Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive607#Request to modify my topic ban

...and apparently I'm his target of his abusive remarks this time. See contributions by: User:Sett19. Also an anonymous IP [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/207.69.139.157]. Considering that this is rather annoying, I'd be grateful for any timely intervention.--Deusdemona (talk) 02:29, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

:I've indeffed Sett19. With regard to the IP, which needs a block as well, I encountered an unusual technical situation: the interface says that the IP is already blocked, but it is obviously editing, and the block log reflects a three-month block from August 2009 that would have long since expired by now. Can anyone with more technical background than I on the block interface shed some light on this one? Thanks. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:42, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

::I found this insult by User:AoV2[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2010_April_4&diff=prev&oldid=354038555] rather puzzling… and certainly related to this other one: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%3ADeusdemona&action=historysubmit&diff=354004189&oldid=353342738]. Is he another sock-puppet even?--Deusdemona (talk) 05:13, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

God help me for speaking Italian in a very similar way. I merely was refuting the other user′s statement. Brad, try unblocking, then re-blocking this 207.69.139.157 user. It will be no skin off my back. ―AoV² 05:28, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Responded to the blocking bug on another forum. — Werdna • talk

In January 2010 {{user|Pryde 01}} received a final warning[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Pryde_01&diff=prev&oldid=340098093] for making personal attacks [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AHappenstance&action=historysubmit&diff=340081596&oldid=340050920][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:RashersTierney&diff=prev&oldid=340080653]. After warning Pryde 01 about edit warring at Sam Neill, I've received a personal attack on my talk page[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:XLerate&diff=next&oldid=353861078]. XLerate (talk) 11:01, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

::Hi there. The final warning was too long ago (January 24) to be acted upon. I have issued (or I will momentarily issue) a new one. I can safely assume that being born in NI doesn't mean you can't change your citizenship! The user is tantalisingly close to violating WP:3RR anyway. If he reverts again in the 24 hour period, or continues to vandalise the page or attack any user in the next week or so after his final warning, WP:AIV will happily gobble him up.

::This is, assuming, that Sam Neill is a New Zealander! :P SGGH ^ping! 14:26, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

:::I checked, born to NZ military parents in NI. If my parents were on holiday in Greece when I was born that wouldn't make me Greek. SGGH ^ping! 14:29, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

::::Thanks for taking a look at this SGGH. That's right, citizenship can change, and be by descent. The Washington Post says he's a New Zealander[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/30/AR2007013000508.html], as does the man himself[http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/09/01/1093938978893.html]. XLerate (talk) 15:26, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

::::: As a by-note I was born in NI, moved to Australia when young and have both UK and Aus citizenship. I don't know what the substance of the argument is, but one's UK citizenship is not cancelled by obtaining citizenship elsewhere - I'd have to actually formally renounce it to lose it. Orderinchaos 08:47, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

:Roger, take to WP:AIV if you see any further transgressions. SGGH ^ping! 15:30, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

:::I've taken him to AIV for [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SGGH&diff=353992913&oldid=353958887 this nonsense]. SGGH ^ping! 03:21, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

::::I saw, was just on the way to AIV, sorry for that. XLerate (talk) 04:14, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

:AIV have bounced it back here waiting for this to resolve itself. This report is resolved, so if another admin could deal with the last personal attack for me, would be appreciated. It's going stale now. Thanks. SGGH ^ping! 14:28, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

{{Resolved|Blocked by an admin.}}

{{Userlinks|Janine Thompson}} - Adding a promotional link to many articles, won't listen to warnings to stop. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:21, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

• Now blocked, routine WP:COI in some areas and just not getting it in others. The motive is not commercial here, the promotion os of a charitable enterprise. A bit of kindness might go a long way if anyone is warm and generous today. Guy (Help!) 11:23, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

{{resolved|Deleted and salted by Redvers. —DoRD (talk) 14:13, 5 April 2010 (UTC)}}

I came across this while stub-sorting and tried to tidy it up by Moving it to the correct capitalisaion - this failed, as creation of Ray William Johnson has been prevented (I see it's been deleted A7 four times). Presumably this article needs to be deleted and its recreation prevented? PamD (talk) 14:08, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

After a cadre of sockpuppets were blocked, controversial author Edwin Black has now issued an on-wiki [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AHistory_of_IBM&action=historysubmit&diff=353243224&oldid=353017897 Cease & Desist notice] and accusations that he and others have been "censored" and "publicly defamed". Thoughts? //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 23:39, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

:Block the account for legal threats and direct them to WP:OTRS. Woogee (talk) 23:43, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

::Requesting an uninvolved admin to assist. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 00:06, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

:::Did he actually make a legal threat? Acting like a pompous idiot isn't the same as making a legal threat, and while he uses legal language, he doesn't seem to be threatening a lawsuit. He requested they cease and desist, but did not provide any consequences for failing to do so, only a contact e-mail for questions. —ShadowRanger ^(talk|stalk) 00:10, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

:::: A Cease and Desist notice is the step right before legal action is taken. I doubt someone would make a cease and desist notice without the concurrent implication that if you don't stop you're going to get sued. It's intended as a chilling effect against Blaxthos. Mr. Black's accounts should be blocked and he should be directed to OTRS. Burpelson AFB (talk) 00:16, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

:::::If it's the step right before, and not an actual legal threat, then it gets treated as such, specifically, we warn the user. There's a reason we have the template warning for it. He hasn't issued an actual legal threat yet, so a block is premature. I've [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Edwin_Black_Washington_DC&diff=353255852&oldid=353139082 warned] him on his talk page, so he knows the line, but for now, I don't think any further action is needed. —ShadowRanger ^(talk|stalk) 00:23, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

::::::A C&D notice is not the step before the threat, it is the step right before legal action. In most contemporary contexts, a C&D notice is considered a legal threat (as in, a threat of legal action). //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 00:47, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

:::::::If it were an actual, formal cease and desist, I'd agree. But just because he chose to use the term "cease and desist" instead of "stop and refrain" doesn't make it a legal threat. If he escalates in spite of the warning, report it, but blocking over word choice without a threat is unreasonable. —ShadowRanger ^(talk|stalk) 01:56, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

:::::::: Someone should still point him towards OTRS. If nothing else, it may make him stop socking. Burpelson AFB (talk) 02:13, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

:::::::: Nevermind, I figured it out and did it myself. Burpelson AFB (talk) 02:18, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

:::::::::Fair enough, I wasn't necessarily advocating any particular path of adjudication. :) Should the comment in question be struck, removed, or left online? //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 02:22, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

::::::::::He persisted after the warning and got blocked. Marking resolved. —ShadowRanger ^(talk|stalk) 14:20, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

:::::::::::For future reference, if a sock or other malcontent tells someone to "cease and desist", one could warn the user to "cease and desist using the term 'cease and desist'." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:57, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

::::::::::::I think people should cease and desist from telling people to cease and desist from using the term 'cease and desist'. (oh dear) this comment should be read as humour Orderinchaos 03:45, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

:::::::::::::I think people should cease and desist from telling people to cease and desist from telling others to cease and desist from using the term "cease and desist" to request that people cease and desist from using the term "cease and desist" when requesting people cease and desist.:p In conclusion...I don't see a legal threat in the above diff. Using legal terminology does not equal a legal threat. Though the comments regarding Blaxthos in this diff [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Edwin_Black_Washington_DC&diff=prev&oldid=353384498] are alarming and IMO reason enough for blocking regardless of the legal threat issue. Sarah 00:07, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

::::::::::::::Firmly agreed. Orderinchaos 05:07, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

::::::::::::::Which is why I think, to quote Theresa from another thread, STFU is so much more succinct and unequivocal :) --Fred the Oyster (talk) 00:15, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

:::::::::::::Black's original language, if you go all the way to the start of the thread, is clearly intended to suggest a legal threat. On the other hand, I believe I once used the C&D phrase in a warning myself without actually intending a legal threat. --Orange Mike | Talk 00:19, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Hold on a minute here, am I correct in seeing that we have likely blocked "award-winning New York Times bestselling American author and journalist Edwin Black" (as he's described in our article on him)? The person referred to (above) by Blaxthos as "controversial author Edwin Black"? Jayjg ^(talk) 04:25, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

:I don't care who you are, if you start actively trying to {{diff|User talk:Edwin Black Washington DC|prev|353384498|out other editors}}, you can't edit here. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:58, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

::Cease and desist has entered general usage and so I don't think this can be construed as a legal threat- it appears to me that he was just using the phrase. Perhaps to give himself an inflated sense of importance, perhaps out of frustration, perhaps to put the frighteners on but he didn't mention any consequences so it's not really a threat of any sort, in my opinion. This part of my post is obiter dictum and that ANI should apply stare decisis but that doesn't make it a legal threat. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:27, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

:::Maybe "cease and desist" is general, but "I am now seeking the identity and corporate presence of Blaxthos or the representative of Blaxthos so I may contact him or her through traditional appropriate responsible means as provided by law." is pretty specific. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 00:45, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

::::Not that this would likely work, but maybe you could "shame him" a little bit, and tell him you would have expected better behavior from a prize-winning author. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:12, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I am placing this message on ANI to note that I have received real-life confirmation that Mr. Black is attempting to find out my real name, so that his "people" can "mail [me] some things." I find it particularly disturbing to learn that Mr. Black has setup a mail alias for the express purpose of stalking me and/or the gathering of my personal information. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 11:49, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

:I am dealing with Mr. Black who has contacted us through OTRS regarding the article about him. Any further issues relating to him should be routed to me, either through my talk or by email if they are sensitive. Continuing to discuss the matter onwiki is unlikely to be productive (although of course I am not ordering you to stop).

:We cannot control what Mr. Black does offwiki, although we can block him until he withdraws the legal threats etc. (and indeed have). Stifle (talk) 12:44, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

::Not a problem -- I have no interest in continued discussion that could exacerbate the situation; my intent here is only to give proper notice as to the additional developments. I will address any new information directly to Stifle. Thanks for the help, all! //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 15:02, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I came across this [{{fullurl:April 10|diff=354114597&oldid=354031049}} edit] by 67.155.172.162. It was reverted by a bot before I could do so. Do we do anything about pseudo-death threats like this? Sorry if this is the wrong place to ask. Thanks. Makeemlighter (talk) 15:15, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

:If you review its list of so-called "contributions", you'll see it's only being used for vandalism. Someone needs to put a lengthy block on that IP and take it out of circulation for awhile. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:40, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

::I've {{tl|anonblock}}ed it for a month. It's a static IP and looks like a school in Manassas, Virginia. Rodhullandemu 17:58, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

This user Tadija has violated 1RR/Week in Kosovo

[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kosovo&oldid=305485237#1RR_for_all_editors]

[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kosovo&oldid=305485237#1RR_for_all_editors]

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kosovo&action=history

(cur) (prev) 20:16, 4 April 2010 Tadija (talk | contribs) (108,059 bytes) (Reverted 1 edit by Mladifilozof; This is not main article for this subject. POV. (TW)) (undo)

(cur) (prev) 14:34, 1 April 2010 Tadija (talk | contribs) (108,203 bytes) (rv POV image removal. Those are highly related) (undo)-- LONTECH  Talk  18:16, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

:It's a little late, but he's got similar blocks for edit warring in the past so I've blocked him for 72 hours. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 18:25, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

{{wrong venue|1=Talk:Peace Scouts. I agree with Euryalus. There should be some D in this BRD cycle... –xeno^talk 16:04, 5 April 2010 (UTC)}}

Several editors are meatpuppet canvassing and violating WP:POINT at this disambig page. There are so many disambigs in really sorry shape, yet they've chosen this one to target. I've asked politely that they stop, and they continue. It's unnecessary and it's getting old. This disambig is used by the Scouting WikiProject, and is not filled with pointless trivia or dozens of redlinks. It's not precisely within the letter of the rules, but it does follow the spirit, which these users are not doing. --Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 07:06, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

:Um, I hate to break it to you, but they were making the page comply with WP:MOSDAB, and you were reverting their legitimate changes. I've restored the page to the correct version. Please don't change it back to one which violates MOSDAB. Thanks! ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 08:16, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

::Joe, out of respect for you and the consistently good work you do, I will be as polite as I can. You don't need to "break" anything to me, I am fully aware of MOSDAB, and I am sure you have read Wikipedia:Wikilawyering, specifically the bit about Asserting that technical interpretation of Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines should override the underlying principles they express. I am just as sure that those editors have not read it, or if so, disregard it. That disambig was perfectly fine as it was, compared to hundreds I have come across in shit shape. How do you or those editors justify those other disambigs remaining in that condition, in light of this badgering? This is pure and simple bullying, in fact my page was 3RR tagged just to push that WP:POINT. Copying this to your talkpage just in case you are not watching this page. --Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 15:56, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

:::Remember that just because there are other pages which fail to meet the guidelines doesn't mean that this page can flout the guidelines without a really good reason for it. I'm not trying to "justify" anything, and I doubt the other editors are, either (not sure, though, since I've never worked with them before). It's not wikilawyering to try to get all pages to meet the guidelines, and in this case, the version of the page you were promoting didn't even meet the spirit of the guideline. If you think the guideline is wrong and should be changed, you are welcome to propose a change to it. As for you receiving a 3RR warning, I have no control over what other editors do. If you have a concern about the warning, I suggest taking it up with the editor who gave the warning. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 19:15, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

::(edit conflict)Further to Nihonjoe's comment, this seems like a fairly slow-moving disagreement over whether the original format, or one that more strictly follows MOSDAB, provides a more user-friendly layout. I notice no one has presented their views on the talk page - in the spirit of bold, revert, discuss, this might be worth a go. Euryalus (talk) 08:20, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

:::That's actually a good suggestion, I will try it but at this point I will be genuinely surprised if any one of those users will join any discussion. Thanks Euryalus. --Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 16:02, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

::::So far you haven't put forth any actual argument against modifying the page except that other pages are worse. If you can actually explain why this page would be better if not modified, yes, that just might be more productive. Propaniac (talk) 16:10, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

{{Resolved|Speedy deleted (G3) by Graeme Bartlett. Jarkeld (talk) 20:44, 5 April 2010 (UTC)}}

• Deleted article whose AfD page is still open. Erpert (let's talk about it) 16:08, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

:Closed. --Smashville^talk 16:30, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

{{resolved|1=Blocked 48 hrs and will be given a short lead. –xeno^talk 19:05, 5 April 2010 (UTC)}}

A 24 hour block on {{vandal|Smailliwsemaj}} for disruptive editing by {{admin|Tone}} expired about half an hour ago and was followed almost instantly by [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Tone&diff=354154127&oldid=354150727

this], which I reverted, and then [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Tone&diff=354155036&oldid=354154306 this]. I think anotherr block should be given serious consideration. Smailliwsemaj notified of this thread. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:44, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

:They also created this page, and until recent had "[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Smailliwsemaj&oldid=353938488 f**k off all the people who write on my page. I'll do what I like you w***rs!]" on their talk page. They have also been disrupting various music articles, inserting false information and inappropriately recreating articles closed as redirects at AFD. He also removed this section. Aiken ♫ 18:50, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

::Blocked by Rodhullandemu. Aiken ♫ 18:51, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

::{{ec}} They've been blocked 48 hours by {{user|Rodhullandemu}}; but based on their attitude and comments it doesn't appear that editing in a collaborative environment is within their grasp. –xeno^talk 18:52, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

::I've blocked for 48 hours, but depending on their talk page resonse, I might feel inclined to reconsider this (in an upwards, and unlimited, direction). Rodhullandemu 18:53, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

:::I'm struggling to see what net positive this person has to our project, and why the block is not indefinite. I've had nothing but problems with this user: constant disruption, blaming it all on a relative, and making idle threats against other editors. Not the kind of editor we should be accomodating. Aiken ♫ 18:55, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

::::He started out as a good contributor but seems to have gone off the rails recently; he also seems to want to have it all his own way. If he gives an indication that this will not continue, maybe 48 hours will convince him of this. Otherwise, I'd be quite happy to make his next block his last. Rodhullandemu 19:01, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

::::{{Ec}}I'm inclined to agree- we shouldn't tolerate threats of "you will be sorry" to anybody, never mind to the blocking admin half an hour after your block expires. However, I think Rodhullandemu's method of dealing with it is sensible- if they don't take to this block kindly, it can be increased and their talk page locked. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:03, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

: Wow, that was fast. I agree with said above, the extended block is appropriate here. The user has been around for a while, let us hope he begins contributing in a more constructive manner. Otherwise, blocks will get longer... --Tone 19:32, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

{{userlinks|NeilN}} reverted an edit to {{la|Jim Bell}} here: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jim_Bell&diff=350526886&oldid=350515803] with the edit summary "rv whitewash". You will be aware that the subject is blocked under the account {{userlinks|James dalton bell}}, also that the subject is a controversial figure. He has complained about the specific revert. Trying to be fair to all sides here, I believe that:

• user:Keystroke was making a good-faith effort to address legitimate concerns over the article.
• user:NeilN identified that some of the removed material was reliably sourced and reverted but chose his summary poorly, failing to assume good faith of Keystroke. I do not think this is characteristic or habitual and acknowledge I have done worse myself.

Bell is clearly incensed over past edits to the article and is making demands in respect of individuals concerned, which are not my place to address, being mainly to do with past conduct. I have passed these to the Arbitration Committee to see if any action is required. The only recent edit which Bell has brought to my attention is NeilN's revert. It's clear to me that Bell's major issue right now is that he is blocked, and he considers this to be an abuse perpetrated by Wikipedia. Everything else is secondary and rubbing salt into the wound. I have two questions:

• Is any action required at this point?
• What can be learned from this complaint, to prevent future issues?

