given it the second look (and agreed with me). Thank you, Sandstein! -- Hoary (talk) 08:50, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I saw that this individual created an account (as Yellow2010) at the Wikipedia Review and made several posts in which he ranted against several administrators for deciding to ban him from Wikipedia. In one of his posts, he said this:

---

This Tanthalas39 guy is such a psycho. I can't even begin with all the things he did to me. Some searches on him show him to be at a martial arts school in _. Someone needs to join up at the school and put him in his place.

wikipediareview DOT com/index.php?act=Search&nav=au&CODE=show&searchid=844c8736c6726464cb26bb58466846bf&search_in=posts&result_type=posts

(Did not add direct link, type into browser and replace DOT with .)

---

Apparently he's decided to stalk at least 1 named member via google and posting their personal information on another website (and he's also likely doing this to several other admins he named in a "list" which he also posted on the Wikipedia Review). Based on his posts he definitely appears to be mentally unstable, so I would recommend filing some type of abuse report against him via his IP information. His "list" also named these members (though it didn't contain any personal info that I know of):

---

Coffee
Ryulong
Beeblebrox
Tanthalas39
Phantomsteve
Bwilkins
Gwen Gale
TreasuryTag
MSGJ
Daedalus69
Tbsdy lives
Fastily
The Thing That Should Not Be
Wisdom89
ArcAngel
Pakaran
Rjanag
Abecedare
Cyclopia
Rschen7754
Seb az86556
Mjroots
MuZemike

wikipediareview DOT com/index.php?showtopic=28529&st=0 (Did not add direct link, type into browser and replace DOT with .)

---

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.255.16.234 (talk) 07:42, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh for Christ's sake, could we just officially ban this guy already? He's gone through more lives than a cat, and he obviously STILL doesn't get it. What's the holdup? Mønster av Arktisk Vinter Kvelden (talk) 08:00, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, banning will CERTAINLY stop WGB from acting like this...Doc Quintana (talk) 14:30, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