As an aside, Bell states that all edits by Skomorokh are suspect. I cannot pick them apart form other subsequent edits by Keystroke and others which are clearly welcome. I would ask others to join me in reviewing the content of the article and ensuring that everything there is reliable sourced and neutrally stated, since despite several requests Bell has failed to give me specific examples of problematic text. It is understandable that he is not willing to co-operate, especially while blocked, so it's down to us I guess. Guy (Help!) 19:03, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

:I definitely could have chosen a more tactful edit summary. I explained my concerns here. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:20, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

:Regarding Bell's unwillingness to cooperate, I believe it has little to do with him being blocked. He was repeatedly asked to point out specific article concerns when he was free to edit. This continued when he started socking. He invariably replied with accustions about other editors' behaviour, as I suspect he's doing now. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:28, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

:The main part of Bell's block is his refusal to stop with personal attacks about a good-faith admin trying to point out our policies to him, along with others. We asked him several times to make his posts small and concise, not the tl;dr paragraphs he was posting. He responded with more tl;dr posts insulting others, and his talk page was locked. This block, as said, is not only about unwillingness to cooperate, but unwillingness to stop with personal attacks and treat others civilly.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 20:04, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

:: I'd advise a policy of actively not going there. Let's focus on the here and now. Guy (Help!) 20:22, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

:::It's difficult to formulate "lessons learnt" from this situation. None of us want inaccurate info in the article or something that has undue weight. At the same time, subjects of articles need to realize they can't control the content (I believe Gogo Dodo initially explained this to Bell) and should be told how to raise their concerns (done, multiple times including the formulation of a new template by you). Keystroke has gone through the article, fixing problematical areas. As someone who helps out on WP:BLPN, I can say all these things happen with any "regular" BLP article. Perhaps we could create a "we know you're upset but your edits do not conform to the guidelines" template based off of Template:Blocked subject --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:52, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

::::::::I was thinking, he has come here and had issues with his article and as a newbie with his own article he has has some issues, he has identified with otrs, I would support another try, remind him to stay civil, give him a list of the policy and guidelines and give him another chance (last chance). It would likely all end in tears though as all he wants to do is change or remove some content he disputes on his BLP.Off2riorob (talk) 21:26, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

:::::That's the thing. He hasn't identified article issues with OTRS per Guy: "despite several requests Bell has failed to give me specific examples of problematic text". What makes you think this behaviour is going to change, given the folks at OTRS are probably more patient and sensitive than the average editor? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:44, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

::::::That is an issue, if he won't tell us exactly what his issues are, how can we investigate? Off2riorob (talk) 21:48, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

::::: {{ec}} That's my concern. What I've seen largely duplicates the material already posted here, which focuses on particular editors and edits long in the past (by Wikipedia standards, anyway). I am certain that if any one of the emails he has sent were posted anywhere other than his own talk page, he'd be blocked again. All that's going to do is piss him off even more. Guy (Help!) 21:50, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

:I have to sympathize with Bell's unwillingness to proofread an article he dislikes and list the errors he spots, thereby legitimizing the rest of it. I'd frankly support deleting the Bell article (he is basically a fringe character like Barbara Schwarz) and adding a sentence or two about Bell to the assassination market article. 66.127.52.47 (talk) 00:34, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

::The article is a bit bloated we could trim it back. It's getting about 30 views a day which is a pretty low attraction and importance level Off2riorob (talk) 00:45, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

:::What you call bloated, others might call detailed. Page views should not dictate the length of the article. Regardless, changes to the article content should be discussed on its talk page. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:53, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

::::Well, the article is not here to be awarded a medal for its detailed informative highly viewed content is it? 01:11, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

:::::Not sure what you mean? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:19, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

::::::Bell doesn't like the article because he can't control it, his problems with it are the fact that he can't make it match HIS view of himself and his problems with the federal govt. Gutting it isn't a solution to the problem. Fixing all details with cites to reliable sources is. The solution for Bell himself is easy, leave his ass blocked and whack his socks when they show up. Heironymous Rowe (talk) 03:38, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

:: I'm afraid that doesn't really stand up. He's read it in sufficient detail that he is familiar with the edits of individual editors and has cited diffs in respect of editorial conduct. I do not get the feeling that the presence of the article is offensive to him (cf. Daniel Brandt), the usual interpretation of his statements in respect of the article seems to be that he wants everybody who has ever added anything he dislikes summarily banned from Wikipedia, himself unblocked and the article left to only sympathetic edits, which is not likely to happen. What we can, and should, do, is to ensure that the article is written to the highest standards of accuracy and neutrality. We can't fix the fact that there were past issues, we can fix any present issues and should do so, with or without his co-operation. That will need the input of people familiar with the subject, I think, to ensure that we're not giving undue weight to anything. Guy (Help!) 07:22, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

:::If it were up to me I'd delete it anyway, but yes, the article needs a lot of cruft gone if it stays. In my view it's extremely hard to deliver neutrality for a subject like that though. Significant points of view that must be included for the article to meaningfully conform to WP:NPOV, must simultaneously be excluded because they are documented only by sources that are too fringe to conform to WP:BLP. If an article can't be edited to conform to both policies at the same time, and quite a few can't, I see deletion as the only remedy. (In practice WP gets around this with a Humpty-Dumpty redefining of "significant" as "approved by a certain class of media outlets", but I see that as a cop-out that leads to retaining distorted articles).

As another issue, given the history of this article subject's off-wiki activities, I'd be uncomfortable editing the article from either an exposed IP address or a personally identifiable account. 66.127.52.47 (talk) 08:05, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

::::Depends on what you mean by significant points of view. NPOV does not mean that fringe views should be included and that the views that are included should have equal weight. Neutrality does not mean that every point should have a counter-point. Also, whether or not IP's can "safely" edit the article is not really a valid consideration for deletion. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:47, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

:::::Well, I use "significant" to mean what it means in English, and deleting an article is the exact opposite of adding fringe views to it, but ANI isn't the right place for a philosophy discussion. 66.127.52.47 (talk) 15:28, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

::::::Are you suggesting we should delete the article because Bell may try to have WP editors "assassinated" if we dont comply with his requests to edit the article as he see's fit? Heironymous Rowe (talk) 16:38, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

:::::::No, I'm just saying I'm uncomfortable personally editing the article under the circumstances. I'm a big supporter of anonymous editing for reasons like this, even though I don't currently practice it. It's a separate issue from my sentiment towards deletion based on limitations on the types of documentation we can use biasing the article. Given that the article will be kept under foreseeable circumstances, I do think it needs cleanup. 66.127.52.47 (talk) 18:45, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

::::::: Fair enough, under the circumstances. I don't think he's crazy but he's sure as hell angry. Guy (Help!) 21:36, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

::::::::Yow, there is even WP:EMDE which I didn't know about. 66.127.52.47 (talk) 23:44, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

:::::::::I've commented at User talk:James dalton bell#An uncivil policy. This is Yet Another Trampled Newbie. Wnt (talk) 00:58, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

::::::::::Read it. About the most civil thing I can say is that I sharply disagree with your assessment. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:03, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

:::::::::::Yes, your sympathy seems misplaced. A "cypto-anarcist" can presumably take care of himself. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:10, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

:::::::::::Misplaced indeed. This user was not blocked for his views on the article, he was blocked for continuously personally attacking anyone that tried to help him. No biting happened, it was all on his end. Try reading all relevant material before commenting like you know the issue when you really don't.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 03:51, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately I was away on vacation when this thread was active - is the matter considered closed? If not, what are the remaining issues? Thank you Guy for starting this thread, and your high level of professionalism. Keystroke (talk) 01:34, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Someone please have a look at the recent editing history of that article and the relevant article talk page, User talk:Philip Baird Shearer#Zieten Hussars and User talk:De728631#Zieten Hussars to help determine who was acting disruptive here, if at all, and how to proceed with the article. I decided to not take this to dispute resolution since the two of us apparently can't even agree on who is being disruptive in this case. De728631 (talk) 00:19, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

:So you decided instead to post on WP:Dramaboard with a dispute in which you cannot "agree on who is being disruptive"? The wording of your request makes it explicitly a case for DR. You're not asking for admin action here (block, block review, arbcom enforcement, censure, second opinion on another admin's actions, etc.). Whether there's an "incident" or not is perhaps debatable, but from your own summary, this isn't an AN/I issue.  Frank  {{!}}  talk  00:23, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

::The dispute is rather about agreeing how to properly edit and improve an article in the first place, it's about procedure and about what can be denied and reverted as unproductive and disruptive from scratch. So I am actually asking for another opinion but if this is not for AN/I at all, I'll take it to the dispute resolution. De728631 (talk) 00:45, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

:::Listed it at Wikipedia:Third opinion now. De728631 (talk) 01:05, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

::::Just for the record from the [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zieten_Hussars&action=history history of the article]:

::::*27 March: De728631 move an article page from moved Zieten Hussars to Hussars Regiment "von Zieten" (Brandenburgian) No. 3. -- as is usual on Wikipedia this was a bold move and there is nothing wrong with this.

::::*28 March: I moved it back with the comment "moved Hussars Regiment "von Zieten" (Brandenburgian) No. 3 to Zieten Hussars over redirect: reverse move, not clear that English language sources support the new name".

::::*28 March: I also reverted the changes to the first paragraph (to accommodate the renamed article) which I acknowledge reverted some other changes, but AFAICT they are sourced from an unreliable (web page) German source.

::::*28 March: On the talk page of the article I suggested that if De728631 wished to proceed with a move (s)he should put in a WP:RM request. But instead of doing so

::::*2 April: De728631 moved Zieten Hussars to Hussars Regiment "von Zieten" (Brandenburgian) No. 3 with no additional discussion on the talk page.

::::*3 April: I reverted with the comment: "revert a conversational move, made without an WP:RM request" and

::::*3 April: I reverted the changes to the text "rv to last version by PBS. Being bold is one thing reverting without discussing it on the talk page is disruptive)"

::::I placed my comment on the talk page on 28 March 2010, De728631 did not reply until 4 April 2010. Having reverted both the text and the page move on 2 April. As to why this ANI has been bought is open to question, because if De728631 knows enough to bring an ANI then (s)he ought to know enough about wikiquette to know not to re-revert changes and page moves without first seeking a consensus on the talk page. -- PBS (talk) 01:27, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

:::::In hindsight it now appeared to me that I totally missed the comment by PBS on the article talk page while restoring my previous versions of the article because I first replied on his personal user talk page prior to re-reverting the move. Only then did I find PBS's note on the article talk and apparently did not check its date. This ANI was however brought up in search of neutral opinions on the matter which were eventually found elsewhere though. Having totally missed the early article talk, I was also quite annoyed that PBS had reverted my edits again and seemingly without a proper reasoning - but there I was wrong. De728631 (talk) 23:01, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I have just come across this:

• User:Americanman095/Redeemer Lutheran–Catholic Church and School
• User:Americanman095/Thurifer
• User:Americanman095/How to visit a Lutheran Church

This user has a lot of other Lutheran church-related pages 'in progress' as user pages, and while they all look like they have problems (no references, POV, etc), i can understand that works 'in progress' are just that. The three i've cited, however, seem inappropriate. I'm not sure, but they seem to violate WP:NOTAMANUAL, as well as poosibly representing a kind of spam, and also probably not demonstrating notability. Is it enough to mention possible issues to the user, or should these actually be deleted? Any thoughts? hamiltonstone (talk) 05:17, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

:I never planned to move these pages into article space... I was just using wikipedia as a place to edit and view my personal work. I will save the content and someone can delete the pages. Thank you. Americanman095 (talk) 05:25, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

{{Resolved|{{vandal|Madz76}} blocked as a sock of {{user|Madz67}}. -FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 07:04, 6 April 2010 (UTC)}}

Not too long ago, {{user|Madz67}} was indef'd on terms of repeated copyvios after it was brought up on WP:ANI. S/he returned as a sockpuppet under the account {{user|Madz76}}, I thought she may have decided to turn over a new leaf and stop uploading copyvios, however after given various warning s/he continues to upload images without a source nor fair use template. I'm sure the user in good faith, but s/he keeps on deleting sections without explanation and adds WP:BLP risking information without a source and simply tags the claims with a {{fact}} tag, assuming it'll be okay. Plus, refuses to reply to any other users. I was wondering whether any admins could help? + TNW 17:35, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

• Indeffed for block evasion. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:49, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

{{hat|A few minutes wasted. Nothing else really to see. Also, WP:DENY.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 07:49, 6 April 2010 (UTC)}}

{{resolved|Stop wasting everyone's time please}}

{{archive top}}

There is currently a claim on the article about shampoo that it is a hair caring product. Wikipedia has a poliy, WP:RS requiring claims made on articles to be backed up by inline citations of reliable sources. For this reason, I add a "Citation needed" tag to the claim. See [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Shampoo&diff=prev&oldid=354204014 this diff].User:Karenjc then comes and removes the tag. I [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Karenjc&diff=prev&oldid=354206372 explain the situation] on their talk page and then User:Blanchardb removes the tag when I [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Shampoo&diff=next&oldid=354205761 add it back] saying that it isn't challenged. Well, I am challenging it, because it is not referenced as such from a reliable sources, as Wikipedia requires for claims made on articles. --9 to 8 (talk) 07:16, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

:Wikipedia does not require claims for the obvious. Please go play somewhere else.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 07:26, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

::And to you Deadelus. Have you seen all the diffs? Do you know the importance of sourcing?--9 to 8 (talk) 07:30, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

:::The only thing I see is an obvious troll.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 07:31, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

::::It is against Wikipedia policy to accuse someone of being a troll. Even if it weren't, does following policy make one a troll? If you have seen all the diffs I have provided you will see that I am trying to uphold Wikipedia's policy on referencing claims. --9 to 8 (talk) 07:37, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

:::::Not really. Its pretty obvious to everyone here you're a troll. That aside, however, you might as well just give up, because none of us are ever going to take your side.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 07:43, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

::::::I'm not expecting you or anyone else to "take my side" per se. Just uphold Wikipedia policies.--9 to 8 (talk) 07:45, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

:Well, what else is it? Wood comes from trees. {{cn}} SGGH ^ping! 07:33, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

:Given we have an account that can use cite needed templates on edit one and can wikilink to WP:RS on edit 2 [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/9_to_8] I feel a big dose of WP:DENY coming on. Pedro :  Chat  07:35, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

::Oh yes Pedro. Given that we have a policy called WP:AGF and also WP:NOTSOCK (or similar) capped off with the fact that many editors start off as anonymous anyway I do not see any denying needed at all. Read my reply above of my intentions.--9 to 8 (talk) 07:39, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

::::Actually AGF isn't policy. Neither is WP:DON'T-CITE-THE-BLOODY-OBVIOUS but it should be. Pedro :  Chat  07:46, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

:::We're not going to give you want you want, so you're better off just playing somewhere else.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 07:44, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

{{archive bottom}}

{{hab}}

{{resolved|Done. ⇦REDVERS⇨ Say NO to Commons bullying 08:11, 6 April 2010 (UTC)}}

not sure if this is the place to put it, but could someone please block this user and protect the user and talk pages as an example user? Cheers, SS✞^(Kay) 08:06, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

{{discussion-top|I'm calling an end to this timesink. There is substantial support for Okip to consider mentorship; editors may offer this, or he may ask someone directly or via Wikipedia:Adopt-a-User. For the rest, Okip should take extra care not to give the appearance of canvassing for WP:AFD. If there are wider or more persistent issues they should be handled via WP:RFC/U. Rd232 ^talk 13:04, 6 April 2010 (UTC)}}

{{user|Okip}} has been engaged in a blatant but creative form of WP:CANVASSing AFDs.

The technique looks like a ruse to evade WP:CANVASS: issue a barnstar to anyone who has voted the way he likes in an AFD, and link to a list of similar AFDs, labelling he link as a "purge".

See e.g. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dudleybus&diff=prev&oldid=353742680], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jeni&diff=353743261&oldid=353733976], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Colonel_Warden&diff=353743425&oldid=353349995], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dew_Kane&diff=353745708&oldid=353745662], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dew_Kane&diff=353745708&oldid=353745662]

The last one is particularly revealing, because the editor {{user|Dew Kane}} was [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dew_Kane&diff=353745708&oldid=353745662 given a barnstar] for "for his iincedible work in the bus route purge." That word "purge" is not neutral, and Dew kane's contributions consist solely of pasting identical text to a range of AFDs, regardless of the state of the articles or any evidence presented in the discussion: see e.g. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/London_Buses_route_75&diff=prev&oldid=353488220], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/London_Buses_route_183&diff=prev&oldid=353487234], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/London_Buses_route_187&diff=prev&oldid=353487159].

So the barnstar was actually awarded for voting, not for article rescue, and was a device to alert that editor (and any others reading that page) to Okip's view on a series of AFDs.

I [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Okip&diff=353746304&oldid=353744736 asked Okip to stop canvassing], and the response was a [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ABrownHairedGirl&action=historysubmit&diff=353745410&oldid=353740730 reply on my talk] accusing me of "bullying". I replied at Opik's talk[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Okip&diff=353746304&oldid=353744736], and the message was promptly deleted[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Okip&diff=353746402&oldid=353746304], so it has been read.

Opik has also left a blatantly partisan message at the article rescue talk page [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Article_Rescue_Squadron&diff=prev&oldid=353748943] (again referring to a "purge") ... and now appears to be writing guidance for others on how to canvass [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AWikiProject_Article_Rescue_Squadron%2FNewsletter%2F20100201%2FFeature&action=historysubmit&diff=353753470&oldid=343128065]. The article rescue squadron does some great work in improving poor articles and demonstrating the notability of a topic, and it is pity to see it being abused in this way as a vehicle for trying to circumvent the restrictions on votestacking.

Okip also [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Capital_City_Green&diff=next&oldid=353741297 closed] a discussion in which zie had just [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Capital_City_Green&diff=353741297&oldid=353741029 voted], rather than leaving the job for an uninvolved editor. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:08, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

: Is it not about time that this editor was topic-banned from anything to do with deletion-related pages? It appears that far too many people's time is being wasted here. Black Kite 17:12, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

::It is about time you stop threatening editors Black Kite, when there is no rule breaking, this is a pretty bad form of bullying, and unfortunately not the first time. You could not possible be more biased in this discussion. Okip 17:15, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

:::Brown haired girl, you know the rules, yet you continue to bully me. I have started to write this guide, because I continue to see editors such as yourself, bully editors for not breaking any rules at all. If you refuse to follow our rules, and harrass editors who follow our rules, Brown haired girl, you should not be an administrator. Okip 17:17, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

:::: Except that BHG is exactly right. There would not be any requirement for me to post such issues had you not behaved like you did. I would also add User:Dew Kane to this proposed topic-ban, as their recent AfD contributions are nothing but copy-and-pasted versions of "it exists, so it's notable". Black Kite 17:18, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

:::I will ask you the same exact thing Black Kite: Why is there a template to do what I just did Black Kite? Okip 17:41, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

::Yeah, Okip, you are not a how-to guide for escaping policy. I only had to look at two of the diffs above to see you are canvassing, and to promote yourself as the "resolver of situations" when it comes to others being dealt with for taking part in the canvassing that you promote is not acceptable either. If you want people to be made aware of AfDs so they can make their own judgement then read up on "deletion sorting" to ensure AfDs are being flagged up for the relevant WikiProjects. Going around recruiting like-minded users to create a gang of Okip-followers to head-off AfDs you don't agree with will not be tolerated. SGGH ^ping! 17:22, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I have listed Okip's draft how-to-votestack guide at Miscellany for deletion. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:24, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

::Brown haired girl, your bad faith and bullying truly knows no bounds. I have no idea how you became and adminstrator. I have followed all of the rules, and yet you continue to harrass me. Okip 17:26, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

:::I don't know whether you genuinely believe that blatantly partisan alerts to a selective audience are neutral, or whether you are just rying it on. But either way, don't engage in votestacking, and then you won't feel bullied when you are asked to desist. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:31, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

:::There's a reason we don't have "rules" per say on WP, because it is the concepts and practice that is more important that any "letter of law" that may exist on WP. Even if what the actions are are squeaky-clean of the written text, the intent of the guideline and past behavior are much more valuable to go on. --MASEM (t) 17:34, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

What part of this rule don't you editors understand? Again, if you are threatening editors when they are strictly following the rules, this is bullying and harassment.

What would brown haired girls notification here of the MFD be? Okip 17:28, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

:Relevant to the topic? Resolute 17:31, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

::So is the notification of contributors to articles, per Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion#Notifying_interested_people, and the notification of wikiprojects. There is no basis in this complaint. Okip 17:34, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

:::For one, your characterization of BHG's nominations as "purges" is deliberately slanted terminology designed to generate sympathy/support for your position. Second, your invitations and barnstars are targeted towards like-minded users only. You are attempting to influence the outcome. I generally sympathize with your aims, but dude, you can only WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT for so long. Resolute 18:08, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

:What you are doing is writing "messages that are written to influence the outcome rather than to improve the quality of a discussion [which] compromise the consensus building process and may be considered disruptive." This is because you appear to be selecting people (and bribing them with barnstars it seems) who concur with your "purge" assessment of the AfDs. Furthermore, stop accusing us of threatening you, we aren't - this is Wikipedia. SGGH ^ping! 17:33, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

::Why is there a template to do what I just did SGGH? Okip 17:34, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

:::The box posted above by Okip is not from WP:CANVASS, it's from Okip's own how-to-votestack guide at Wikipedia:WikiProject Article Rescue Squadron/Newsletter/20100201/Feature, and it directly contradicts the long-standing guidance at WP:CANVASS#Votestacking, which says "Votestacking is an attempt to sway consensus by selectively notifying editors who have or are thought to have a predetermined point of view or opinion". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:35, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

::::Why is there a template to do what I just BrownHairedGirl? If it is against the rules, why is there a template for this? Why is there a specific rule which states it is okay to do what I just did? Again, if I am following the rules, and you are threatening me, and now what the rules are, (which with over 150,000 edits, you probably d0) this is a form of bullying and harassment. Explaining the rules so that editors such as yourself no longer are able to threaten and bully others is perfectly acceptable.Okip 17:39, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Okip, the problem here is not notifying people. It's who you are notifying and how you are doing it. You are absolutely not neutral, and you're posting messages in a completely biased manner. See my message on the talk page of your guide. Aiken ♫ 17:40, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

:::You. Are. Not. Following. The. Rules. If you look at WP:CANVASS you will see a chart (it is green and pink) that illustrates why your actions have violated that page's policy (think POV, selective messages, etc.) I suggest that Okip takes a warning about his canvassing, and further canvassing can result in the restrictions that anti-canvassing policy suggests (which is an eventual blocking period to prevent disruption). I can find nothing in Okip's defence that is convincing, and plenty of evidence from the other parties supporting the original ANI report's statement. Another admin can check in to close/finalise as I have now voted along with BHG in the MfD. SGGH ^ping! 17:41, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

(ec) To be fair, its about time BrownHairedGirl was banned fron deletion related pages, just seems to be an editor full of disruptive hot air who will stop at nothing to get her own way. Jeni ^(talk) 17:32, 3 April 2010 (UTC) Note: User:SGGH removed this comment for no reason

::::Yes, it's called an edit conflict and was not on purpose. Thank you. SGGH ^ping! 17:48, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

::Actually to be fair at this point, I'd support a block of you for your false accusations, bad faith assumptions and inability to act in a civil manner with someone you don't agree with.--Crossmr (talk) 00:28, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

: Leave Okip/Ikip/Travb alone!!! It's a wikipedia rule that all criticism/disagreement with him is bullying and harrassment!Bali ultimate (talk) 17:44, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

::: u forgot user:inclusionist ;) Cheers, Jack Merridew 21:24, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

:: That's not helping. However, if we have past examples it would be easy to craft a restriction forbidding future infractions. Guy (Help!) 17:45, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

::::Yes I am following the rules. What part of Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion#Notifying_interested_people do you not understand? Why do we have these rules, if editors can then disregard these rules at their leisure, threatening editors for following those rules.