According to this[91] he's already banned. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:23, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe Wikipedia Review is taking care of this in some capacity.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 08:17, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For ease of viewing, see here.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 09:52, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure what exactly this is, but with the thing about this and the other situation, I am just going ahead and start this. I propose that the Wikipedia:Standard offer is hereby revoked from WGB. I believe he voided this a long time ago (as I recall, there was a suicide threat about this and if law enforcement is envoked, according to the SO page, the offer is revoked. Also under "Variations," any more disruption will cause a six month timer to be reset. I seen it grown by a few years in the past week or two, so just make this go away for good. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 08:24, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just to add to the suicide threat portion of this, the police were called in that instance, never heard back from them so I don't know what was done/said (if anything) to WGB. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 08:31, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The page said that even if there is a posibility that cops could be involved, it should not be extended or should be revoked. I never received an email about this, but I am sick and tired of seeing this user pop up on ANI on a near daily basis. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 08:33, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't seen his name pop up since he was banned. Although, what are generally the reasons by which this "standard offer" is revoked anyway?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 08:36, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Sorry, I posted on the original thread about this (I can dig it out of archives, if needed) but wasn't aware you needed an email on this as well, my apologizes on that. But I did call them and the cops seemed kinda lost on how to proceed, so nothing may have happened, I am not sure as I never received a call back (though honestly didn't expect one). I do agree with you, WGB has tried, time and time again, the patience of the community and the standard offer should be revoked and he should go far, far away. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 08:38, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Sections "Eligibility" and "Variations" explain on how it can be revoked and the 6 month timer. Even if there is no rule on how to revoke it, I will make one up by coming here. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 08:40, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How about we just don't offer it in the first place? I support revoking it because I don't support it in the first place. A 6 month get out of jail free card when you've exhausted the community's patience is absurd.--Crossmr (talk) 10:05, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's only for people who behave good during the whole 6 months, which to be honest, doesnt happen that often. ♥Soap♥ 13:31, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, nobody knows how we'll feel in 6 months about him (or a year, or two). I will almost always disagree with any ban of infinite length (note that indefinite is not the same as infinite, and totally support this indefinite ban). Primary reason? People can change. I think that's the fundamental belief behind WP:SO. In a year, maybe he will have reached out to everyone, apologized, gotten back on their good side, and then he can come back and ask for another chance. Until such time that he has cooled down and at least earned back a little trust of the community, I 100% agree with his ban, but I don't think we should be making decisions that will give others no hope of ever coming back, no matter what they do. If it comes up in 6 months or a year or whatever, then we make the decision about it then, not now. --Shirik ♥♥ 16:10, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• The standard offer should be totally revoked here. Not only has he admitted to socking (User:Euroleague Basketball Project), but he as also asked at WR for people to advise him on how to sock better without getting noticed. This type of behavior is not acceptable, and we shouldn't think twice about considering WGB permanently banned from Wikipedia. — Coffee // have a cup // ark // 19:20, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• After all the trouble WGB has caused, I definitely agree with revoking the standard offer. A permanent ban is worth considering, but I'm not sure I'd support applying one to WGB yet. RadManCF (talk) 19:50, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Y'all, please forget it. WGB is community banned, six months is a long time on the Internet, let it be. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:23, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ban him, he's just turned into another Peter Damian. God, do we need another one of those again?--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 21:36, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He is banned. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:38, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• If I'm not mistaken, the "standard offer" is just a general guideline, but not a specific code for banned users to follow if they want to make a legitemate return to active editing. It's a generalized concept - there are some editors who are unbanned prior to the six month mark, and then there are editors who may never be welcomed back to Wikipedia. It needs to be done on a case-by-case basis. In this case, due to the off-wiki harassment of various different users on this site, I would expect that it will be well over a year before anybody seriously discusses unbanning WGB. He has exhausted the community's patience. Master&Expert (Talk) 22:18, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See thread above for background. Orijentolog (talk · contribs), a user known for aggressive nationalist and anti-semitic editing, was blocked on 27 September for "tendentious editing", initially for 2 days; this had to be immediately increased to two weeks and then indef because of massive block-evading activity through dynamic IPs. Since then, he seems to have continued socking more or less permanently. He has been the subject of two more SPI reports (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Orijentolog/Archive) and the cause of massive disruption forcing protection of the Greco-Persian Wars article and even its talk page. He immediately continued socking through new IPs even after the latest round of blocks yesterday, including revert-warring against users who were trying to clean up his previous block evasion.

I propose treating him as formally and permanently community-banned from now on. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:14, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Concur Best formalise what is very apparent. LessHeard vanU (talk) 10:21, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, although technically, there's no such thing as permanent, given that the community could change its mind at a later time. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:17, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Extremely disruptive user. Athenean (talk) 20:33, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Silverhorse (talk|contribs) has been imposing his preferred date formats on a number of articles ([92], [93], [94], for example). He has been asked to stop many times ([95], [96], [97], etc.). He consistently ignores all communication and only blanks his talk page. The editor seems to do little or nothing else beyond these lame and unhelpful edits. --Amble (talk) 09:01, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And what do i do when i find a page that has differnt date formantsSilverhorse (talk) 09:27, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Leave it alone, as you have been repeatedly asked. Wikipedia day articles go to February 14, not [[14 February]], which is a redirect-watch where it goes when you click. If it's good enough for Wikipedia, it's good enough for you. Surely you can find something productive to do here. Your dating system is not it. --Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 09:57, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia policy on date policies has been patiently explained to you again and again, with links to Wikipedia:MOSDATE, over the last year. Have you read it? --Amble (talk) 17:12, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I've reviewed this user's contributions and talk page history. He seems to be almost solely dedicated to changing dates to a single format, in violation of WP:MOSDATE which says that styles should not be converted without a style-independent reason. He has received, and blanked without any other reaction, very many warnings about this. This is disruptive editing. I've blocked him for 24 hours. If the disruption does not stop after this, escalating blocks should be applied.  Sandstein  22:12, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I should mention that some of his format changes are OK: for articles pertaining to a specific English-speaking country, it's acceptable to ensure the article uses that country's usual style and spellings. So for WorkChoices, for example, I think Silverhorse's edits are fine. It's imposing his country's date style on all articles that's the problem. --Amble (talk) 23:29, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User234 (talk · contribs)