::::As far as "how" I am notifying them, it was with a neutral message. I can notify anyone who has contributed to the article, per Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion#Notifying_interested_people.

::::giving barnstars to editors is not against any rules. This is a bogus posting by an administrator who knows better. Okip 17:50, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

:::::Okip, "this is only one of many of the deletion purges by one editor" "for her noble work in referencing and working on the bus route purge" are completely not neutral. See the talk page of your guide for my suggestion of how you could go about it. The thing is, you've managed to neutrally notify in other places, so it's not like you're incapable of doing so. Aiken ♫ 17:57, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

::::::Please reference, "this is only one of many of the deletion purges by one editor"

::::::"for her noble work in referencing and working on the bus route purge" How is giving a barnstar to someone who ALREADY commented in a AFD canvassing? Please quote SPECIFIC policy, otherwise your complaint has no basis in fact. I quoted Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion#Notifying_interested_people, and no one has explained how me following these rules (which even have a template for doing what I did) violates canvassing. Okip 18:10, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

:::::::From the page you keep quoting, it says "Keep in mind that all such efforts must comply with Wikipedia's guideline against biased canvassing." Your messages were biased, so you did not follow the rules. Therefore you violated the canvassing guideline. Referring to somebody nominating articles for deletion as "purging" is not neutral. Aiken ♫ 18:15, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

::::::::How is giving a barnstar to someone who ALREADY commented in a AFD canvassing? I don't see that in canvassing policy, anywhere on wikipedia in fact.Okip 18:59, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I shan't repeat myself too much, but as I said above, the policy clearly states that POV notification in order to get a certain kind of support at an AfD is as BHG said, vote-stacking. It says it clearly on the policy page, and in my opinion your notifications are clearly not neutral. SGGH ^ping! 17:55, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

:Again, how did I violate Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion#Notifying_interested_people, why is there this template to do what I just did? {{tl|AFDNote}}Okip 18:10, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

::I don't think I can actually explain it any other way. You violated WP:CANVASS. SGGH ^ping! 18:13, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

::I do not see how comments thanking people for having !voted a certain way is canvassing for support, because they have already supported. It might conceivably be, if people regarded the barnstar from a particular editor as something so desirable that one would !vote in a certain way in the hope of receiving one. With all due respect to Okip, I do not think that's exactly the case here. DGG ( talk ) 18:14, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

You may also edit the article during the discussion to address the nominator's concerns but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you.

|

== Articles for deletion nomination of :London Buses route 372 ==

London Buses route 372, an article you contributed to, is now up for deletion, you are welcome to comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/London Buses route 372. Okip 15:26, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sb617&diff=prev&oldid=353739032]

|}

Okip 18:14, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

:Okip, I even said you managed to post a neutral comment which you did, which was why I was so surprised at the non-neutral comments left at other people's talk pages, along with barnstars. The above example of yours is exactly how people should be notified. Claims of "purging" are not. Aiken ♫ 18:17, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

::Agreed, it is permissible to notify people of AfDs, but the POV you are using means it goes from notification to canvassing. Again. SGGH ^ping! 18:19, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

:::Question: How can you canvass someone with a barnstar who has ALREADY replied in a AFD? Do you know how absurd this all sounds? Okip 18:34, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

::::Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/A Man In Black states that Ikip " is warned to refrain from making large-scale edits which may be interpreted as canvassing or making rude comments to users he’s in dispute with." He was blocked for 12 hours in January "for repeated canvassing en masse" Dougweller (talk) 18:42, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

:::::Dougweller, another editor who I have had longterm conflicts with. This is like a drawer full of bad pennies.

:::::It is important to point out that A Man In Black lost his adminship over blocking me in that case.

:::::The block on January was bunk, I just decided since it was only for 12 hours, I wouldn't fight it. It was by an admin who one former arbitration member aptly called "non-impartial", his next selective block of me (for doing exactly what an arbitration member did [the arbitration member was not blocked]) was reversed, and several admins and former arbitration members roundly condemned his block. Okip 18:53, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

::::: Precisely. Okip, you can WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT to your heart's content, but frankly if you continue to violate WP:CANVASS so blatantly the outcomes are not going to be to your liking. And if you wish to take that as bullying or harassment, I think you need to look a bit closer to home. Black Kite 18:46, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

::::::Talking about WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT I have asked several editors how I violated policy by giving barnstars to editors who already commented in the AFD...Okip 18:53, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

• It is sensible to link these AFDs together because of their similarity. Much aggravation would have been avoided if BHG had presented her case in the form of group nominations rather than the 20 or so nominations which we seem to have already. There are already lists of these related nominations in other places such as the project pages and it is a good service to inform editors of their existence if they have an interest in this sort of topic. The more participation we get in these discussions which affect hundreds of articles, the better the consensus that we will establish. Okip should be commended for his actions. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:43, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
• You are correct about the AFD bundling. However, such communications must still comply with WP:CANVASS. Okip's don't. Black Kite 18:46, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
• The reason I didn't bundle was that it seemed to me to be better to consider each article on the individual merits of that topic. I took heed of the comments from some editors who advocated bundling, so I bundled the last group of AFDs, but was promptly [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/West_Midlands_bus_route_1_(Birmingham)&diff=353057264&oldid=353056137 denounced for that], by the same editor who had most vociferously denounced me for nominating them singly. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:11, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
• For background, there's been a few no resolution/consensus AN/Is in the past, Massive Canvassing of the ARS by User:Ikip, Blocked_Ikip_for_canvassing, and User:Ikip_and_forum_shopping for starters. So this has been a long-running point of contention with this user. Tarc (talk) 18:52, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

::Wow, more old "friends". Yep, that was the case where A Man In Black lost his adminship. That arbitration came about directly because of him inproperly blocking me for canvassing. Okip 18:55, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

• Ikip I say this as a member of the ARS - actions like this only to serve to marginalise the ARS and its objectives. And people wonder why the ARS is called the "Article Canvassing Squadron" and editors summarily remove rescue templates...[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Frank_Gaul&action=historysubmit&diff=349515533&oldid=349515258] --Mkativerata (talk) 19:01, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

:::Yet you were still warned. And so far as I remember, our interactions this year included at least one compliment from you which included either the word 'respect' or 'confidence' (this was a comment to someone else I believe), and no complaints from you - so 'longterm conflicts' doesn't seem at all accurate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talk • contribs) 19:06, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

• Looking through one of the complaints about him. He closed this article [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Capital_City_Green&diff=next&oldid=353741297], after looking it over and seeing that every single person out of the many that commented said keep. Nothing wrong with that. If someone had posted delete, that'd be different. This is commonly what is done. As for the rest of this, no rule was violated. If you believe someone was done wrong, then go to the page about canvassing and discuss it there, changing it if you believe there is a consensus to do so. And barnstars are always given out to people by other editors, whenever they feel like it, it always someone who does something they like and approve of, obviously. And the Rescue squadron invite is of course offered to those who took the time to look for references and discuss things, instead of just mindlessly saying delete, as many people unfortunately do. No rule violated, no reason to continue this witchhunt. Dream Focus 18:55, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
• Hmmm, I thought I wrote a note stating something to the effect, "if this is incorrectly closed, please open again" I was not sure if I could close the article with 8 keeps and no deletes right after I !voted on it, I just !voted on it, guess I can't. Okip 19:15, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
• "No rule was violated". Well, apart from the one about closing an AfD which you have voted in, of course. No, it doesn't really matter - the AfD was clearly heading for a SNOW keep - but it just illustrates yet again that Okip doesn't really have any regard for how things are done properly around here - i.e. "policy". It needs to stop. And I liked the bit about people midlessly voting delete, coming from a member of the ARS. Almost had to clean coffee off my keyboard there. Thanks.Black Kite 19:10, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
• Your continued partisan attacks need to stop, editors harrassing editors for following policy need to stop.
  Regarding my closure, I apologize for closing the AFD myself. I dont recall ever dealing with closing snowball keeps before. Okip 19:15, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
• As soon as you stop behaving against policy, then people will stop "harrassing" you (translation: calling you out on policy violations). It's not rocket science and you're clearly not an unintelligent person, so I don't think it's too difficult for you to comprehend this. Black Kite 19:20, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

• Having looked at the AFD again, I agree, he shouldn't have closed it. I didn't notice the nominator was still against it. If even one person doesn't agree with the rest, it should remain open. And things are often closed when everyone is in agreement. Just a simple mistake I believe. As for how things are done, well, yes, you see that is how things are done quite often. What do you mean about how things are done properly? Things are done quite differently in different parts of Wikipedia, depending on the whims of whoever is around at the time. No rule was violated by his alleged canvassing, it clearly not canvassing by the definition of canvassing on the proper Wikipedia page about that, so no reason why he shouldn't be able to do what he wants, if no rule is violated. Dream Focus 19:20, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
• Dream Focus seems not to have checked out my initial complaint, at the top of this section. {{User|Dew Kane}} was invited to the ARS for mindlessly saying keep. I don't know whether Dew Kane even read any of the articles in whose AFDs he !voted, but none of his long series of comments reveal any knowledge of state of the articles, and AFAICS he had made no edit to any of them. Other editors on both sides had taken time to read the articles and discuss things, but not Dew Kane. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:21, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
• Once again, no rule exist on who you can and can not invite to join a Wikiproject. And Dew Kane could've read what was said by others, and formed an opinion based on that. I looked through some of those AFD minutes ago, and saw where someone had posted links to reliable sources, and based on that said keep in a couple of them. Dream Focus 19:31, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
• Dream Focus, do please try to be at least a little consistent. You specifically said above "the Rescue squadron invite is of course offered to those who took the time to look for references and discuss things, instead of just mindlessly saying delete". But here it was offered to an editor who just mindlessly said an identical "keep" on every occasion, even in article where there were sod all references. If you think that's appropriate grounds to invite someone to ARS, then the Article Rescue Squadron will become a votestacking club rather than an article improvement team. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:57, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

:::::I despair at having to continue to show veteran editors policy and consensus that they should already know.

:::::If this editors extreme copy/pasting is allowed:

::::::Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion/Archive_53#Copy and pasting same_argument_in_over_a_hundred_Articles_for_deletion

:::::Dew Kane's behavior is allowed. Okip 19:32, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

::::::Oh the irony and complete blatant hypocrisy, right here on this page:

:::::::"I have listed Okip's draft how-to-votestack guide at Miscellany for deletion."[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=353756846&oldid=353756537] Is that a neutral notification of the MFD? Will Black Kite and others criticize BrownHairedGirl for this non-neutral notification?

::::::Okip 19:45, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

::::::: This isn't about Dew Kane's dubious editing pattern though, it's about you. I'd strongly suggest you address that rather than trying to wikilawyer your way away from the issue at hand. Black Kite 19:54, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

::::::::Well not surprisingly, the answer is "no": "Will Black Kite and others criticize BrownHairedGirl for this non-neutral notification?" I guess it is "okay" to do what you condemn other editors for...Sad. Really sad. Okip 20:19, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

::I see the original complaint here as an instance of bullying. BHG proposed a number of articles for deletion, apparently anticipating a clear quick consensus on the result desired--or else as an experienced editor, she would have tested the waters with a few nominations first. (Given that ArbCom has previously ruled that trying to overwhelm a process by multiple nominations is actionable misconduct, such was presumably not the intention). The consensus was however not at all what was expected. This is not the result of canvassing, but the result of a number of editors having --in most cases consistently and for a considerable time--a different opinion. The nominator then comes here complaining about a relatively less experienced editor. Others with previous conflicts against him joined in, complaining about his actions in connection with the same group of AfDs--articles about which the community in considerable part agreed with Okip. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs) 20:19, 3 April 2010

:::Okip is a "relatively less experienced editor"? He's been here since 2005! That's longer than BHG, Black Kite, and you! AniMate 20:53, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

::::(Reply to AniMate) BHG has 207K edits. DGG has 75K edits. BK has 30K edits. Okip has 5K edits. Now what was BS? Tan | 39 20:58, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

:::::Okip=Ikip. Ikip had 55,500 edits. Put them together that's 60,000 edits. AniMate 21:07, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

::::::I stand corrected; thanks. Tan | 39 21:08, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

::::I didn't "attack" Okip; I asked him to refrain from systematic votestacking, and brought the issue to ANI only when the complaint was rejected. Nor do I criticise the actions of those editors who have genuinely tried to rescue to rescue articles by seeking evidence of notability; I disagree with many of their conclusions, but that's the purpose of a discussions, to air and hopefully resolve difft views.

::::I am very disappointed that DGG, who I know as a prolific article rescuer, is failing to distinguish between article rescue and votestacking; that failure causes me a lot of concern about where ARS is headed. But DGG needn't concern himself with any notion that I am somehow afraid to criticise him, and I assure DGG that if he had engaged in a votestacking exercise like this one, I would not have hesitated to bring it to wider attention. Thankfully, so far as I am aware, he didn't do so. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:55, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

::::I said less experienced not to mean less experienced in editing, but less effective in disputes when they get personal. But I also meant it as a sort of euphemism for less powerful, or perhaps even less well-connected. DGG ( talk ) 21:56, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

:::::Okip is less experienced in disputes? What? Less than who? The entire Arbitration Committee put together? That is the most nonsensical thing I've heard all week. Mr.Z-man 23:52, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

• No violation committed by Okip Canvassing is limited to influencing ongoing discussions; any communication to someone who has already !voted, with no attempt to change their !vote, is not canvassing. Thus, such communications do not need to be neutrally worded. Having said that, it would probably be a good idea if the term "purges" was deprecated, as I can see how that term conjures Stalinesque imagery. Several of the participants above should know better than to use a non-infraction as a rationale (excuse?) to berate Okip. Jclemens (talk) 22:06, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
• The motivation is clearly to get those same editors to come and vote on other AfDs. Imagine if I went around barnstarring everyone who voted delete in a contentious AfD I was involved in. You would see it as an attempt to influence those editors to vote my way in other discussions- and rightly so, because there's no other way to interpret that behaviour. It's canvassing. End of story. Reyk _YO! 03:55, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
• I'll also add that the explicit linking to other AfDs, and that appalling How-to-Canvass guide deleted recently make it blatantly obvious that Okip is again trying to rig the AfD process by votestacking. Reyk _YO! 03:57, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

:::Allow me to quote the text here, with the links intact:

::::"You have been invited to join the Article Rescue Squadron, a collaborative effort to rescue articles from deletion if they can be improved through regular editing.
For more information, please visit the project page, where you can >> join << and help rescue articles tagged for deletion and rescue."

:::The explicit invitation is to improve articles through regular editing. That is, on its face, an allowable statement and a perfectly good sentiment. What you're now asking is that an allowable statement be considered disallowable and a violation of CANVASS solely because of the assumed motivations of the poster. I'll stipulate that Okip wants everything in the world kept for the sake of argument, but nothing in his motivation changes the plain text of the invitation. What you're proposing is that we prosecute Okip for Thoughtcrime rather than for the content of his barnstars. Jclemens (talk) 06:30, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

::::It is not the invitation to join the ARS I am objecting to. It is the link to [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_buses#Bus_route_AfD.27s other AfDs] he wants people to go vote keep in. The wording of the barnstars leaves no doubt that Okip is trying to get these editors to vote keep for him. Reyk _YO! 07:32, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

:::::Actually, what you linked to was posted by Jeni, listing all the other bus articles the same editor nominated at once. And AFD are determined by voting, but by arguments. Dream Focus 10:24, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

::::::Perhaps I should clarify. I didn't say that Okip created the list, and I did not mean to imply that. It doesn't matter who orignially compiled it. My point is that Okip linked to it in most of his barnstar messages because he was trying to get those editors to vote his way on those AfDs. Reyk _YO! 10:33, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

:::::::Fair enough. There's a substantial possibility I missed something in all the various diffs that have been posted. Can someone clarify for me when and where Ikip posted a link to a list of still-open AfDs, to editors who'd !voted keep in similar AfDs, that wasn't the general ARS to-be-rescued list? Jclemens (talk) 15:24, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

::::::::The diff above shows a list of articles at AFD that are specifically relevant to the WikiProject that it was posted to. I don't see anything wrong with that. In fact it's the sort of behaviour that should be encouraged as members of an interested WikiProject will have a good grasp of whether the topic is notable. If Okip posted such a list to any user's talk page asking them to vote in a specified way that would be very different, but where are the diffs?--Michig (talk) 16:25, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

:::::::::Kww pointed out the specific issue as well on my talk page. I agree that the link to an explicit list of other similar, currently open AfD's was not appropriate. My previous comments had been focused on the ARS invitation/barnstar, which I still find not a violation. Jclemens (talk) 19:52, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

::::::::::Agreed. The barnstar isn't problematic at all, IMO. It's everything else. AniMate 20:04, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

::I propose the remedy that BHG and Okip, and also BK and Okip, refrain from comments on each other. Discussion on the articles belongs elsewhere. DGG ( talk ) 20:19, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

• I support the above but would also suggest a restriction on canvassing, since this does appear to be an ongoing problem. Guy (Help!) 20:28, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
• How would that be different from Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/A Man In Black#Ikip warned? That's not a flippant question; I too would like to see things improve with this. NW (Talk) 20:33, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

::* OK, you got me. This appears to be a violation of that (I didn't see the AMIB ArbCom go through. Shame, I liked him). So, what do we do next? Guy (Help!) 22:23, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

:::*Two things that I thought of off the top of my head, so they probably aren't very good: A restriction on the number of talk pages he can post to per X period of time? A independent screener who would have to evaluate the newsletters before they are sent out? NW (Talk) 03:57, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

• I oppose this. Scrutiny from both sides here (mass AfD nominations and canvassing allegations) is worthwhile, whatever you think of the merits of either side. I see no evidence that this has degenerated into bullying by either side. We're all grown ups. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:43, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose Okip's behavior is problematic. BHG and BK are shining a light on it. AniMate 20:45, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose I concur with AniMate's view. MBisanz ^talk 21:03, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
• Support for I/Okip only. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/A Man In Black#Enforcement by block is pretty straightforward about the steps that should be taken here. Does this need an official ArbCom enforcement filing, though? Tarc (talk) 21:07, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose, and redact your comment about bullying above please DGG. which I've now done myself. I won't allow that to stand. If anyone wants to restore it, please read WP:NPA first. Thanks. Black Kite 21:13, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
• Support this and all propsals by dgg. As he points out, Okip is a poor newbie editor with dew in his eyes whose only hope is to expand a most perfect compendium of all human knowledge. His opponents present themselves as people who simply disagree with him; but as DGG points out, they're all a bunch of meanhearted bullies. The thin red line should be drawn right here.Bali ultimate (talk) 21:17, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
• Not sure that sarcasm is the best idea here, to be honest Bali. Black Kite 21:22, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
• What sarcasm? DGG was a librarian and Ikip/Okip/Travb is apparently a lawyer. Everyone knows that librarians aren't foxes, they're hedghogs. And everyone knows that lawyers are always right! Leave these poor friends of knowledge alone. This place will be tip-top in a jiffy!Bali ultimate (talk) 21:25, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose. BHG and BK are doing the right thing. Inclusionist/O/Ikip et al, however has a very long history of canvassing and a keep-everything-at-all-costs approach, and an AC warning to boot—yet here we are yet again. The proper outcome here, is a broad restriction for Okip re canvasing and deletion related activity. Yet-another of Ikip's old friends, Jack Merridew 21:39, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose. The solution to the Ikip/Okip problem is certainly not to make him immune against criticism by punishing people for pointing out the problem. Hans Adler 21:41, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

::::(edit conflict) After Jack's comment, I rest my case. It sufficiently clarifies the situation. DGG ( talk ) 21:44, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

::::: Attention. Jack is an evil sockpuppet whose sorcery runs to coding and an idiosyncratic interest in sourcing (outside his specialty). Mr. Adler is something far, far worse: A professional academic (i think he does something in the evil counting profession, or at least in one of its related mathematickal dark arts) They should have no standing against Okip/Ikip/Inclusionist/Travb. (Kudos to DGG for his devestating use of geometric logic).Bali ultimate (talk) 21:49, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

: Oh yeah, as an aside to DGG: Why are allowing this horrible biting of a newbie (inexperienced editor, as you described him) is being allowed to go on by an administrator of your caliber?Bali ultimate (talk) 21:53, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose - This would only make sense if BK and BHG were doing something wrong here. For almost every comment (if not all of them) here criticizing Okip's behavior, he seems to use one of three responses - referring to the person as an old "friend" and therefore ignorable, accusing the person of acting in bad faith, harassment, and bullying so they can be ignored, or just ignoring the comment with no reply at all (such as the comment by Mkativerata). If Okip wants people to stop criticizing him, he needs to address people's concerns, not just silence the critics. Mr.Z-man 21:51, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose- The situation is exactly as Hans Adler describes, and I couldn't have put it any better. Ikip/Okip has a long history of canvassing and is a big reason why the ARS is currently the "Keep vote canvassing WikiProject" in all but name. It is not the behaviour of those who criticize him that is the problem here. Reyk _YO! 21:58, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose. I don't support the deletion of the articles in question (BHG's talkpage is still graced by a long explanation as to why), although I do think most of them would work better as a single list than as multiple stand-alone unexpandable stubs. However, BHG is acting perfectly properly here, and Okip is acting like a petulant child throwing a tantrum. – iridescent 22:00, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
• Support Okip has a reasonable perception that he's being attacked, and there's no cause for unilateral action against him. If there's to be a sending of editors to their respective corners, Okip doesn't need to be singled out. Jclemens (talk) 22:02, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
• Comment. This current discussion does look a lot like cyber-hounding of sorts (no, it is not the same as jumping someone after school, which is why I won't call it "bullying," but it is clearly ganging up on and attacking with hyperbole a perceived opponent as almost all of those lining up against Okip are pretty much the diehard deletionists of the site and ones who [http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=28263&st=20&p=216863&#entry216863 mass attack groups of editors off-site], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Black_Kite&curid=19209067&diff=311551473&oldid=311551227 swear at others], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&curid=5137507&diff=287884336&oldid=287884262 call people "idiots]," [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Bali_ultimate&diff=prev&oldid=284117544 are uninterested when called out for their own incivility], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Reyk&diff=28087727&oldid=28085939 are admittedly just here to "fly the deletionist flag]", etc.--things I do not see Okip doing by contrast...). I do NOT include BrownHairedGirl as part of that group as she is not someone I am really all that familiar with. I think any reasonable neutral editor can see the partisanship of the attacks an Okip for what they are: partisan attacks to squash a good faith perceived opponent. Just look at the history of the core of those attacking him and their appalling behavior in this discussion alone. This thread has already devolved into an inclusionist versus deletion fracas that serves no other purpose than to raise tensions while no articles are improved in the meantime. The longer it stays open, the more animosity grows, the less actual work done to any articles. I therefore trust any and all good faith editors will after this post walk away from this thread and work on something constructive. And anyway, why on earth wouldn't we want greater participation in AfDs by editors who might know about the topic under discussion and therefore be able to help in improving the article? Why wouldn't we want someone to be courteous to such editors? And real quick, no, I am not "back." Okip has defended me in the past from similar dishonesty and it is worth making a one off comment only to stick up for a good faith and constructive editor when he is being hypocritically attacked by those with far worse behavior histories, who are tossing about insults and sarcasm even in this very thread, and who merely are of a different viewpoint. All the more reason why, among other off-site matters, I have not been around the past few weeks and don't plan to be in the future. I suspect this kind of name calling and unconstructive discussing rather than actual editing is what discourages many others from sticking around as well. So, back to enjoying my time away from this absurdity and while I am here, Happy Easter to all good editors! For those who have emailed me, yes, my health has improved, but sorry and despite the many requests that I return, I still want to for all intents and purposes stay retired. Too much to work on and enjoy, really, in the non-Wikipedic world. Take care. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 22:09, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
• Hey a nobody: I'm glad that all that editing on wikia reduced the kidney mass down enough to bring you back to the big leagues! I can stop lighting candles now! Praises be to god!Bali ultimate (talk) 22:12, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
• Blimey, how long did it take you to find that diff of me telling a disruptive anon troll that I was completely uninterested in what they had to say? If that's the worst you can dig up from my 30K edits, I must be pretty much whiter than white. Black Kite 22:39, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

:*See [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard#returned.3F this] regarding A Nobody. Aiken ♫ 22:42, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

• Support DGG's proposal. They should completely stay away from each other. However, there are other issues that need to be addressed. If Ikip is canvassing, that needs to stop. If he's in violation of an editing restriction, then that needs to be dealt with as the next order of business. Dlohcierekim 22:55, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose Admins are editors elected by the community on the basis of their ability to impartially apply policy and guideline, and if it is suggested that either BHG or BK are either not impartial or misrepresenting policy and guideline then these matters should be brought up at a admin recall process (if available), an RfC or ArbCom. Otherwise, it should not be permitted that an editor can have such functionaries disallowed from reviewing their actions without that scrutiny. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:56, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
• Question. Okip and I were on opposite sides of a series of deletion discussions, so I did not use admin tools, or threaten to use admin tools; I collected the evidence and posted a report here, as nominating at MFD a page which appeared to me to be related. I don't see any suggestion that the complaint was frivolous, and a number of editors have supported my concern that Okip's actions amounted to votestacking; some disagree, and it's not for me to weigh the balance, but the number of supports makes it hard to conclude that the complaint was utterly without merit.
  So on what basis is it proposed that I should be restricted? Is it being suggested that no editor should ever make a conduct complaint about an editor with whom they are engaged in a content dispute? Or that an involved admin should not make such a complaint? That seems to me to be a big change in how ANI works, which is why I query whether it's being suggested as a general principle, or as a one-off. And if it's a one-off, why? AFAICR, I have never had a dispute with Okip before, so it's not like this is some festering feud popping up all the time. I want to assume good faith, but I cannot see any basis for DGG's proposal other than to discourage editors from opposing canvasing. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:52, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose on the basis that I don't think it's necessary and could inflame things. I agree and disagree with different parts of what both editors have done during this dispute, and don't believe either to be malintentioned (although I do think Okip is misguided in the direction he's trying to take this.) Orderinchaos 10:36, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose BHG is doing nothing here but bringing Okip's behavior to light. Any argument that what he's doing is not canvassing is basically wikilawyering. Okip has a long history of treating deletion/inclusion debates as a personal battleground in which he tries to rally as many troops as possible and attack anyone who doesn't agree with him. Witness his (and some of his acolytes') behavior at the WP:NEWT discussions. The issue is canvassing and it needs to be dealt with. <>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk) 04:57, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose. Users should not be sanctioned for calling attention to the misbehaviour of other users. Stifle (talk) 12:37, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

• Consensus here seems to be "oppose, it's Okip's fault" or "support, Okip's fault", so new proposal; Okip is banned from "making large-scale edits which may be interpreted as canvassing or making rude comments to users he’s in dispute with", a stronger version of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/A_Man_In_Black#Ikip_warned this]. Ironholds (talk) 02:20, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
• Except that how, precisely, would his recent actions even be prohibited under such a revised proposal? Jclemens (talk) 02:56, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
• It serves as a final warning of "do X or Y, and an uninvolved admin will block you"; feel free to strengthen it. Ironholds (talk) 03:02, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
• I agree with Jack (below) that the final warning was already made. To answer Jclemens's question, Ikip's notice to people who voted the way he liked in one AFD included a link to other similar AFDs that he would like them to vote the same way on. That's drawing the attention of a preselected group, likely to vote in a particular way, to a group of AFDs that they had not necessarily noticed, which is the behaviour targeted by WP:CANVASS.—Kww(talk) 03:57, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
• "a link to other similar AFDs" appears to me to simply have been a link to the ARS's current worklist. That is stretching the definition of CANVASS well beyond the breaking point. Jclemens (talk) 06:20, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
• I/Okip seems to have become as master wiki-lawyer... he is constantly breaking the spirit of the rules while adhering to the letter of the rules. This is a perfect example of why we have IAR, but in reverse. IAR was designed to combat the wikilawyer who hides behind the letter of the rules while common sense says to do something else. I/O has been warned (repeatedly) about his behavior, but finds new ways to push the boundaries. "I'm not canvassing, I'm {fill in the blank.}" While everybody knows that he is in fact canvassing. While I think his goal/objective is noble and tend to agree with his perspective, this gaming of the system has got to stop. IMO, he's past the point of warnings and at the point where a block is appropraite.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 07:15, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
• [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/A_Man_In_Black#Ikip_warned That] *was* a final warning. We're most of a year on. Jack Merridew 03:19, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
• :In that case, AE it is. Ironholds (talk) 03:46, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
• ::Problem with that: Ikip was not restricted in that case, he was warned. To quote ArbCom: "Should any user subject to an editing restriction in this case violate that restriction, that user may be briefly blocked, up to a month in the event of repeated violations" (emphasis mine). AE would be appropriate if both a restriction had been issued AND that restriction had been broken. The first condition is clearly not met, and the second is disputed. Jclemens (talk) 06:23, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
• :::Yes, the proper course of action (should one want to pursue this further) would be to request an ArbCom case. Personally, I don't care enough right now to invest that kind of time, but in case anyone is considering it, I would point out that this is at least the second time this year that I/Okip has been in trouble for canvassing issues. On January 28, he was blocked for 12 hours for posting a message (inviting people to an "invitation only" project in his userspace) on 83 user talk pages in the span of 17 minutes. Mr.Z-man 07:00, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
• ::::Per [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/A_Man_In_Black#Log_of_blocks.2C_bans.2C_and_restrictions][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ikip&diff=prev&oldid=340476621] Ikip was blocked for canvassing shortly after the arb case closed. Unless that circumstance was somehow different, another block sounds fine. 66.127.52.47 (talk) 07:04, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
• :::::I didn't say Okip couldn't be blocked for poor behavior; all I objected to is the classification of such a block as AE. Since he wasn't restricted by ArbCom, any such block would be a "normal" block, subject to any other administrator overturning unilateral action, which has recently been clarified as not applicable to an AE block. Jclemens (talk) 15:17, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
• :::::It was about 6 months after the case closed, not "shortly." That block was the one I was describing. Mr.Z-man 17:47, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
• Support per nom. <>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk) 05:05, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

A block now would be punitive, I propose that the very next time Okip posts in respect of any active deletion discussion on more than one page (outside of the discussion itself) he be blocked. It's pretty clear by now that Okip is so vested in one side of the debate that he is not capable of accurately judging when the line has been crossed. This restriction would allow him to post it at the ARS (which, sadly, I always subconsciously pronounce "arse") page; interested parties can watchlist that as with any other Wikiproject. This has the advantage of being unambiguous. Guy (Help!) 07:14, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

:JzG, I think you said it best.[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/JzG_3#Outside_view_by_Ikip] The reason that you have not been blocked before for telling editors to fuck off repeatedly is because there is no real equality on wikipedia, as long as you have a like minded group of editors supporting you, editors such as yourself can simply get away with anything here.

:I can be warned in arbcom for extremely minor comments compared to yourself, and you are still an administrator after telling editors to fuck off repeatedly, you even had the audacity to hypocritically bring up the importance of civility in ChildofMidnight's arbcom. This inequality, this complete bullying disregard for the rules (fueled by Jimbo himself), is simply getting worse. I see a virtual who's-who of editors who I have argued with before above, all have an incredibly negative view on other editors good faith contributions, these editors combative behavior is the reason why the media has such an incredibly negative view on how wikipedia works.

:Your own vested one sided view is also well known, as are most of the editors views above, in your case, look no further than calling the ARS "arse" fortunately, the majority of the arbitration committee holds many of these same "vested in one side" views.

:I will continue to notify editors, as the rules allow, and you can [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/JzG_3#Outside_view_by_Ikip] Please, choose any of the myriad of quotes, and please keep in mind that the central reason that A Man In Black lost his adminship was for blocking me for alleged canvassing, and even William Collonely, with his large group of supporters (including yourself) finally, after over a year of me pushing for it, lost his adminship too for involved blocks. Okip 08:13, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

::notification [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dubmill&diff=353874485&oldid=353736550] Okip 08:26, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

::notification [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AWeb_kai2000&action=historysubmit&diff=353875082&oldid=353738466] Okip 08:32, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

::: Is it possible for you to respond to a single editor without making it personal? I'm waiting to see what you can glean about me. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:27, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

::::Other than the anon above, you are the only editor I have never met several times on wikipedia before. So your comments hold particular weight, thank you. Okip 10:25, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

:::: Threatening admins with getting their adminship revoked merely for criticizing your actions, Okip? Are you for real? How can you possibly think that's in any way appropriate? Reyk _YO! 09:43, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

:::::Do you see the double standard here, JzG can make proposals about blocks, which goes well beyond simple criticism, but you criticize me for bringing up our shared history? Are you for real? How can you justify this seeming contradiction? Okip 10:12, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

::::::Okip, if it was just JzG criticizing your canvassing that would be something else. Then I might be persuaded that he is motivated by your past disagreements. But you are being called on it by many editors; not just by people like me who sit on the other side of the inclusionism/deletionism line, but by people who broadly agree with you as well. You should consider the possibility that they have a point. Also I am not aware that JzG has committed, or is suspected of committing, anything that would merit blocking or desysopping. You, however, are. That is why JzG's proposal falls well within the bounds of acceptable behavior and your threats do not. Reyk _YO! 10:28, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

:::::::I'm probably viewed by most as a deletionist (although not by rule), and I think at least some of this is overblown. It is a problem, but a different type to what many editors are characterising (it's easy to block someone, it's not always so easy to accommodate their ideas when they're actually right). Orderinchaos 10:43, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

:::::: Okip, your comment makes no sense at all. I was arguing against a punitive block and for an unambiguous restriction that will not lead to the constant friction caused by your sailing perennially close to the wind, with a flurry of people following along and complaining about it. It was an attempt to be fair to you in the face of a mob with pitchforks howling for blood. Guy (Help!) 10:58, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

:::::::Um, I would rather face the mob then be "helped" by you, thanks. I think all veteran Wikipedians have used the "I am impartial, I am only here to help", masking their own desires and POV in collegial, compromising language. mock outrage? Okip 11:31, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

• Support This seems like the best option to me. AniMate 12:12, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
• Hi Animate, one of my biggest regrets is not participating in your RFA. Sigh. Okip 12:33, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
• Wow. I'm assuming this is because of some administrative action I have undertaken and not because I support this proposal. I'd like to know what action that is. AniMate 13:04, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose proposition from a vested editor. I have always disliked these community consensus decisions, for a variety of reasons. Call a arbitration if you wish JzG, as that will be the end result anyway. Maybe we can address your continued personal attacks too,[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:GaryColemanFan&diff=prev&oldid=338214606] after three RFCs, you will finally be going to arbitration indirectly. But please, please, stop acting like you are helping me in the littlest bit, when you started this "mob" with your first proposal. It is a little insulting to be so patronized. Okip 12:33, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

:: I'm still having trouble seeing in what way I'm a vested editor. But if you want this taken to arbitration enforcement for clarification it should be straightforward enough. Guy (Help!) 19:00, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

• Suggestion from the editor who reported this incident.
  AFAIK, I never encountered Okip before, so I was unaware of the history when I lodged the complaint here. But a few things strike me. Firstly, even now that he has half-apologised for his conduct (in the section below), Okip hasn't managed to fully withdraw, and still shows no sign of understanding why widespread partisan notification of AFDs to selected editors is a problem. AFAICS, this could all be wrapped up now by a simple apology from Okip for the votestacking, a commitment to seek advice from uninvolved person (maybe a narrow role mentor) if he wants to notify people about further AFDs, and a commitment to withdraw all the barnstars for voting on his side at AFD. But he hasn't done that, and instead has posted an attack on just about every participant in this thread who has criticised his votestacking, all of whom he seems to believe are out to get him. This has happened before, and from his responses here looks likely to happen again if the situation is left like this, because he still seems to think that most of this saga is everybody else's fault.
  So it seems to me that the solution most likely to create the least drama in future for Opik and everyone else is one which draws some simple bright lines. That way Opik knows clearly what he can do and what he can't, and nobody else need be in any doubt about whether Okip misunderstood WP:CANVASS or is just gaming the system. I don't know whether the bright line proposed by JzG is the right one, but if Opik has clear guidance on what he can do and what he can't, then we can avoid further drama in future. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:40, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
• I think you meant Okip rather then Opik. Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:17, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
• Sorry, I did indeed mean Okip, nor Opik; now corrected. (The consistency of my mis-spelling led to User talk:BrownHairedGirl#Okip_.40_ANI about whether I meant Öpik and whether I am a cheeky girl :) --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:52, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose The behavior under discussion has not been shown to be a violation of policy, despite the number of times CANVASS has been referenced. Jclemens (talk) 15:29, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
• Support per nom. Especially given the personalized sniping by Okip against everyone who has said something against him here. Clearly he sees this as a personal battleground. <>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk) 05:03, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Generally when you get caught with your trousers round your ankles the correct thing to do is pull them up and apologise rather then to argue they are not flapping around undone with all your bits on display. Okip seems to make a career of sailing very close to the wind with canvassing. Whether they agree or not, continuing in this vein is disruptive and should cease until there has been a proper discussion that sets a clear boundary that everyone can live with. Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:39, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

• Firmly endorse With I/Okip, it tends not to be so much what he says as how he says it, how often, and how far he takes it (i.e. to the verge of WP:POINT / WP:NPA). In fact, at times, I find myself strongly in agreement with him and can see where he's coming from, even if I often find myself in disagreement with his methods. I think if he was to stand back and take a big picture view more frequently, he'd probably realise when he's looking like a bit of an ass and it's time to stop. It's something we all have to do sometimes - I have ended up strongly on one side or another of some genuinely lame disputes at times and it's a matter of knowing "OK, nothing further I can do here will make any difference and I'm probably hurting my own case if I continue in the same direction." Orderinchaos 10:39, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

:: I basically agree, I don't have a problem with rescuing crap articles, that's a good outcome from AfD (which should be renamed articles for discussion IMO since the whole point is to discuss what to do with the article and the subject it covers). I don't even have a problem with a brief moratorium on debate to allow rescue of good subjects. I think it would be nice if some of the subjects were less trivial (e.g. bus routes, probably the least likely holy crusade I can remember), the problem is the perception of a "ZOMG! Rally the troops against the Evil Deletionists!" approach, giving rise to a battleground mentality. AfD is much less of a battleground than it used to be, IMO - one of the few areas that's actually getting less crappy over time. I don't think the perception of canvassing and votestacking is helping. Guy (Help!) 11:04, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

:::* AFD is not as bad as ANI but it is still quite a poor forum for discussing most topics because it is populated by editors who know little about the topics and do no research to inform themselves. There is an inherent form of canvassing about taking a matter to AFD as one can reliably find knee-jerks there - editors who openly boast on their user pages that they are "proud to be a deletionist". Because the forum is adversarial and aggressive, it repels editors who want a quiet life and so the place is dominated by strong-willed extremists who naturally do not agree or get on with each other. This matter of the bus routes does not warrant all the heat and energy which is being expended upon it but the nature of the forum is to exaggerate the differences between the parties and make it a contest which both sides feel they must win as a matter of precedent and pride. The remedy, as I keep preaching, is to insist more firmly that the process described at WP:BEFORE is followed. If articles were more thoroughly investigated at a local level first - talk pages for the article and relevant projects - then we might get more light than heat. Only the residue of dross need then be taken to AFD where the proposals would be more likely to be unanimous or consensual. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:36, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

:::::*AFD is not as bad as ANI but it is still quite a poor forum for discussing most topics because it is populated by editors who know little about the topics and do no research to inform themselves. There is an inherent form of canvassing about taking a matter to AFD as one can reliably find knee-jerks there - editors who openly boast on their user pages that they are "proud to be a deletionist". – This is a good point, except that I would say the problem with AfD is not so much that the people who frequent it are necessarily "deletionists", but that the same smallish group of editors is making decisions about articles in subject areas that they are not knowledgeable about. The answer to this may be more and better deletion sorting to get more editors versed in specific areas to participate in those AfDs, or perhaps new or different methods of non-partisan notifications. Perhaps every editor who ever edited an article should be notified? Perhaps all registered members of every WikiProject that tags an article could be notified? Something to get more people involved, so that we don't leave these decisions to deletion specialists (as opposed to "deletionists") Maybe, like war and generals, deleting articles is too important to leave to people interested in deletions and deletion policy. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:39, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

::::* Hmm, couple of issues here. Even if WP:BEFORE is followed, it is still possible to find good sources on things that other editors miss (as I found out recently on an AfD I opened - and withdrew). That doesn't mean that WP:BEFORE isn't being followed, merely that someone else has found a source that was previously missed - no-one's perfect. I'd also say that AFD isn't that aggressive - if you look at a vast majority of the AFDs then there's pretty much consensus in most cases. It's only the borderline cases that occasionally cause friction. I close a lot of "contentious" AFDs (i.e. the ones that no-one else wants to touch) and I still don't get taken to DRV that much - and I don't mind if I do. To say that there is some sort of bitter inclusionist vs deletionist battleground going on at AfD is plain wrong ... but when there is discord, it isn't helped if there is evidence of editors attempting to tip the balance one way or the other. Incidentally, if you have evidence of editors spamming "delete" votes onto AfDs without doing any research on the subject, I suggest you bring it up with those editors or at WT:AFD - such activity tends to be looked upon dimly, just as it does with those who blindly vote "Keep" on may articles. Black Kite 12:00, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

:::::I know there are many variations on Godwin's law on wikipedia, is there one about the "inclusionist/deletionist" debate?