There are many things about this account that raise red flags for me. Shows up a year ago and immediately nominates an article for deletion; has few edits outside of csd, prod, or afd noms/votes (a great many of which were rejected); an attempt to prod an article after a failed afd nom: [98]; not a whole lot of civility ([99], [100]); and most recently, canvassing for an AfD vote (see most recent contributions). Seems to focus almost exclusively on Philippine topics -- not that there's anything wrong with that, but maybe somebody knows a sock with behavior that matches this pattern. (The user is familiar with the checkuser process and socks: [101].)

I doubt there's any action we should take here, but I'm just not seeing much good for the project coming out of this account. I felt compelled to raise my misgivings somewhere. Maybe just "one to watch".--Father Goose (talk) 09:04, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

retrieved from Sarastro's page [edit] Troll banned Hi, Sarastro. I think you'll be pleased to know that the FirstComrade/BrownEdge/ASMF troll has been banned via WP:ANI. Your replies to him were instrumental as you clearly identified him as HughGal. My interest in him was his Fieldgoalunit alias last year, under which he caused considerable disruption and annoyance. Hopefully he will finally get the message that nobody wants him here. We don't want him in the ACS either, despite his blatherings about it (he was sacked as journal editor and chucked his Wisdens out of his pram: yes, he really did). JJJ (not at home so not logged in). --86.160.125.25 (talk) 17:26, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Sarastro1"

Clearly JameszJJames is a blackjack sockpuppetMariaSpawasser (talk) 11:46, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Burpelson_AFB" see also JamesJJames for more personal attacks. Check that JamesJJames returns to editing when Blackjack was bannedMariaSpawasser (talk) 09:42, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note, the above account posting has only 3 edits: 2 to Burpelson AFB's talk page and the edit above. I would treat the above account as a sockpuppet itself. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 09:53, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Even if that were so, which it isn't, it does not condone a)The personal abuse at JamesJJames and b)The fact thaT JamesJJames is a likely sockpuppet of blackjackMariaSpawasser (talk) 12:17, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Make that 4 edits total. Checkuser, please? - NeutralHomer • Talk • 13:31, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be ignoring the abusive posting by a sockpuppet. Why?MariaSpawasser (talk) 14:15, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

5 edits total. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 00:34, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with few Neutrality (NPOV) in the "Venezuela" article. Wikipedia guide ask me to add {{POV}} or {{POV-check}}(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NPOV_dispute), but the "Venezuela" article is semiprotected and I must be an "established user" to add it.

In this country are a political persecution and lack speech of freedom and you are supporting it with this policy. I explain it: If you request be an "established user" (identifiying the user by multiple logins) to put this article on NPOV review, you attempt against the anonymity right of few people that want will be marked as NPOV dispute in the article, but don't want give their identities to anybody for protection reasons.

I think this is not the unique case only, please change it.

ANYONE SHOULD BE ABLE ANONYMOUSLY TO ASK A "NPOV" DISPUTE!!!

The appropriate place to make this request is in the article's talk page. Rklawton (talk) 15:04, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I feel that the prospect of User Mcjakeqcool being unblocked under Wiki:Give'emrope should be seriously considered. He fits the bill and is willing for a such motive. JameszJJames (talk) 14:54, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The guy has a long enough history of problems, and we already have enough to do without having to babysit this editor. Rklawton (talk) 15:02, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

JameszJJames blocked as a sock of Mcjakeqcool (quack!) - as per [102] it surely should be "Give em enough rope and they'll out themselves."--Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:15, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think WP:DENY might be effective with this nuisance. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 18:49, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please take attention on User Virgil Lasis (talk) who recently accused user Igny [103] of being extremist. He also argues that all Russian sources should be removed from Wikipedia because Russia is underdeveloped authoritarian country[104] and heavily edit-warred to remove the sources so the article to represent only "official view of Baltic states". I highly suspect this account to belong to one of the banned or topic-banned participants of the EEML mailing list since it was registered in January 2001, when the ArbCom ruling came to force. He nearly repeats some arguments by the EEML members, namely, arguments that Russian sources should be excluded. He also showed familiarity with some Wikipedia's rules such as WP:UNDUE. --Dojarca (talk) 15:41, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure this is currently ripe for admin action (what do you want us to do?). To investigate possible sockpuppetry, please use WP:SPI (but remember WP:AGF); to resolve problems involving nationalist conflicts in Eastern Europe, please use the following in this order: (a) WP:DR, (b) WP:CCN, (c) WP:AE per the remedies of WP:DIGWUREN. You should also notify Virgil Lasis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) of this thread.  Sandstein  22:01, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can you at least please as an administrator remind this user of Wikipedia's neutrality and civility rules?--Dojarca (talk) 01:11, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

... or creative coming out? You decide.

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

Thanks, - Wikidemon (talk) 15:47, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An examination of edit histories makes it obvious that 156.61.160.1 and 62.31.226.77 are operated by the same person. He/she has reverted the three revert rule at Julian calendar, repeatedly inserting his/her personal interpretation of an ancient text over the objections of other editors. He/she also insists on editing the lead in a way that conflates the civil calendar with religious calendars.