::::::That when the discussion starts to turn to "inclusionist/deletionist" then...(fill in blank).

:::::In my posting I attempt to avoid those two words, (I guess the link to journalist articles on the issue was obvious this time) but the meaning of what I am saying is often implied.

:::::My two cents, too many editors find that deletion "helps" articles, and are too willing to take credit for an article being improved after it is up for deletion, when, in fact that deletion discussion shows a failure to communicate and reach a more amicable, and less disruptive solution. This flawed attitude is no accident, in the BLP madness debate, Jimmy Wales praised editors who deleted several hundred articles, out of process. AFDs have probably gotten more cordial, not because the cordiality has improved, it is because those who do not share this prevalent view have left or have been driven off. This is like the September 11th edit warriors taking credit for the peaceful way in which September 11th articles are now, the reason is because arbitration made a content decision, allowing anti-conspiracy theory editors, many who were admins, block and silence the opposing side. Okip 12:17, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

::::::; Merridew’s Law:^{[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=288117400 cite]}:As a discussion about an inclusionist or a deletionist grows longer, the probability of a claim of harassment by adherents of the opposite philosophy approaches 1.

:::::: There's the above, by Sceptre; it's from ANI534:User:Ikip and forum shopping, linked somewhere above by Tarc. Sincerely, Jack Merridew 16:01, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Another editor who I don't know, who is 110% uninvolved. Opinions like this are what I listen the most. Yes, Order, I agree, I can see where you are coming from, I am "looking like a bit of an ass". You are right, I should step back and am saying, "OK, nothing further I can do here will make any difference and I'm probably hurting my own case if I continue in the same direction."

Blackkite wrote this on DGG's talk page to me: "you are clearly incapable of admitting to any fault"

Actually, you would be surprised, I apologize a lot

1. Unsure 100% of the policy, in the AFD, I wrote
2. :"Non-admin close, snowball keep, I voted! on this article just now, if that is a problem, revert this closure"[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Capital_City_Green&diff=353741618&oldid=353741297]...welcoming an editor to revert me. That editor who reverted was BHG. I later acknowledged above that I was incorrect to close that AFD speedy keep.
3. I blanked the newsletter page that BHG put up for deletion, so it would be deleted.[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Article_Rescue_Squadron/Newsletter/20100201/Feature] The intention of the newsletter was to clarify policy on canvassing, I was planning on asking other editors for comments about the policy. Editors in this AFD were muddling their personal opinions with current canvassing guidelines, BHG herself has some comments above which are incorrect about guidelines, my graph, above, is in fact correct, and represents current guidelines.
4. Jclemens has a good point about using the word "purge"[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jclemens&diff=prev&oldid=353839450], I earlier reverted a couple of instances of the word,[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jclemens&diff=prev&oldid=353839450][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Article_Rescue_Squadron&diff=353748943&oldid=353740680][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dew_Kane&diff=353745708&oldid=353745662] and now reverted the use of this word in all cases.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AJeni&action=historysubmit&diff=353888559&oldid=353808242][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AColonel_Warden&action=historysubmit&diff=353888593&oldid=353765578]

My quandary is this, if I revert the links in the barnstars, and publicly apologize, would this really satisfy these editors I continue to bump heads with? Sometimes these apologies backfire, unfortunately sometimes pacifying editors simply emboldens them. These editors later turn around and say, "look, even Okip himself admitted he was wrong".

I am sorry that I get a little testy about these accusations of canvassing. The turmoil leading up to AMIB losing his adminship, (partly for improperly blocking me for canvassing) and the arbcom did that. This is not an excuse, just an explanation. Okip 11:11, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

: A small point - the 'improperness' of A Man in Black's block was that he was judged to be an 'involved admin' with respect to Ikip. It does not indicate that a block for canvassing was unmerited in that case.   pablo_hablo. 11:37, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

::Hi Pablo. I am simply amazed at how many veteran editors with starkly opposing views then I have came out for this ANI. It is like a big reunion here, and really hammers home conclusions that one journalist has made about the status of the grand debate on Wikipedia.

::Hopefully this conversation ends like many of our conversations do, with images on your talk page, and jokes with Jack Merridew, you and I.

::I was going to reread the Arbcom case, but at this point, whatever. Okip 11:52, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

::: I do have opposing views to you, a lot of the time. Also sometimes not. I agree with the substance of this proposal; it does seem to me that you generally tend to lash out in all directions when your edits are questioned, and this tends to distract from the more relevant substance of what you are saying. So pants up (and buy a better belt).   pablo_hablo. 11:57, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

: Okip - that's fine (and I'm glad you admitted it) but if you look at the rest of the thread above you can see why I wrote what I did on DGG's talkpage ... your responses to other editors seem very coloured by your impression of their interests. Black Kite 12:00, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

::I just knew there was going to be a "but" in your response black kite. :/ Yes, coloured [with a "u" :) ] would be an apt description. Actually, thank you, sincerely, it is nice to be surprised. Your response to this posting was much less "coloured" then I expected. Okip 12:05, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

::: *Facepalm* Guy (Help!) 11:30, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

• No, no, absolutely not. This kind of thing is exactly how Okip got out of any sort of restriction or sanction for his [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&oldid=344709332#Evidence tirade] on the BLP RFC. It needs to be made clear that this kind of behavior is unacceptable, not that its only unacceptable until he admits that it might be and then everything is fine. Mr.Z-man 18:19, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

This is not necessarily as a replacement for any additional suggestions about certain editors staying away from certain other editors, but specifically to address the issue of Okip and canvassing. Assuming good faith that Okip did not feel it was canvassing, despite the appearance of it being that way, it may seem better to have someone be Okip's mentor specifically for this area; that is, if Okip wishes to contact multiple people with the same similar message, he should check with a mentor to verify if it would be canvasing or not. Okip's actions should also be reviewed by the mentor to catch less obvious types of canvassing, and be warned if they are approaching this line. Should Okip agree to the mentoring, but ultimately ignores the mentor's advice or claims of canvasing before doing so, then blocking-to-banning seems appropriate. --MASEM (t) 14:27, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

• This is unlikely to work. The fact that Okip is unable to understand that he's done anything wrong here makes it unlikely that he'll agree to mentorship. Ironholds (talk) 14:47, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
• Both pre-emptive review of actions and post-mortem cautions on overstepping the bounds on canvassing serve both sides. If Okip truing is gaming the system, cares to disregard the canvassing rules, or simply is unable learn what canvassing is despite mentorship, we can clearly enforce blocks and bans from then on. --MASEM (t) 15:37, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
• Support and should this be endorsed, I'll volunteer to work with Okip. Jclemens (talk) 15:21, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
• This seems sensible. Someone mature and sympathetic like Casliber or DGG would be a good choice. Okip has much energy and initiative in the spirit of WP:BOLD but might benefit from a sounding board to explore his new ideas before they generate drama like this. Colonel Warden (talk) 15:26, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
• Support, but nothing about "should he agree to mentorship." Either he takes the mentor's advice or gets blocked long-term the next time. NW (Talk) 15:37, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
• Yea, its implied if Okip doesn't want mentorship, then we skip any assumption of good faith and move onto the next steps. --MASEM (t) 15:38, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
• Support - this seems reasonable. Though I agree with NW, that if he declines mentorship, it would need to be considered a warning to him. Mr.Z-man 18:22, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
• Support - I think this would work, especially if it is a very active mentor as I can see Okip not liking delays. Would also add it's possible for a valid reason to decline mentorship, so would be best not to jump ahead on that idea. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 21:58, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose - A worthy and well-meaning idea but mentorship for someone who has been editing Wikipedia on a large scale for 5 years (under various accouts) seems like too little way too late. <>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk) 05:01, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
• Support - In general, I find O/Ikip to be a well-intentioned and thoughtful editor who is, nonetheless, often somewhat over-zealous in his methods and tactics. I therefore support Mentorship but with the following conditions: 1. that he must be seen to be listening to and applying the mentor's advice; 2. that he refrain from participating in any XfD discussions for 6 months; and 3. that he refrain from any and all mass-mailing for that same period. This takes into account his experience as a editor (hence the otherwise extreme timescale) and assumes his cooperation. Failing his cooperation, we are unable to AFG, as pointed out. Cheers --Jubilee♫clipman 08:19, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
• Support At the very least. I don't think that Okip believed that what he/she was doing was inappropriate but his/her claim that posting these messages wasn't against the rules just doesn't get it. He/she ought to "pull their trousers up", as suggested by a user above. This kind of canvassing is not appropriate. A solid mentor will point that out. Should he/she violate the rules of mentorship, then block. --RA (talk) 10:30, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
• Support as a lesser sanction than blocking or large-scale banning from messaging users. Stifle (talk) 12:39, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
• Weak support as this seems like the only option that's going to gain consensus. However, should he not accept mentorship or continue to try and find canvassing loopholes, some real action should be taken. AniMate 15:35, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
• I'm devastated (well not really) that the great and the good of Wikipedia can't agree that Okip shouldn't wear his trousers round his ankles. ,-) Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:37, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose doesnt seem warranted when one considers the situation in context. FeydHuxtable (talk) 17:00, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
• Support given that Okip/Ikip/Travb/inclusionist has repeatedly canvassed in this fashion, mentorship seems like the minimum next step.Bali ultimate (talk) 17:33, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
• Reluctant support- Should be attempted, but I doubt Okip will accept mentorship. I would be happy to be proven wrong but given the way Okip has lashed out viciously at people like JzG who have been extremely fair, it doesn't look like Okip is in the mood to accept advice or guidance. Reyk _YO! 00:12, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

While Okip does seem to have pushed against the spirit if not the letter of WP:Canvas, one sometimes needs to fight an evil with another, and on balance Okips conduct seems to be a strong net positive for the encyclopaedia . Dozens of valuable and harmless transport articles have been nominated en mass, and despite being repeatedly advised that good pay to view sources are available but take time to integrate, the nominator relentlessly continues to try to destroy the articles. Granted, one might generally prefer to engage the admin in question in dialogue before pushing the boundary with a canvassing operation. However in this case editors had already visited the admins talk page, where stunningly even the outstandingly productive editor Jeni was labelled a troll! Despite the fact that she generally seems a good admin, a regular editor with an opposing view on buses is obviously not encouraged to discuss with her directly after that example. So its hard to see what other option Okip had apart from washing his hands of the matter and leaving the valuable articles to their fate. (And please dont say he could have saved the articles by adding "reilable sources independent of the subject" - that clearly is ruled out by time constraints)

• Strong Support FeydHuxtable (talk) 17:00, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose as there is no net positive to be found from such repeated disruptions. Tarc (talk) 19:13, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose You seem to admit that Okip has come very close to crossing a line, and then seem to focus solely on BHG. AniMate 19:39, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose WP:BATTLEFIELD is never a good tactic to resolving disputes. --MASEM (t) 19:43, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
• Comment - The general drift of this is not entirely incorrect: both editors are not entirely innocent lambs—but then hands up who is?. No show of hands...? However, we are here to discuss user:Okip not BHG. While Okip has undeniably been a force for good in the community at times, IMO, while pushing the bounds of acceptability, his recent behaviour seems to very clearly break those bounds into unacceptability. If he continues in this vein unchecked, he could become the worst sort of rogue editor and lose the respect of those, like me, that have learnt many things for the good from him --Jubilee♫clipman 20:02, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose There are continuing behavioral problems here that arbcom has recognized in the past and may need to deal with in the future. MBisanz ^talk 20:06, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose. Whether or not any sanction/punishment/mentorship is called for is clearly open to debate. But commended? Not reasonable. You ask what option was left? Incubator. Plenty of admins would restore the article so he could work on it in the incubator and have all the time in the world to gather sources. Frequently I hear "inclusionists" complain that "there is no time limit", well it works in reverse. There doesn't have to be a rush to keep something. Let it slip away quietly, work on it when you have time and bring it back properly referenced. Niteshift36 (talk) 23:54, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose- you're kidding, right? Commended for breaking the rules and subverting one of Wikipedia's necessary maintenance mechanisms? I don't think so. No matter how scary and evil and horrible you think the nasty deletionists are. Reyk _YO! 00:18, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
• Comment. This proposal could be summarised in more general terms as: "If you don't like a deletion discussion taking place, then do not waste time discussing the case for deletion. Instead, then please please please votestack as much as you can. This applies even when the XFDs in question have already been discussed at ANI without any consensus to close them or the sanction the nominator."
  That's going to make for really good reasoned discussions, isn't it? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:40, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
• Ippose, obviously. Stifle (talk) 09:37, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
• Support - Common sense really. When you come across someone like BHG who manages to put most people off editing, Okip has taken the option of not being pushed over by someone on a mission, that *is* commendable. Jeni ^(talk) 10:18, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
• :Indeed Jeni, since I started editing Wikipedia in early 2006, no new articles have been created and nothing has been updated. Editors should also be aware of my sole responsibility for the sinking of the Titanic, the explosion of Krakatoa, and the bubonic plague which hit Europe in the Middle Ages. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:46, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
• ::Goddammmit, it was you who stole the cookies from the cookie jar too, wasn't it? WASN'T IT??? Tarc (talk) 12:52, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose I didn't think it needed to be pointed out that if anyone is on a mission it has been Okip. The real issue is not the mission but the methods he's used and I think he's gone beyond the bounds of acceptability now. Even the person making this proposal talks about fighting 'one evil with another'. Jeni, if you really think BHG puts most people off editing then you need to make your case elsewhere rather than just make broad statements which don't even pertain specifically to this discussion and I don't think we should get into a discussion of which editor has put more people off editing. Dougweller (talk) 13:03, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

{{discussion-bottom}}

{{Resolved|I don't see any need for admin action, and there are better places to discuss this, such as article talk pages. Inferno, Lord of Penguins 13:53, 6 April 2010 (UTC)}}

{{Userlinks|65.41.234.70}}

{{Userlinks|71.77.21.198}}

{{Userlinks|71.77.20.26}}

I am sorry to bring 71.77.21.198 IP user up again but I really need some admin intervention or third party review here. He also contributes under another IP 65.41.234.70, the last post on ANI about the editor has been archived a few hours ago. From his edit filter logs you can see that most of his recent edits have been tagged as section blanking [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:AbuseLog&wpSearchUser=71.77.21.198]. He also renames sections to trivia that were previously named something else and then adds a miscellaneous tag on top mentioning in the edit that it would be deleted within a month, it didnt matter that the section had sources more than the rest of the article, he usually cites a great deal of guidlines, then renames a section trivia only to say that that particular section has to be moved or removed.