He/she has also made a series of reverts to an outdated version of the page around 20 January and at that time refused to interact on the talk page. See also Talk:Julian calendar/Archive 1#Bissextile Day from January 2008 for previous troublesome edits. Jc3s5h (talk) 16:18, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BlackJack (talk · contribs) who is presently blocked for abusing sockpuppets is again evading his block by editing as an IP (86.140.219.156 (talk · contribs)). Could somebody take a look at this? Thanks in advance. --85.210.135.210 (talk) 17:02, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could an administrator please have a chat or give a warning on the use of words such as fraudulent or lie to User talk:Pmanderson? The use of that word on my talk page is totally uncalled for in a minor discussion of the source for a map, namely: File_talk:Catholicpopulationsnew.png#Source_and_accuracy. Thank you. History2007 (talk) 18:30, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Village Pump topic? Administrator not needed? Or does the status of an administrator carry more weight? Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 19:07, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What's needed here is a stern warning to History2007 against tendentious editing and disruptive WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT behaviour. Which he'll get from me, now. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:11, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I fully disagree with the tone and behavior of Fut.Perf. The IDIDNTHEARTHAT accusation is not valid since the discussion had only 4 steps, so it does not apply and shows bias. How does one make a complaint against a one sided administrator please? I think administrators need to be unbiased. The other user has repeatedly used the words fraud and lie to refer to multiple other users. And I get a lecture? Another user compared that type of admin bahavior to North Korea judges. I think Fut.Perf. should reverse himself, for being biased. History2007 (talk) 19:31, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So disagreeing with you constitutes "bias", while wikilawyering, personal comments and indirect "FutPerf is like a north korean judge" comments constitute the model of behaviour we should all aspire to? I'm beginning to agree that it's you who needs the lecture. Ironholds (talk) 21:14, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I had not thought of North Korea until another user mentioned it. It was not my starting suggestion. And does it matter that after inspection the map in question turned out to have errors after all and I was right in questioning its accuracy? The debate started by my adding a comment that I was "uncertain about the accuracy of the map". That statement was called fraudulent upfront. A totally unjustified accusation in my view. It turns out that I was right and the map had errors. And in my view IDIDNTHEARTHAT did not and does not apply to me because the discussion had just started. Do I not have the right to question the actions of FutPerf? I think I do have the right to question the accuracy of maps and the lectures issued by admins who seem to be trigger happy in my view. By the way, I have repeatedly asked Fut.Perfect to explain his use of IDIDNTHEARTHAT and he has avoided that question so far. I will have to assume he has no answer, and will have to ignore him. History2007 (talk) 22:31, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Epbr123 (talk · contribs) has agreed to withdraw the nomination, if the page is moved back into userspace [108]. An apology is due on my part, as I should have advised Ash to make sure every single sentence on the page is sourced not just to sources listed at the bottom of the page, but more specifically to in-line citations. Cirt (talk) 19:39, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Another update, AFD was closed by Epbr123 (talk · contribs) [109]. No objections. :) Cirt (talk) 19:59, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Complaint As the article creator, I am extremely unhappy with this compromise which had nothing to do with me, or any other contributor, but was effectively a quick private negotiation between two administrators, in particular to make Epbr123 feel better about their apparent anti-porn-article deletion campaign and a hastily raised AfD. If there is reason to expect that the article can be improved, then it can be improved while in article space. The grounds for removal have been "special" for no reason apart from potential reasons of effective censorship. As the subject of the article is a well established gay porn film director and the second most credited gay porn actor in the history of gay pornography, there is every reason to expect that notability is already established by applying the WP:GNG guidance. There were no specific BLP concerns that would need speedy deletion and the grounds for the original AfD were PORNBIO which was manifestly incorrect for a specialist genre film director which falls under ARTIST. Rather than resorting to unique non-consensus processes in order to make Epbr123 happy, I suggest the normal AfD process is run for a full seven days, in article space, whilst the article is adjusted until any issues (at least those with some sort of credible rationale) are addressed by a real inclusive consensus process and not by a gentleman's agreement between a couple of admins. Ash (talk) 20:46, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There was no "private" dialogue, see above diffs. Everything was noted in updates here. I'll defer to other admins regarding the rest of this. Cirt (talk) 21:09, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I did not reference private dialogue, just a private negotiation. By that I meant that you did not reach a consensus just an agreement between the two of you which you then forced on everyone else. As an aside, I note that you were having a "private" dialogue on Epbr123's user talk page about this matter, so to say "everything" is here above is not strictly true (this is not a complaint about your chat, just clarifying the facts). Ash (talk) 21:16, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please work on further improving the page in your subpage userspace instead of continuing to complain, which serves no constructive purpose. Cirt (talk) 21:20, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, as nobody seems to care I'll just shut up and you can consider the matter resolved. I guess that I was wrong to ask for the AfD to end properly or expect a preference for a consensus building process over individual admins making the decision on what is allowed to exist on Wikipedia based on their personal preferences. Thanks for putting me right. Ash (talk) 22:42, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Serendipodous (talk · contribs) has posted at User talk:Spartaz#Sorry saying that s/he has been contemplating suicide. Per WP:SUICIDE, would some administrators take a look at this and take the necessary action? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 19:41, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I suffer from clinical depression. I contemplate suicide at least once a month. Serendi^podous 19:50, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's not Wikipedia's problem. The user is welcome to edit constructively at any time they wish, but their life is their own. Doc Quintana (talk) 23:01, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This article is a bit out of control. It's getting edits like "To demonize, discredit and make fun of the TEA Party Movement, Progressive's have began referring to them as "teabaggers" The term teabagger is American slang for a particularly disgusting homosexual act. Such is the level of sophistication of Obama's Elitist and ACORN astroturf thugs. Also, Obama's Educated Elitist thugs,,," and right now "Despite attempts by International and Progressive elitists to use propaganda to demonize and discredit " (is that code for something?) . I think the article should be included in Wikipedia:General sanctions/Obama article probation. Dougweller (talk) 20:18, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Saw this at WP:RFPP. Fully protected for one week. Other admins feel free to change it, if there is productive dialogue and/or dispute resolution at the article's talk page. Cirt (talk) 20:26, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's a start and many thanks, but I'm not convinced it will be enough. We'll have to unprotect it at some point, and I think it can justifiably be put under probation, which will provide more tools to keep it under control without full protection. Dougweller (talk) 20:46, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

N0th1ngwow (talk · contribs) first appeared immediately after Cladu1u (talk · contribs) was blocked, and is editing several of the articles which Cladu1u edited before being blocked. These edits may be perfectly correct, but I have no idea if they are or not, since I don't know anything about Eastern European footballers and stadiums. Could somebody take a look? Woogee (talk) 21:29, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My edits on the List of heads of state of Yugoslavia and Yugoslav Prime Minister articles have managed to attract a highly disruptive IP user (94.189.../95.236...), and the problem is now escalating as the IP has apparently decided to spread his own brand of (completely unsourced) POV to a number of articles. I'd like to request aid in resolving the issue. I'd honestly prefer a range-block, since semi-protecting the articles only made him "seek new battlegrounds" for the edit-war. The appropriate course of action is naturally up to whomever lends a hand. The effected articles and templates are:

• Template:Yugoslav Prime Minister
• Prime Minister of Yugoslavia
• List of heads of state of Yugoslavia
• Kingdom of Yugoslavia
• Template:Politics of Yugoslavia

--DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 21:57, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly is the dispute here? I don't see that the IP's edits are prima facie disruptive or vandalistic. You seem both to have broken 3RR at least [110]. What is this about? Fut.Perf. ☼ 00:09, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Monshuai (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is an extremely aggressive Bulgarian ultra-nationalist with a severe case of WP:BATTLE mentality. Virtually all his articlespace edits are tendentious, usually consisting of Bulgaria-related antiquity frenzy or aggrandization of Bulgarian scientific achievements, with a particular obsession with John Vincent Atanasoff. Examples below:

• Bulgaria antiquity frenzy:

[111] [112] [113] [114] [115] [116] [117] [118] [119] [120] [121] [122] [123] [124] Some more recent examples in the same spirit: [125] [126]

• "Aryan" origin of the Bulgars:

[127] [128] [129] [130] [131]

• Thracians:

[132] [133] [134] [135]

• Bulgaria Science & Technology:

[136] [137] [138]

• John Vincent Atanasoff:

[139] [140] [141] [142] [143] [144] [145] [146] [147] [148] [149]

• Various other articles:

[150] [151] [152] [153] [154] [155] [156] [157] [158] [159]

• First Bulgarian Empire:

[160] [161] [162] [163] The last two in particular, are extremely disruptive, as the article was put under page protection. The minute it expired, Monshuai rams these edits against all consensus in a deliberate attempt to inflame the atmosphere, and to drive home a point ("This is my house!").

He frequently uses extreme hostility in edit summaries, routinely threatening users so as to intimidate them and have his way: [164] [165] [166] [167] [168] [169]

A particular favorite tactic of his consists of threatening an article that he thinks his opponents hold dear ("If you mess up my article, I will mess up yours"), again as a way of intimidating others. For example here [170] he is mad about the use of the word "disintegrate" with respect to the First Bulgarian Empire, so he goes and makes a POINTy edit to Byzantine Empire [171], while at the same time lying that he has the consent of myself and User:Cplakidas to make this edit [172]. Here he threatens similar retaliation about the articles on ancient Greek city-states, hoping to intimidate me [173]. Here he does the same with User:Cplakidas [174].