After my mention of him on ANI he's gotten more difficult to deal with, first questioning how a new editor like me would even know of ANI, two editors who commented on the last discussion somewhat agreed that his tone has been harsh, in response he started an argument with one of them [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive606#User:71.77.21.198]. He's also managed to start an edit war with the another user seashorewiki, if you would have a look at his talk page [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Seashorewiki] you can see from his recent posts that hes been warning him about "policy violation" and threatening bans, he has warned me several times in the last couple of days about policy violation. He can cite an exhaustive amount of wiki guidelines but chooses to remain anonymous through all of this, I have been trying to contribute and add sources to some of the articles, while the majority of his contributions has been limited to removing others contribution and citing a great deal of guidelines for doing so. Now, My only reason of bringing this up again is to stop that kind of behavior, I dont like being threatened and I'm sure most editors wouldn't either, especially for a new editor that kind of behavior might turn them against contributing completely. Please look into the matter for yourself.--Theo10011 (talk) 21:16, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

:(I'm 71.77.21.198 editing from a different IP). Once again, Theo's false accusations are groundless, and frankly, I think an admin needs to have a serious talk with Theo about making so many false accusations against me (now up to at least four) at ANI in order to try to settle a content dispute. He wants to "stop this kind of behavior". What kind of behavior? His first complaint against me in another section here (now in [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive606 this archive]) a few days ago was immediately dismissed by an administrator as requiring no adminstrative action. He complains that I edit anonymously. No policy violation. He complains that I remove unsourced trivia. No policy violation. He falsely accuses me of "starting an edit war" with Seashorewiki after I removed unsourced trivia, then when Seashorewiki began edit warring by reverting me, I (not Seashorewiki) posted an explanation on the article's talk page [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AKnown_Unknowns&action=historysubmit&diff=353741762&oldid=344347244 here], to which Seashorewiki did not respond. And then Seashorewiki reverted me again without commenting on the talk page and with the simple edit summary "You're welcome". The warnings to Seashorewiki were for edit warring (refusing to discuss before reverting me), and for restoring unsourced information; both of which Seashorewiki did. I'm not asking for any admin action against Theo yet, but I would greatly appreciate it if someone would explain to him that trying to stir up trouble for me at ANI when there has been no policy violation is not the way to settle content disputes. I believe his trend is beginning to approximate harassment, especially when he canvasses other editors to engage in the harrassment at ANI as he did [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ASeashorewiki&action=historysubmit&diff=353757352&oldid=353742274 here]. Thank you. 65.41.234.70 (talk) 21:55, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

::I havent done anything thats hidden from other editors, i have provided links to anything relevant to what I was trying to say neither have I denied any statement, its all up for everyone to see. I didnt request any admin action on intervention in the last post, so there really wasnt any resolution to speak of. My history is for anyone to see a "trend" like you suggest, I have nothing to hide or deny. We agreed to move on but you have continued to revert the same edits. I guess the issue here is you have been trying to dictate to me and seashorewiki like you have some authority on whats accepted, the reply above bears a hint of that. From what I can see you and I are on equal footing here, you are not an admin in fact you choose to remain anonymous yet we are supposed to listen to what you dictate as you are the judge of whats accepted here and how it will be enforced, as contributors we have the right to make our case or do we not have that. I am not trying to stir up trouble here, I dont want others to go through similar actions. I am beginning to think that contributing is pointless anymore, I can spend hours citing sources and copy editing my contribution and an anonymous user can just come by and blank the entire section citing guidlines. Your recent actions can force me to stop contributing maybe you'd prefer that or be indifferent to it, Im just wondering about the next editor who goes through something similar.--Theo10011 (talk) 22:16, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

:::The IP's are based in Wilson, NC, and Carthage, NC, which are some distance apart, so we have no way to know for sure if the IP is telling the truth about being the same guy, but the attitude is certainly the same. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:19, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I believe its the same user, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Misnomer#Deletions_by_IP:_71.77.21.198] - " 65.41.234.70 (talk) 15:47, 16 March 2010 (UTC) (IP 71.77.21.198 editing on another IP)" though i am not certain about the last one- 71.77.20.26.--Theo10011 (talk) 22:25, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

:That last one I added is another Wilson-based 71... that appears, from content, to be at least one the user was editing under prior to 71...198. I asked about it earlier, but he didn't answer. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:32, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I stand by my statement above. There are no policy violations. There have been lots of references to "attitude" and several unsubstantiated accusations and falsehoods (as I have described above), but never any evidence presented of a policy violation or a personal attack. When I get to the computer with the other IP, I will confirm that the one I am using now and the other IP are being operated by the same person. I again ask that an admin discuss with Theo about the appropriate manner for dealing with content disputes, and that if he continues on the same trajectory, he may be entering Wikipedia's definition of harrassment. These comments only apply to Theo 10011; I don't question the appropriateness of anything Baseball Bugs has done (except to say that I'm not trying to deceive anyone about editing from different IPs if that is the suggestion. I have made no pretense of being different editors on different IPs; in fact, if you'll read my comments, I am the one stating that I'm editing from a different IP. I haven't even looked at one of the IPs mentioned by BB; if necessary I will but at this point I consider that irrelevant. Perhaps BB has not intended to accuse me of anything, and if so, I accept that.) Thanks. 65.41.234.70 (talk) 22:36, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

:Unlike registered users, IP's are any possible combination of persons. We have rules against multiple users on a registered ID, yet multiple users on an IP are somehow just fine. That's just one element of the double-standard that benefits IP users. In any case, I wanted to see if it was possible the IP was telling the truth, and in fact it is not only possible but probable: The ISP location, the editing pattern and the right-much arrogant attitude, all seem to be in common. So I think you can trust him on that point. As far as the content disputes, the IP unfortunately seems to be one of those users who destroy rather than create. We always have some of those on wikipedia. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:46, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

::Now, with respect, I will disagree with BB on the point of "destroy rather than create". Create has a wide variety of meanings. Helping conform articles to policies (such as WP:V, especially if trivia) is, in fact, creating -- creating a better encyclopedia that is not laughed at by serious readers. That having been said in order to clairify things, however, I don't have a problem with BB. I even agree up to a point about his feelings about anon editing, but until that policy is changed, my editing anonymously is not a policy violation. Thanks. 65.41.234.70 (talk) 22:51, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

:: Problem is Bugs, the IP (as I mentioned last time this was brought here) is technically correct. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Known_Unknowns&action=historysubmit&diff=354029993&oldid=353916956 This] is merely adding an unsourced list of trivia to an article. According to the MoS, "Trivia sections should be avoided. If they must exist, they should in most cases be considered temporary, until a better method of presentation can be determined." (WP:TRIVIA). It appears that the egistered users are adding unsourced lists of trivia to articles, and the IP(s) are removing them. Oh yeah, and renaming trivia lists as "Cultural references" doesn't work either. Now some of the references are being sourced by Theo10011, which is fine but doesn't stop them being trivia. I can't see that the IP is doing anything wrong here unless they're going over 3RR, which I don't see either. Black Kite 22:57, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

:Thanks BK, and I don't just mean for supporting my action; also for clarifying things that I have tried to help Theo understand on other talk pages. I wonder if you have an opinion about what, if anything, should be done if Theo continues to make ANI reports on me if I have not violated a policy? Like I said above, right now I'm not asking for any action against him, but I also don't want to be dragged endlessly to the ANI page for normal editing. Thanks. 65.41.234.70 (talk) 23:02, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

:: I think the reporter needs to read WP:TRIVIA and furthermore I don't think there's any admin intervention required here. I won't mark it resolved myself however, as I've already commented; any other editor is welcome to archive this. Black Kite 23:05, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

:::Black kite, let me understand this- first he comes across a section called cultural references(and these are cultural references- specific lines that allude to other pop culture related things, not random lines or quotes ) then he renames them to trivia( any guidlines to say that they are the same and should be renamed to trivia whenever encountered) only to say that they should be either removed or moved into other sections. The episode summary rarely requires a source in fact the user above removed it saying that summaries dont require sources, while I provide sources to those references but they either need to be removed or moved. this entire step is highly couter-productive, just delete them if they are so much of a problem, rename the music section to trivia too remove them, or anything else that could be remotely considered trivia, do we have a say in any of this or does he alone get to decide what is trivia and what is not. By the way, the last IP has a block log attached to it, if its relevant.--Theo10011 (talk) 23:09, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

:::: It doesn't matter what the sections are called, they're still trivia by the definition. OK, there shouldn't be any sort of edit-warring occurring over them, but the fact remains that our Manual of Style suggests that such sections should be deprecated. In fact, there's a case to be made that the entire articles should be merged to a "List of ... episodes" article because they don't have anough third-party references to make them worth a stand-alone, as in most other TV programmes, but that's a separate matter. I think a lot is being made here of the other editor being a shifting IP rather than a registered user; that shouldn't matter. Black Kite 23:14, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

:::::Merge to "List of ..." article is clearly indicated, because once the MOS-violating trivia list is removed, all that is left is a WP:NOT#PLOT violation.—Kww(talk) 23:15, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

::::"...there has been no policy violation..." This frequent passive-voice reference to his own editing sounds strangely familiar. But at this point I can't recall which indef'd user was always saying it that way. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:18, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

::Again with respect BB, watch the innuendo. That's close to a personal attack without any evidence. I am not nor have I ever been an "indef'd user". If you think of one that you believe is me, by all means please ask for a checkuser. I will welcome a checkuser to confirm that I am not an "indef'd user". Until then, however, please stop the veiled accusations. Thanks. 65.41.234.70 (talk) 23:24, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

:::Yep you beat me to it. Baseball bugs, if you have nothing to say then say nothing. In fact you should withdraw your comment. Theresa Knott | token threats 23:26, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

::::Regardless of what you decide I want to assure the IP user that I will not drag this through ANI again. Besides the content dispute there was also the matter of his condescending tone etc., again its not accusation, before he accuses me of making accusations against him, just something that bears a second look, whatever I have to say in that regard is already posted above with relevant links and the talk page of seashorewiki [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Seashorewiki]. The users repeated citations of policy and warnings of violations were very of-putting to me, new users might be completely distracted away from their points and debating or contributing for that matter, the posts on seashorewiki might be more descriptive. I have no interest in pursuing this further than that, the entire policy structure seems to be counterproductive, and I am sure arguing against it would be even more counterproductive. I would like to Thank you all for your time. --Theo10011 (talk) 23:30, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I can now confirm that all of the above edits in this section signed by 65.41.234.70 were made by me. I'll also add thanks to Theres knott; I'm not asking BB to withdraw his comment; that's his decision. I'll take it as an off-hand remark made in the heat of discussion. I also hope Theo will direct his efforts toward changing policies with which he disagrees at the appropriate forum, in this case I suppose it would be WT:TRIVIA. Thanks to all. 71.77.21.198 (talk) 23:53, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

:What about 71.77.20.26, for what it's worth? Regarding the other thing, I make no accusation, I just wonder. A year or two ago (well beyond what checkuser can find), I recall someone saying it that way, which I thought was a weird construct, and that must be why it stuck with me. I don't recall any North Carolinians ever being indef'd, though. Finding the specific reference to that passive-voice phrase would be difficult, as the search function does not handle strings of words very well. But I'll give it a shot. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:39, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Bill Clinton was known for using the phrase "There is no ..." in reference to something inappropriate from the past (rather than "There was no ..."). But I don't believe he's ever used an IP that I have used. Using geographical areas to track down an IP also can be elusive. For example, if you look at the city listed for my edits in this section alone, that would mean I had to travel about 100 miles in about 15 minutes. I've edited from New Mexico and the IP was shown as coming from Virginia. Tricky, this internet thing. 71.77.21.198 (talk) 00:53, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

:Indeed it is. So, were you 71.77.20.26 before you were 71.77.21.198? Not that there's anything wrong with that. I'm just curious. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:37, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

• No matter who does it, to remove appropriate content, and then reduce to a list is destructive editing, and a reasonable plot section is appropriate content; and need not be sourced other than to the work itself. (It is particularly objectionable to deliberately remove everything except plot, and then try to remove the article under NOT PLOT). A cultural references section is not trivia, but appropriate content unless it gets so long it needs an article by itself --some people think otherwise, but that position does not seem to have consensus. Some material is properly considered trivia: the sort of true trivia that should be integrated is production details; the sort that should be removed is miscellaneous anecdotes or rumors. DGG ( talk ) 02:20, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

"A cultural references section is not trivia": In some case you may be right, but not in every case. In many (not all) cases, trivia is renamed "Cultural references" in an attempt to bypass the usual Wikipedia procedures for dealing with trivia. That is inappropriate. To some extent that is what was done here. I agree that production details need to be integrated and that miscellaneous anecdotes and rumors should be removed. And I would add than any unsourced trivia is subject to removal. That doesn't leave much, especially in the article in question here. The trivia either needs to be integrated or removed. More importantly, however, I think another discussion page besides ANI is a better place to thrash out the issue of what is trivia and whether it should remain in an article. 71.77.21.198 (talk) 02:46, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

:"Integrating" bullet-pointed "trivia-like" bits often renders it unreadable. How does that improve the reader's wikipedia experience? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:57, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

::Integrating it into the article properly makes it readable. If it's still not readable, then it was poorly integrated. Reach Out to the Truth 03:04, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

:::No. Lists of facts are much easier to read when bullet-pointed. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:33, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

::::I would argue that similar statistic-like facts are better read as bullet points. Random statements are better integrated into the prose of the article. @DGG, there are some Cultural Reference sections that are not trivia but I must admit, most are simply dumping grounds for random content by those too lazy (or inexperienced) to work it into the body. Both of those being said there are plenty of {{trivia}} tags that are suitable for sections and the like so there should be no need to remove the offending section. There is definitely no need to rename the section just so you can tag it, that's a little over board. And there has never been a time limit so placing an ambivalent time limit on the content is pretty much just a threat. In sort, while everything the anon said was valid, almost everything they did was confrontational. There are much more co-operative ways to incorporate and remove trivia sections. Padillah (talk) 12:18, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

No offense to anyone, but this discussion clearly needs to resume elsewhere. ANI is not the appropriate place to discuss the finer points of policy and procedures involving trivia. I suggest WT:TRIV, but not here. 65.41.234.70 (talk) 14:15, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

:Precisely why I closed it. In any case, including the information in the article is much better than taking little bits of misc. information and making new sections out of them. If you can't do that, most likely the information doesn't belong in the article. Inferno, Lord of Penguins 14:22, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I've never posted an inquiry on this incident board before, so I may be in the wrong place, but LonelyMarble and I have noticed a repeated misuse of whitespace by User:Mayumashu. On pages requiring hatnotes, Mayumashu will add two breaks between the hatnote and the beginning of the article, which creates a whole lot of undesirable and messy whitespace. LonelyMarble [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Mayumashu&diff=next&oldid=353277574 left Mayumashu a note] about this, but Mayumashu never responded. Two days later, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Mayumashu&diff=next&oldid=353826746 I also left Mayumashu a note], again to which there was an overt non-response. S/he has continued to incorporate superfluous/unnecessary, and frankly inconvenient whitespace after LonelyMarble and I raised our concerns. Many editors browse Wikipedia to condense/tiny it up; Mayumashu seems to be on a crusade to do the exact opposite. I would like other editors' thoughts and opinions on what, if any, action should be taken about this. Thank you. Jrcla2 (talk) 01:53, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

:Condensing Wikipedia doesn't necessarily "tidy it up", since it can sometimes put elements so close to each other that it makes the page unsightly or more difficult for the reader's ease of use. Effective use of whitespace is important, but it doesn't mean eliminating all whitespace wherever it occurs, without discrimination, it means making sure that its selective use enhances the readability of the page, or deleting it where it creates unsightly blocks of empty space. A line or so of separation is not necessarily unwarranted, and should be dealt with on a case-by-case basis rather than with a blanket proscription. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:32, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

::The problem is that readers are looking at Wikipedia on so many different browsers, resolutions, operating systems, etc. that it is pretty hard to tell how the article will look to different people. One user's article may look better with an added line or other white space for whatever reason, while for other users it's just empty space. The norm or silent consensus (this has probably been discussed somewhere) seems to be that line breaks and other white space should not be added just for subjective aesthetic reasons. Adding line breaks after hatnotes is not accomplishing anything useful, and I'm pretty sure on high traffic articles, white space like that would be deleted fairly quickly. LonelyMarble (talk) 19:22, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

:::User:Mayumashu responded on his talk page about this matter, so I'd say it is resolved. Further discussion could happen at WP:Hatnote or some other place. LonelyMarble (talk) 20:24, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

::::I can't believe someone took whitespace to ANI, but if there's consensus against it you really should add that to the WP:Hatnote guideline. Without at least a guideline to represent consensus, isn't this just an editing dispute? Wnt (talk) 20:11, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Please see User talk:ResignBen16. This user's edits relate primarily to revelations of sexual abuse by Roman Catholic clergy. In this context, it seems obvious that the username is a call for Pope Benedict XVI to resign. On his or her talkpage, the user makes the claim that the username is a pure coincidence; I find this claim not to be credible. Bringing this here for a discussion of whether the username is acceptable under these circumstances. (Please do not refer this discussion to WP:RFC/NAME; that discussion board is moribund and little-watched, and I think whether this user should change his name should be decided promptly.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:26, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

:I am not changing my name to pander to those who want to see something that isn't there. I have built a substantial watchlist on this username which I am entitled to and I am not going to throw away and nor am I going to go back to the beginning when I am patiently waiting to time-qualify in the editing of semi-protected articles which are also of interest of me and to accomplish page moves - for example, the template name. People start up campaigns to re-sign footballers and other sportsmen to sporting clubs all the time, and it has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with the management of the freakin' Catholic Church. Take a look in the mirror at what a disgraceful bully you are with this maneuver. It really is revolting, low and disgraceful what the sponsors and protectors of child abusers will descend to in order to attempt to exclude people from the fields of reporting and discourse whilst voicing denials about the effect of what they do all at the same time. Vows of silence, pontifical secrets, canon lawyers; I've seen it all before. And now this. May it also abide in contempt.ResignBen16 (talk) 02:50, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

::FYI, it's possible to change your username while preserving your watchlist and editing history. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:55, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

::If it's determined your username is an attack, and I think it is, it'll get changed whether you want it to or not. Lying about whether it's a call for the Pope to resign (you're really holding out hope that most people here are illiterate) will do a lot more harm than good. Calling Newyorkbrad, a well-liked user who's been an admin for years, "a disgraceful bully," "revolting, low and disgraceful," and one of a group of "sponsors and protectors of child abusers" is a blatant violation of WP:NPA. His apparent insistence on treating you with patience is really admirable, given what you just called him. Şłџğģő 03:06, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

:::The user's name goes against Wikipedia policy because it is promotional -- it promotes a politico-religious cause. (Cf. what happened to User:Free Belarus), and his or her comments to NYB are unwarranted, uncollegial, uncivil and a personal attack. The user should be blocked for all these reasons, with a full unblock only after the name has been changed. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:25, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

::::It is obviously a call for the sitting Pope to resign, and as stated above does go against Wikipedia policy. That, coupled with his focus on the current sexual abuse scandal in the Roman Catholic Church and his apparent belief that people are part of a group of "sponsors and protectors of child abusers" is questionable at best. The name should be changed. Onopearls ^(t/c) 03:40, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

:::::The user name, combined with the editing history, goes against Wikipedia's username policy, however objectionable in the view of many the actions of the religious leader referred to may have been. Edison (talk) 03:47, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

• Yeah, this obviously isn't an acceptable name so this needs to be changed. If the user does not agree then they need to softblocked to ensure complicance with our policies. Also rather concerned by the POV pushing that they seem to be engaged in. Generally I worry about any editor who seems to edit to an agenda and I'm not entirely clear that this user is going to be an asset. Good thing I'm not holding a bit right now or I would block them myself. Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:45, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

It is clear from the above discussion that the username is unacceptable. I have softblocked it indefinitely. Tim Song (talk) 04:51, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

:Good block. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:01, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

::Agree. Contribs and User Name smack of a determined campaign on the project. RashersTierney (talk) 12:35, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

:::Agree. Its obvious meaning is "Resign Benedict 16" and his seeming belief as expressed that the church's raison d'etre is child sexual abuse (I am diplomatically paraphrasing) doesn't really fit with any concept of neutral editing on this site. I'm sure our editor would probably be quite a successful blogger - he has the headline-grabbing language and impressive grammar/use of English - but what works there doesn't work here - we have to leave our baggage at the door. Orderinchaos 19:50, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

::::: Whatever reason he wanted the Pope to resign, it's a problematic username. I don't care if he wanted the Pope to resign because he actually believes he's Palpatine, the name is disruptive. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:43, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

This editor seems to have returned as User:Ben16R esign. I've marked his userpage as a suspected sock, and struck-through his comment on a TfD discussion about a template created by ResignBen16, but the sock should probably be blocked. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:15, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

:The original block was a softblock, which means that the user is permitted to either change their username or create a new account. Nonetheless, the new username was as unacceptable as the old one, and suggests that the user is not here to build an encyclopedia. I have therefore hardblocked both accounts indefinitely. Tim Song (talk) 21:00, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

User:Isabela Moreno repeatedly edits the article Dulce María and her edits break the article code and translate the article into Spanish. See e.g. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dulce_Mar%C3%ADa&oldid=353832565]. I think she uses some tool for automatic translation (probably Google Translate), that she is unaware that she translates the article and that she doesn't speak English properly (or at all?), based on her comments on User talk:Hamtechperson. She already received four warnings recently, but I think she acts in a good faith, so I don't think she should be blocked. I don't speak Spanish, so I didn't even try to explain it to her. Can somebody help? Thanks. Svick (talk) 16:21, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

::Seems to have stopped. Perhaps the best way to avoid biting a user who is (presumably) acting in good faith, is to do nothing. If she does not make another edit like the others, perhaps your message has gotten across? SGGH ^ping! 16:54, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

:::The last warning she received was 8 days ago, but since then she edited the article disruptively again yesterday. Svick (talk) 16:57, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

::::Since my Spanish is pretty rudimentary and nobody else seems to be picking up on this, I've asked User:Alexf if he can take a look. Mind you, the answer might be "no", so I surely wouldn't want to discourage anybody else from handling it in the meantime. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:55, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

:::::Warned user in Spanish. Politely told her her actions will be welcome in Spanish WP, but here it will have to stop or else she will be blocked. -- Alexf^(talk) 23:01, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

::::::To continue: She answered in my Talk page that she's trying to correct inaccuracies, and in English. Go figure. She says the article contains much false information. I answered her I don't know the subject and wouldn't know what's true or false, but if she has a content dispute she should discuss it in the article's talk page, and preferably in English. -- Alexf^(talk) 00:34, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

:::::::Thanks for your involvement, Alexf. My little bit of Spanish suggests that she's grateful to you for talking to her about it. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:02, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I have indef blocked {{userlinks|Sohoscribbler}} due to persistent violations of policy on biographies of living individuals, misrepresentation of sources, issues of lack of neutrality, original research and giving undue weight to minority views. I've just deleted a batch of revisions from {{la|Office of the Independent Adjudicator}} and am off to remove (or verify removal of) similar allegations from other articles, including biographies. {{OTRS ticket|4720874|2010040610020771}} applies. This user is clearly angry and is using Wikipedia to present a side of a story which may justify coverage but definitely not in the terms the user was employing.It's more likely to be WP:UNDUE since many of the problematic sections of text were not supported at all by the cited sources. Guy (Help!) 12:49, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

:I have reviewed the OTRS ticket as well as some of the edits by the editor in question: Good block and good luck with the cleanup. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 15:03, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

:COncur w/ KillerChihuahua. Wow. Dlohcierekim 20:02, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

{{resolved}}

This user appears to be a vandalism only account and/or a sock. He created the article Magical Chocolate Men which I speedily deleted because of vandalism. Then he modified comments on his talk page and my talk page. See contributions for further evidence. Can some administrator do something about this user please so that he doesn't distract me again? Minimac (talk) 19:22, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

:I don't see any sock indications, but it's clearly a vandalism-only account. Reported to WP:AIV which is really the appropriate forum for this. —ShadowRanger ^(talk|stalk) 19:27, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

::Update: Looks like xeno blocked the account. Marking resolved. —ShadowRanger ^(talk|stalk) 19:27, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

:::I'm pleased to hear that. I saw on the WP:AIV that User:Jusdafax put him up on the noticeboard instead, but anyway, I'm glad he's blocked. Minimac (talk) 19:32, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Unless I'm crazy, neither the talk page nor the article history of Namir Noor-Eldeen appear to warrant {{pp-dispute}} protection.   — C M B J   21:53, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

:I just unprotected the page right before seeing this post. NW (Talk) 21:54, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

::Since there is, as of yet, only minimal anonymous vandalism, you may also wish to (at least temporarily) remove semi-protection.   — C M B J   22:00, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

This user Physchim62 just reverted a move of an article from a name that everyone agreed was not suitable to a name that isn't really endorsed by anyone. He also tanked a Request for move that I did on the article not long ago with personal attacks and incivility, you can see the attacks over on the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Icelandic_debt_repayment_referendum,_2010 talkpage]. I also want to point out an example of other personal attacks that this user has made against me [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive603#new_editor_who_seems_like_a_PoV_pusher_and_is_escalating ANI discussions]. I don't think that this can be tolorated any more and considering the request that this user made in his ANI request I request the very same that this user be blocked from editing Wikipedia permanently. Alternativly I asked that he be banned from editing that single article since it seems as if he has anything else than a NPOV going for him when editing it.--Icelandic Viking POWER (talk) 14:46, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

{{Userlinks|Physchim62}} started about 5 years ago.
{{Userlinks|Icelandic Viking POWER}} is about 3 or 4 weeks old and with an obviously single purpose. For what it's worth. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:55, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

:5 years of harrasing new users you say? I may be an SPA and I may only have used this site for some weeks but these name callings and disruptive behavior are inexcusable. Or are you saying that it's perfectly alright that this user destroy my diplomatic request for move with personal attacks and name calling just because he has been around longer than I have?--Icelandic Viking POWER (talk) 15:06, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

::The above user is an SPA with a specific political agenda, as his own comments[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Icesave_dispute&diff=prev&oldid=349310943] about the referendum in question reveal. He couldn't get his way with the page rename, so he's trying to get his opponents blocked. He's probably also still annoyed at being dragged here 3 weeks ago[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive603#new_editor_who_seems_like_a_PoV_pusher_and_is_escalating] when his being an SPA was perhaps less obvious. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:10, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

:::Just so I'm clear on this at Talk:Icelandic debt repayment referendum, 2010#Requested move {{user|Ucucha}} closed the discussion as no consensus on 30 March. Then on 4 April you [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Icelandic_debt_repayment_referendum%2C_2010&action=historysubmit&diff=353910510&oldid=350964632 moved] the page anyway. And now you want to complain because it was moved back? Even if everyone agreed the name was not suitable there was no consensus to move it to your preferred name, so don't be disruptive and don't accuse users of 5 years worth of harassment. something lame from CBW 17:22, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

::::Please be clear on this, View the request for move and view the previous ANI thread and then tell me that this user should not be banned from the article please?--Icelandic Viking POWER (talk) 17:46, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

::::: OK, I've looked at it and I can see that there is no reason for banning that user from the article. Dispute resolution is thataway, I suggest you use it rather than raising pointless threads here. Black Kite 18:09, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Is it really I that is being disruptive? Who would want to participate in a move discussion that Physcim62 made so unpleasant with accusations of trolling and criticism of me?--Icelandic Viking POWER (talk) 17:48, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

• {{userlinks|Icelandic Viking POWER}} has been here a month and this is his second outing on the admin noticeboards, plus there are a couple of prior warnings on his talk page about WP:NPA and using racial epithets. The editor is a single-purpose or agenda account. I think some kind of warning might be in order. Guy (Help!) 19:26, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

The one that should be warned is Physicm62 he has called me a troll, an spa, a pov pusher, a vandal, an escalator and a soapboxer. Talked about non contributions of mine and such. Last thing he did was tank a Diplomatic Request for move that I made for an article with a clearly problematic name. And you're saying that I should be warned for something? I ask that action be taken against the user for disrupting my Request for move request.--Icelandic Viking POWER (talk) 21:30, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

:Five days after his initial request failed due to no consensus, Viking has again requested a move of the article to the title of his choice. Is 5 days an acceptable waiting period for such a discussion? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:34, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

::Seeing as the previous request was Tanked by incivility and personal attacks I should have done so much sooner or removed the editors personal attacks from the discussion since they were highly inapporpriate and harmfull to the discussion.--Icelandic Viking POWER (talk) 21:41, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

:::Um, that's not how its supposed to work and I strong advise you not to do that if you value your editing privileges. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:41, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

::::IVP needs to back off from the move discussion on the article's talk page. His or her views are now well-documented, and their continued insertion of them, sometimes in new WP:POINTily titled sub-sections, is in danger of crossing the line from participation to disruption. This editor's attitude brings up the suspicion that he or she will not accept any outcome except the one they desire, and will act in an increasingly disruptive manner if they don't get their way. I hope that is not the case, but the time to start showing it is now. They should stop posting to the discussion cold-turkey unless they have something new and relevant to say, as opposed to more disruptive campaigning. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:37, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

:::::I think the line between participation and disruption was crossed quite some time ago. IVP's repeated assertions in favour of his preferred title (which still has no consensus in favour) are now disrupting discussion of possible alternatives. Physchim62 (talk) 21:03, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

My last few edits to the article have only been to correct obviously incorrect information that other editors are inserting. How that can be considered disruptive is beyond me.--Icelandic Viking POWER (talk) 22:39, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Anyone for a one month topic ban for {{userlinks|Icelandic Viking POWER}}? Guy (Help!) 13:15, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

:Given that he only has one topic, that might be redundant. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:23, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

::Why not a simple block, given that this is an SPA? A topic ban assumes that the user has other useful contributions to make outside of the topic concerned, and there is no evidence of that to date (for whatever reason). Physchim62 (talk) 17:51, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

:::Yes, but a topic ban allows us to find out if he's at all interested in becoming a useful editor. While his past history would indeed indicate taht a topic ban is tantamount to a site ban, we should AGF and see what happens. If he screws up, he can always be blocked.

I support a topic ban, incidentally. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:00, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

{{resolved|blizocked. --Jayron32 21:16, 6 April 2010 (UTC)}}

Minor annoyance at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ladue Yacht Club. This was a hoax article by a new editor, {{user|Brianrehg}}. They wrote the article, it was marked for speedy deletion, they put on a {{hangon}} tag, the article went to AfD, all voting editors agreed it was a hoax, and it was deleted. The same editor also created Olhendorf, which was speedily deleted. Now an anon (possibly the creator of the articles) is editing the closed AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ladue Yacht Club and (an exercise in futility) edit-warring with SineBot, trying to delete their IP address. Suggest that WP:RBI applies. --John Nagle (talk) 21:02, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

:I just reverted through it. Shouldn't be editing a closed AfD anyway. --Smashville^talk 21:10, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

::Smashville did the R. I just did the B. Let's all I. --Jayron32 21:16, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

::Current troublemaker aside, is there any reason why closed AfDs aren't full-protected? From what I understand, there's no reason a non-admin would want to edit one... Bobby Tables (talk) 21:45, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

:::Probably because it hasn't been deemed problematic enough in the past? There are still a bunch of people who idealistically oppose indefinite protection of anything. Jclemens (talk) 23:38, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

:::: Agreed. The only previous example that I can remember of an edit-war breaking out over a closed AfD was for the same reason as this one; a disruptive sock trying to remove IP addresses. There just, to coin a phrase, isn't the demand for protection on closed AfDs. Black Kite 23:46, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

{{resolved|AniMate blocked Levineps for two weeks.--Chaser (talk) 20:41, 4 April 2010 (UTC)}}

{{user|Levineps}} has recently created categories and recategorized multiple articles, in direct violation of his editing restrictions (posted at User:Levineps); he is completely banned from making any such edits regardless of their merit. He was recently blocked for moving pages in violation of his editing restrictions (see AN/I post [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive604#User:Levineps_in_violation_of_his_editing_restrictions.2C_again here]), so he has a prior history of violations. I'll go ahead and revert/delete his category changes, as all such edits are to be undone on sight; someone else should block given my history of trying to address these issues with him. postdlf (talk) 19:08, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

:I counted 56 edits in which he recategorized articles; 55 were from today, one was from March 29 (the day after his block expired) and had gone unnoticed until now. He created three categories today. All of this has now been reverted/deleted. postdlf (talk) 19:23, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

::Sorry my ban had been lifted, I thought I was free.--Levineps (talk) 19:26, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

:::Where does it say your ban was lifted? You just got off a week-long block for having violated it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:49, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

::::I wasn't allowed to do edits at all for a week, so since that time was up and nothing was stopping me I thought it was fine. Suprised the technology hasn't caught up with wikipedia yet. If I am not suppposed to be doing certain editing, I believe theres enough technology in place not to allow me to do it.--Levineps (talk) 20:25, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

:::::You were blocked from editing because you were violating the ban. The block expired, but the ban is still in place. Pull that shenanigan again, and the next block will likely be much longer. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:27, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

::::::This is a blatant violation of his restrictions right after a block. The excuse given is simply ridiculous. How could we technically enforce such a wide range of editing restrictions? Besides, how was this not your excuse when you were last blocked? You weren't technically restricted then either, hence the block for violating the ban. It is plainly obvious you are simply to refrain from any editing that you are banned for. This has been the case since December. Now all of the sudden you are surprised the ban isn't enforced on a technical level? Sorry, but I don't buy it.--Atlan (talk) 20:34, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

:::::::Oh well, you guys can cry about my "abuse" but the truth of the matter if you look at the moves I made there was nothing malicious about it. Sorry if I offended you guys--Levineps (talk) 20:38, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

::::::::It is obvious from that statement Levineps doesn't take this ban at all seriously.--Atlan (talk) 20:41, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

::::::::::And from his ironic "grow up" comment on his talk page, it's clear he is either in denial or has no clue as to what "ban" means. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:49, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

:::::::::I came here supporting Levineps, but the whole defense of his actions does nothing to help him. A block seems to be in order here, but since I'm not familiar with him, I really don't know if this will be all that effective in changing his behavior. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 20:48, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

::::::::::It has not been effective in the past, and it's highly unlikely that it will be effective this time, or at any time in the future. It seems inevitable that this editor is heading toward a total site ban, but I guess we have to let the string play out. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:05, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

:::::::::::The sanctions in full detail have been posted on his user page, so he should have no doubt that they are in force. His "I don't care" comments in response to attempts to explain to him, are probably a good predictor of the endpoint of this matter. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:06, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

::::::::::::He's cared enough to post several requests for the sanctions to be lifted here on AN/I and on user talk pages. postdlf (talk) 04:13, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

:::::::::::::But he doesn't care enough to actually follow the advice that he's been given on several occasions by multiple editors, which is that he should edit quietly, stay within his restrictions, not do anything to violate the spirit of those restrictions, show that he can be a useful Wikipedian, and then, after a significant period of time (measured in months) ask for the restrictions to be removed. Rather, he's chosen to push and pick at the restrictions, branch out into new kinds of editing similar to what he was restricted for, and outright violate them, with a series of feeble excuses. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:13, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

::::::::::::::Yep. The underlying problem has always been his complete failure to work with others, instead unilaterally making changes to many articles rapidly while ignoring the complaints from all sides. He has been banned from categories and page moves just because those are contexts in which that same behavior manifested, and particularly problematic kinds of edits to make without consensus. So if the problem is he has been unwilling to work with others, we should force him to only working with others if he wants to contribute to Wikipedia—ban him from any edits other than proposing and discussing changes to articles on talk pages or project pages. I think doing anything else is just going to be a further waste of everyone's time. postdlf (talk) 21:06, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::That sounds like a good approach. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:05, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

::::::::::::::::I'll bring it up again next round. See you in a few. postdlf (talk) 03:50, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

• {{ipvandal|74.178.230.17}}

This IP took the liberty to use [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Petronius_Maximus&diff=prev&oldid=354053550 "go fuck yourself"] in his edit summary and further insists via my talk page and edits after that that it's completely OK to swear and cuss like that in the encyclopedia, either in the edits or in the edit summaries. I'm afraid my [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:MuZemike&diff=354260128&oldid=354251957 response] to his talk page won't be good enough here. –MuZemike 05:47, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

::Wp may not be censored, but that's a clear personal attack.--SKATER ^Speak. 05:53, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

:::Agreed. WP:NOTCENSORED is not a license for incivility. There's a difference between content and interaction. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 06:02, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

:I curse fairly often on Wikipedia, but using it against other users (either single users or Wikimedia projects in general) like that is over the line even for me. On WP, an encyclopedia where people work together to write articles, fighting and being rude just does not (or should not) belong. Other forums, etc. allow or encourage people to flame and prank others for lulz; this isn't one of them. Please do not. (I watch MuZemike's talk page and others, to help stay up-to-date with articles, rules, and such.) --an odd name 06:34, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

:Dayewalker asked the user to cut it out and s/he agreed. Speaking normal English (like Dayewalker did) generally works better in this situation than leaving templates full of wikilinks (like someone else had tried earlier). 66.127.52.47 (talk) 08:37, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

::FWIW, he did it again as a response to Dayewalker [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:74.178.230.17&diff=prev&oldid=354253876], but anyways, he hasn't edited in a while, so I suppose it's all moot. –MuZemike 16:14, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

This may be naive but if we be nice to him maybe he will be nice back? TheClerksWell (talk) 03:35, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

:To be perfectly blunt, this appears to be an editor who was just trolling for a response. Don't feed the trolls, and RBI. — Huntster (t @ c) 03:47, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

MarinaSapir is continually inserting unsourced defamatory material into the biography of living person Nancy Scheper-Hughes. After her first 3 violations I warned her to stop, but she is continuing to insert the material.

• 1. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nancy_Scheper-Hughes&diff=348356541&oldid=339298137]
• 2. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nancy_Scheper-Hughes&diff=348619371&oldid=348361721]
• 3. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nancy_Scheper-Hughes&diff=352738988&oldid=351681233]
• At this point I gave her a warning to stop:[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:MarinaSapir&oldid=352739765]
• However she continued with the following edits: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nancy_Scheper-Hughes&diff=352855593&oldid=352741365] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nancy_Scheper-Hughes&diff=352856470&oldid=352855593]

This user seems set upon continuing to violate the BLP policies unless something is done. Factomancer (talk) 05:05, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

:Errr.... last edit was [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/MarinaSapir a week ago...] Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 07:05, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

{{resolved|1=Nothing to see here. Move along. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 06:38, 7 April 2010 (UTC)}}

Not realy sure what to do about this. user: Minimac who made a comment on the now speedy deleted page: Bieberquake has removed the warnings and block notice from user Bieberquake talk page and replaced it with their sugestion of a reason for an unblock. --Wintonian (talk) 06:06, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

:This appears to be taken care of already by admin User:Gogo Dodo. Hence, I am going to mark this resolved. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 06:38, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

::Sounds resonable. --Wintonian (talk) 06:41, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Could an admin make a note in the block log of this user [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Bieberquake&diff=354477153&oldid=354476466 about this legal threat]? Possibly one on their talk page as well, or, if not there as well, at least there?— Dædαlus ^Contribs 07:07, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

:User:Gogo Dodo was the blocking admin, so you might want to let him know about it via his talk. I don't think he is aware of this thread. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 07:14, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Right, the AFD for the article "Dorble.com" has a problem, the result of it was speedy deleted (by an admin, and it was closed by a non-admin) but the article has been re-created again. Should the discussion be re-opened or should the article get deleted (again)? --Andromedabluesphere440 (talk) 07:50, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

:If it is exactly the same page, it must be speedy deleted per G4. Of course, substantially different, you follow regular deletion procedures. > RUL3R^>trolling_>vandalism 07:53, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

::deleted again, facebook page doesn consitiute notability, also the author has a COI. Gnangarra 07:56, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

:::On my watch list if it is created again then (bar any objections) I might ask for it to be protected. --Wintonian (talk) 07:59, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

::::WP:SALT if it becomes necessary, I have also warned the [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Cpl_Boyardee&diff=prev&oldid=354486805 creator] about advertising. Gnangarra 08:02, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

::::: Edit conflict x2 Protection might be a good idea (as Wintonian says) since the page seems to have been deleted four times within nine hours. It's likely if protection isn't inserted the article just going to be created again any time soon. --Andromedabluesphere440 (talk) 08:05, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

::::::Apparently now sorted for the next year. --Wintonian (talk) 08:44, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

As agreed after an lengthy mediation among conflicting editors working on the Race and Intelligence article, David Kane revised the article. On the talk page of the article, he wrote "There are several other editors involved in this article (DJ, Aprock, Occam, MathSci) who could do a great job with those sections. I hope they will be bold!" I assume that the invitation extend to editors who were not involved in the mediation. This seems quite appropriate and fair to me.

User: Mustihussain was never involved in any edit conflict concerning this article. S/he was therefore not party to the mediation. Following David kane's announcement on the talk page, Mustihussain made a few edits to the article. User: Captain Occam reverted on the grounds that "This article is still under mediation ... if you think your own edits are necessary, you need to bring them up on the mediation page" [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Race_and_intelligence&diff=353472942&oldid=353463701].

I believe this was completely inappropriate. Mustihussain was not part of the mediation. Captain Occam's revert was basically thus based on the objection: I object to your edit because you are not in mediation ith me. Since when has this ever been a justification for a revert? The proper place to discuss improving the article is the article's talk page. In a stroke, Captain Occam is saying that we will no longer use the article's talk page to discuss improvements.

Mustihussain reverted the revert with this explaination: "this article or section is in the middle of an expansion or major revamping. you are welcome to assist in its construction by editing it as well." She is right. It does say others are wlecome to edit as well. So how can Captain Occam unilaterally decide that Mustihussain is blocked from editing this page? In effect, Captain Occam has issued a page bluck. This seems wholely inappropriate.

But he did it again: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Race_and_intelligence&diff=prev&oldid=353490046]. And then User:Mikemikev reverted Mustihussain's edit: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Race_and_intelligence&diff=next&oldid=353525082],.

I think that Captain Occam and Mikemikev should be reprimanded for having tried to bully a new user off the Race and IQ page with th argument that, boils down to "if you are not party to our mediation, you are not allowed to edit the page." The page does not have that level of protection; reverts should NOT be used to create what is in essence a page protection that dosn't exist.