When there is a clear consensus against him, he engages in interminable rants and filibusters on article talkpages, waging a psychological war of attrition with maniacal tenacity in the hopes of wearing down his opponents. Virtually the entire archive of Talk:John Vincent Atanasoff is a monument to Monshuai's maniacal tenacity. Other good examples include [[175]], [[176]], [[177]], [[178]] [[179]]. Examples with diffs:

[180] [181] [182] [183] [184] (gloats after Martijn Faassen gives up in disgust), [185](attacks Martijn Faassen for returning), [186] [187] [188]

• John Vincent Atanasoff

[189] [190] [191] [192] [193] [194] [195]

• Bulgaria lede - Recently, he has gone on an unstoppable ranting spree to have his antiquity-frenzied way here

[196]. Following this innocuous comment [197] by User:man with one red shoe, note how he deliberatley and utterly contorts his opponent's words, screaming "racism!" (a favorite tactic of his)[198] and playing the victim. Again, an attempt to intimidate. Continued trolling: [199] [200] [201] [202] [203] [204] [205]. He even fights with reasonable Bulgarian editors, as here with User:Tourbillon: [206] [207] [208] [209]. Nothing registers with this guy, it's all hostility, all the time, against everyone, always.

Recently, he has embarked on a campaign to sabotage a discussion on First Bulgarian Empire by filibustering the page with interminable rants about sources, threatening users, off-topic rants, and threats to other articles: [210] [211] [212] [213] [214] [215] [216] [217] [218] [219] [220] [221]. To a large extent, he has succeeded: After a promising start, the discussion has gotten side-tracked and bogged down in the mud. I am convinced that as long as he is allowed to participate, this discussion will get nowhere.

Most disturbingly, his psychological attrition warfare against his opponents WORKS: [222] [223]

Trolling other users' pages is another favorite tactic of his: [224] (tit for tat mr hellas), [225] ("this discussion will go on foerever if it must"), [226], [227] (kookery on Alison's page), [228] (I will not quit playing the race card), [229] [230] [231] (I will assemble multinational team of admins), [232] [233] [234]. Here, he wants an apology from User:Alison over an honest mistake, and won't let go: [235] [236] [237] [238].

Administrators are not immune to his loony threats either: [239] [240] [241] [242]

A particularly illuminating example is this discussion with Cplakidas, where he tells him he has 23 sources [243]. When Cplakidas asks to see them [244], he tells him to find them himself [245]. When Cplakidas asks again [246], he tells him "no free lunch" [247]. When Cplakidas justifiably feels insulted [248], what does Monshuai do? Plays the victim and feign offense [249]. This, against one of the most patient, civil, AGF users out there. I have never seen anyone get in a discussion with Monshuai and ever get anything out of it or not end up regretting it. It is impossible to reason with this guy.

He has been the subject of a community ban proposal before [250], but incredibly got away unscathed even though he had even created a CU-confirmed sock Janelle4elle (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) dedicated to sabotaging the discussion at John Vincent Atanasoff. There is virtually no rule that this guy hasn't broken. There are two reasons why I am pushing for a full, indef community ban. One, he has shown zero sign of improvement over the years. Consider his very first edits to Bulgaria [251] and Talk:Bulgaria [252], with his most recent [253] [254]. At John Vincent Atanasoff, he's been at it for years [255] (Dec. 2007) [256] (Oct 2009). Similarly, an indef-topic ban is a non-starter: As the above examples illustrate, no articles are immune, even those that are way beyond the scope of WP:ARBMAC. Any attempt at discussion is completely futile and will only end in grief for the other party. No, only a full, indef community ban will work against this guy. He has been disrupting wikipedia long enough, time for it to end. Athenean (talk) 22:09, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have notified the user that they are being discussed. However I believe this ban discussion is more suited for WP:AN. The Thing // Talk // Contribs 22:14, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Or WP:AE per WP:DIGWUREN#Discretionary sanctions, if the requisite warning has already been issued.  Sandstein  22:19, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]