Then, Ludwigs2, the mediator, told Mustuhussain that any proposed edits should be discussed at the mediation talk page.{http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ludwigs2&diff=353561143&oldid=353559433]. Here the mediator is abusing his power by basically saying he has authority to decide on any edit made to the article. But this is not a mediator's role! Mediation is meant to resolve conflict among specific editors. Since when does a mediator have the right to force anyone to participate in mediation? I thought participation in mediation is voluntary!! But by requiring Mustihussain to clear edits through him, Ludwigs2 is basically saying Mustihussain has to participate in the mediation. Or, Ludwigs2 is saying that the mediation page now replaces the article talk page, as the page to discuss improvements to the article. But this is wrong. The article talk page is the place to discuss article improvements. The mediation talk page is the place to resolve a specific dispute among editors who agreed to mediation. I think Ludwigs2 should be reprimanded for trying to compel another editor to join th mediation, and using his position as mediator of a specific conflict as a reason to control who can and cannot edit the article. Slrubenstein | Talk 00:10, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

:No, this seems like a clear case of ownership and I notice Captain Occam was previously blocked for edit warring for inappropriate reasons. Someone with more knowledge of the situation and an admin should get involved here.--Crossmr (talk) 00:19, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

::I think (given the numerous ANI threads that have been opened about this mediation so far) that there are plenty of administrator eyes on the page. The incident was unfortunate, but is resolved. Mustuhussain was being a bit pushy and not respecting BRD (three or four reverts without discussion), and so I asked him politely (check Slrubenstein's diff above if you doubt my politeness) to bring up his concerns at the mediation page so that we could discuss it. There has been no issue since.

::I suggest to all mediation participants to leave this thread alone unless an uninvolved administrator has a question for them, and to get back to the business of discussing the review notes we have so far, so that we can start making revisions to the page. Your choice, of course, but unless there are serious non-partisan administrative concerns, I don't see anything that needs to be addressed. --Ludwigs2 01:20, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

:::Mediation is a voluntary process binding only on those who agree to the mediation. As such, the mediator and the participants can certainly invite someone to join the process, but no one, including the mediator, has the right to try to force decisions arrived at through mediation on non-participants. From what I've read in previous threads, it would seem that the task of working with the people who have agreed to mediation is daunting enough that the mediator would want to focus all his or her energy on those people, and not spend time bothering uninvolved editors. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:33, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Can folks please take all these AN/I threads to MedCab's talk page? You'll probably get better advice and sympathy from there. Xavexgoem (talk) 07:55, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

:I assume you mean this page. Muntuwandi has questioned the procedures there. It's not clear whether he got good advice or sympathy from Ludwigs2. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3AMediation_Cabal%2FCases%2F2009-11-12%2FRace_and_Intelligence&action=historysubmit&diff=353857356&oldid=353850228] "If you are not contributing to the development of the article, then I will not allow you to disrupt that development with an endless stream of meta-commentary." (later toned down [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2009-11-12/Race_and_Intelligence&diff=next&oldid=353857562]) Mathsci (talk) 11:16, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

:ownership is an issue for administrators to look in to.--Crossmr (talk) 01:19, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I took this here, and not to Mediation Cabal, for a simple reason: I m not complaining with how Ludwigs2 has managed the mediation. My complaint is how he and others are treating people who are not participating in th mediation. What they are doing amounts to a back-door page protection of the article, when none is called for, or article-blocking a new user, which is not called for. Ludwigs2 is unfair to accuse Mustihussain of edit-warring. It was Captain Occam and Mikemikev who were edit warring. Why? Because they reverted an editor without providing a valid reason, and because thy did not open a discussion on what they considered a bad edit on the article talk page. BR means Bold, Revert, Discuss and the proper place to discuss is on the article talk page. Captain Occam and Mikemikev and Ludwigs2 are refusing to do that. This is an abuse of BRD. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:31, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

• I agree, and this point was raised before and not satisfactorily addressed. This is basically a case of WP:OWN. Is two weeks up yet? Guy (Help!) 10:06, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

While all of this is dreadfully interesting, it may be worth noting that significant progress is currently being made on improving the article. The lead has been drafted with the input of at least half a dozen editors and edited directly into the article, and is unlikely to be the subject of dispute that it has been in the past. Say what you want about this mediation, it is producing tangible results. --Aryaman (talk) 10:48, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

:The mediation process is gradually being wound down and discussion moving to the talk page of the article itself. By introducing directly a possible new lede written from scratch, which Varoon Arya rejigged, an end has hopefully been put to the interminable discussions that have plagued the mediation pages. I'm not sure what that proves. I don't know what will happen with the main body of the article, but hopefully that too will be worked out on the talk page of the article. Mathsci (talk) 11:06, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

::Well, I think the fact that you actively rejoined the mediation helped this latest batch of edits go much more smoothly. You are to be commended for actually proposing a text which other editors could comment upon and tweak. We've been stuck in criticising abstractions, as far too few have been willing to stick their necks out in making concrete suggestions, and that helped to break the rhythm sufficiently so that something resembling a normal editing cycle could take place. In my opinion, we can begin to phase out mediation and move discussions over to the talkpage as soon as the open topics wind up. I'd like to request that any admins with axe poised please consider allowing this to happen naturally rather than strictly enforcing an deadline from on high. --Aryaman (talk) 11:18, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

-> I spoke a little too soon. One user has attempted to WP:OUT me on the mediation pages. Ludwigs2 has condoned another editor saying WP:IDONTLIKEIT about a source by Richard Nisbett that satisfies WP:V and WP:RS. It looks as if Ludwigs2 is encouraging a poisonous editing environment just at the moment that progress is being made. Mathsci (talk) 01:35, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

:Just for clarity's sake, here are diffs for Mathsci's comments above:

:# the editor who tried to 'out' Mathsci [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2009-11-12/Race_and_Intelligence&diff=next&oldid=354181700 here] is a problematic SPA - {{user|Horse wiz}} - whom I warned myself [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AHorse_wiz&action=historysubmit&diff=354188742&oldid=354186708 here] for the comment, along with a more protracted discussion on my talk page. He claims that Mathsci has volunteered that information elsewhere, so that it is not outing, but I let the warning stand because it was clearly intended to be a disruptive edit.

:# what Mathsci has styled as my 'condoning another editor saying IDONTLIKEIT' refers to my redaction of the portion of [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2009-11-12/Race_and_Intelligence&diff=prev&oldid=354181253 this edit] where Mathsci claims that user:Bpesta22's opinion carries no weight because Bpesta22's professional standing is somehow insufficient for him to render an opinion - a form of personal attack that is specifically prohibited by the mediation rules. (my redaction is [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2009-11-12/Race_and_Intelligence&diff=next&oldid=354185976 here], along with an archival of an unproductive discussion between Mathsci and David.Kane on the issue.). The edit Mathsci is responding to is [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3AMediation_Cabal%2FCases%2F2009-11-12%2FRace_and_Intelligence&action=historysubmit&diff=354109475&oldid=354109273 this edit].

: --Ludwigs2 06:23, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

{{User|Ludwigs2}} is acting more as a hindrance than a help at the moment.. The article is now being edited in mainspace: on several occasions now he has made inappropriate remarks/warnings which show that he is clueless about the way edits are being made at the moment. In the latest incident, {{User|Bpesta22}} has challenged the use of a book written by Richard Nesbitt, a distinguished academic and member of the National Academy of Sciences. Bpesta22 has admitted that he is the real life assistant professor Bryan Pesta teaching in the Business Management School of Cleveland State University. In real life he supports the minoritarian hereditarian view of the article Race and intelligence. He has attempted to use his real life credentials to dismiss a book by Nesbitt, whom he claims is not qualified to comment on the subject. Assertions like this, particularly about such a distinguished academic, run completely contrary to core wikipedia policy. Bpesta22 is a recently arrived and inexperienced editor with a declared WP:COI. Ludwigs2, apparently continuing his crusade against the National Academy of Sciences started on Wikipedia talk:NPOV, has supported Bpesta22's unjustified attack on Richard Nesbitt. This is outlandish behaviour on the part of a mediator. Ludwigs2 seems at present to be stuck in some kind of rut, in which he is trying two or three times a day to pull rank in an entirely unconstructive way on much more established editors like Slrubenstein and myself with no apparent justification.. Constructive editing on the article is occurring nevertheless and in spite of Ludwigs2, who currently just seems to be wasting time and to be encouraging editors to break wikipedia core policies. Ludwigs2 shows no indication that he is concerned with building an encyclopedia. He is exercising WP:OWN on the talk page of mediation and commenting elsewhere on edits to the article which go beyond any remit as mediator. Mathsci (talk) 06:24, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

5 more days. I don't think it's intentional, but Ludwigs is using a rather effective strategy ;-)

Has there been no progress? Xavexgoem (talk) 13:36, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

{{User|Xnacional}} has persisted in tendentious and disruptive editing against local consensus and the MOS for a while now. His regular activities are at:

• {{al|Operation Together}}, where he replaces the disambiguation page with a redirect; most recent reversion [https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/w/index.php?title=Operation_Together&diff=prev&oldid=352894640 here]
• {{tl|Star Wars}}, where he removes an entry despite local consensus (and recent talk-page discussions that he hasn't engaged in) to retain it; most recent reversion [https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/w/index.php?title=Template:Star_Wars&diff=prev&oldid=354246248 here] (a couple of hours after another revert).
• {{al|Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope}}, where he alters caption text without explanation; most recent reversion [https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/w/index.php?title=Star_Wars_Episode_IV:_A_New_Hope&diff=prev&oldid=354259862 here]
• {{al|Star Wars Episode VI: Return of the Jedi}}, where he adds two periods to end of captions that aren't sentences, i.e. per the MOS shouldn't have terminal punctuation; most recent reversion [https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/w/index.php?title=Star_Wars_Episode_VI:_Return_of_the_Jedi&diff=prev&oldid=354260182 here]
• {{al|Hannibal Rising (film)}} -- I haven't kept a close eye on the article, but his edit-warring led to a 3RR block couple of weeks ago.

Save for the dispute at Hannibal Rising, Xnacional has never technically violated 3RR. Xnacional understands 3RR well enough to [https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&diff=prev&oldid=351511165 file a complaint]; he should similarly understand WP:MOS and WP:CONSENSUS -- but, he either doesn't hear multiple editors across multiple articles or simply gleefully gets off at these occasional tweaks. Xnacional has not heeded multiple talk-page requests (most of them still there; several removed by him) to stop his behavior. He rarely engages in talk-page discussion, but always curtly and never with any indication that he acknowledges his edits might be controversial or simply wrong. (As a side note, Xnacional's recent obnoxiousness includes persistently restoring his "warnings" at User:MikeWazowski's talk page -- even though Xnacional regularly removes the same from his own talk page).

Although Xnacional seems somewhat knowledgeable about combat in Afghanistan, his productive edits are weighted against his habit of ignoring other editors and wasting our time in reverting his obnoxious edits. Additional input, advice or action would be appreciated. --EEMIV (talk) 12:14, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

....and he's just now gone through and hit three of those articles above, per usual. --EEMIV (talk) 10:42, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

{{resolved|1=Image now disappeared.~ mazca ^talk 22:54, 6 April 2010 (UTC)}}

No doubt this is not the right place to post this, but I'm hopeful someone will just take care of it - this image: :File:Lisa_Simpson_Meets_Michelle_Obama.jpg is incorrectly labeled as public domain and I assume not allowable without permission. I removed it from Talk: Michelle Obama - I stay away from image matters so don't know how to go about removing the image from the image files and would appreciate someone taking care of it. Thanks. Tvoz/talk 22:00, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

:Tagged {{db-f7}}, it should disappear shortly. Tarc (talk) 22:16, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

:: I changed it to G12. Policy wonks love to turn down things tagged as speedy with DB tags that are supposed to follow an expired prod or something. Burpelson AFB (talk) 22:50, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

:::Now deleted. For reference, the tag you want for blatantly obvious image copyvios like that one is {{tl|db-f9}}. Thanks all. ~ mazca ^talk 22:54, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

:::: Thanks, guys! Tvoz/talk 02:27, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

• I've been here for several years and couldn't pin down the right one, I feel sorry for the newbies navigating this Byzantine mess. Tarc (talk) 13:42, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Writer's Cramp is Green Squares is SirIssacBrock - see User_talk:Green_Squares#Ban_suspended. It appears that WC has fallen off the rails somewhat - he is describing reverts of his edits as vandalism again ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Armageddon_theology&diff=prev&oldid=354144758], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Armageddon_theology&diff=prev&oldid=354144758]), is actively edit warring over an article he owns - ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Christian_soldier&action=history] - reverts today [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Christian_soldier&diff=354079463&oldid=354064081], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Christian_soldier&diff=354080839&oldid=354079960], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Christian_soldier&diff=354145311&oldid=354081807]), and is placing bad vandalism warnings on pages of good editors he is in conflict with - [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Radagast3&diff=354145152&oldid=352900158]. He is supposed to be mentored by User:John Vandenberg, who has not edited for over a week. Could some admin provide him some helpful attention? Thanks. Hipocrite (talk) 18:18, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

:His talk page is on my watchlist following a recent communication. I have responded to his request for administrator assistance but as I am unfamiliar with the background have e-mailed John Vandenberg in the hopes that he is not too busy elsewhere to chime in. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:50, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

:For reference sake: {{user5|SirIsaacBrock}}, {{user5|Green Squares}}, {{user5|WritersCramp}}. Syrthiss (talk) 18:50, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

::Just stumbled on this and feel like I should contribute. WC also posted an [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Christian_soldier&action=historysubmit&diff=353412934&oldid=353394680 accusation of Vandalism] against me on an AfD I started regarding one of his articles. The accusation is plainly off base, a bizarre violation of WP:AGF, demonstrative of a total lack of understanding of what vandalism is, and uncivil. WC has failed to respond to my request to have him either redact or explain his accusation. I am entirely unfamiliar with his being mentored status, background, or the other issues raised above, but insofar as I've noted similar activity directed against me by this editor, I feel compelled to contribute. That said, this probably isn't an ANI issue -- at least not yet -- but seeing as this conversation already exists here, and I have relevant experience, I'm contributing. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 20:22, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

::I have notified WC of this ANI. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 20:25, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

:::WC had already been notified of this ANI and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AWritersCramp&action=historysubmit&diff=354152688&oldid=354150717 removed it as "trolls nonsense"]. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:36, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

::::Ha! Okay, see that now in his talk page history. Perhaps I can anticipate another vandalism warning for having notified him, then. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 20:43, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

::Writer get a bit bitchy when their article is targeted for deletion. News at 11!

::I agree that WritersCramp needs a bit of an AGF tune-up, and have also inquired about a similar issue on his talk page.

::ps, WritersCramp official mentoring period is due to end in a week. If there are concerns after that, feel free to contact me. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 09:50, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

:::This may sound petty, and perhaps I'm unaware of some mitigating factor from WC's history, but an apparent pattern of an editor running amok describing any edit he disagrees with as "vandalism" or "troll's nonsense," that editors he has had problems with in the past need to be blocked indefinitely (per his talk page), seems a bit more than "a bit bitchy." Honestly, I don't normally even involve myself with disputes like this, but I was very bothered by someone throwing a boldfaced "VANDALISM" at me in an AfD, and I'm all the more bothered to see that it's apparently a well-established pattern. I have the utmost respect for you as someone attempting to mentor a troubled editor, but I just want to make sure you know that, at least from where I'm sitting, this isn't just the standard "author gets a bit bitchy when his/her article gets AfD'd". I have dealt with that type of situation several times in the past and never have I been called a vandal, nor has the editor at issue had some established pattern of doing same.

Completely know that you're on the case, and this response isn't even slightly intended to suggest otherwise (and I sincerely mean that), just want to make sure it's clear that WC's behavior is, to this editor, very troubling. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 03:12, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

::::(BTW: I write the above knowing full well that I don't seek WC to be on the receiving end of any truly impactful disciplinary action, so perhaps I'm just venting...WC's obviously someone who is trying to contribute in good faith) ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 03:16, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

{{od}} For what its worth, Writer'sCramp hasn't edited since that day and hasn't responded on-wiki to John Vandenberg's note on WC's talk page. He may be stepping back to take a breath (which I appreciate, if that is the case). It was starting to look like a ramp-up of his previous troubling behavior. Syrthiss (talk) 11:25, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

:If that's what WC's doing and why, that is indeed a very good thing. He's definitely trying to contribute in good faith, and it's a shame for anyone in that vein to go "off the rails." Regardless, good point, agreed, I'll shut up now :). ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 15:10, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I've blocked 91.198.174.201 for 24 hours anon-only, as it looks like User:EdwardsBot is running while logged out. I'm going to contact the operator now, but please keep an eye out for any bots I may have accidentally disabled. If it seems to be a problem, please unblock without consulting me. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 01:07, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

:This is almost certainly caused by a change in logging in reported at WP:VPT#Bots and Logging In. Svick (talk) 01:16, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

:Yes, it looks like [http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/2010-April/047535.html the site was patched for a security bug], causing the underlying frameworks ([http://code.google.com/p/python-wikitools/ wikitools], AWB, etc.) to break. --MZMcBride (talk) 01:51, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

::Would this be why the AIV bots aren't working at the moment? Syrthiss (talk) 16:45, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

:::It is indeed. Odd to patch for a bug described years ago at such short notice, or was there more warning? Will (aka Wimt) 17:16, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

{{userlinks|RulerOfTheAirwaves}}

The above user has been going around various radio stations unnessarily changing the formats listed of the stations to information that is incorrect. I [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:RulerOfTheAirwaves&diff=354438045&oldid=354227897 told] the user this, and it was promptly blanked, which, yes, is his right. But his edits have gone over into vandalism territory. I noticed the user [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=WMMS&diff=prev&oldid=354439777 blanking] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=WAKS&diff=prev&oldid=354439864 a] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=WGAR-FM&diff=prev&oldid=354439906 category] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category:Clear_Channel_Cleveland&diff=prev&oldid=354440192 vandalizing] the category page. When I warned him for [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:RulerOfTheAirwaves&diff=354442672&oldid=354438206 vandalism], that too was blanked. This account is not sitting right with me, from the name to the actions of the user. Could an admin take a look and have a word with the user. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 01:50, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

:I [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:RulerOfTheAirwaves&diff=354443911&oldid=354442994 notified] the user of this thread. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 01:51, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

:I have added new rock format sub-categories (alternative, album-oriented, etc.) when I noticed that only a few (classic, modern) were present. I was re-categorizing the stations (you might think of them as orphans) which led to the generic rock category. Look, if you want to turn this into something sinister, go ahead. I have only been working to more accurately identify rock stations-- that's all! RulerOfTheAirwaves (talk) 01:54, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

::This may not be AGF, but for a user who just started [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&user=RulerOfTheAirwaves yesterday], this user certainly knows their way around categories and other pages of the Wiki and already has the lingo down. Quack anyone? - NeutralHomer • Talk • 01:59, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

::Also, the vandalism this user claims was the removal of a very small category (only 6 entries) for a group of sister stations in a certain radio market. There is absolutely no way to verify this, but I will say it anyway-- I created the category myself some months ago using a different user name. Since I have been going through many, many radio stations and their respective categories/templates, I noticed that there was literally no other similar small category for sister stations in a single radio market. I simply thought it was appropriate the do away with the grouping, but if the user who began this discussion feels otherwise, leave it, that's fine! I can't stress enough my constructive intentions here. I simply have been trying to clean up some of the Rock-Radio categories and templates. RulerOfTheAirwaves (talk) 01:59, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

:::Admitted sock? - NeutralHomer • Talk • 02:00, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

:::ROTA, it's a bit more seemly to post to the appropriate wikiproject (I'm sure there is one) before engaging in an operation like this. "Discussion" can consist of saying what you want to do, waiting a while to see if anyone objects, and going ahead with the plan if nobody has said anything. Then refer to the wikiproject thread in your edit summaries so that bystanders can understand what you're doing. 66.127.52.47 (talk) 02:06, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

::::I use no other username currently, and haven't used any other for some time now. I fully understand the policy regarded multiple accounts. RulerOfTheAirwaves (talk) 02:07, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

:::::Would seem to be this guy. Deor (talk) 02:10, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

::::::Looks like it. Has a big interest in WMMS and other Cleveland radio stations. I recommend a Checkuser (any up this time of night?) and run one on his account. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 02:12, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

:::::::They also have the right to vanish, so if they would be willing to admit to one of us either through this thread or by e-mail their old account, I don't really think that we should go through all this trouble. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 02:24, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

::::::::Right to vanish involves leaving wikipedia permanently. If they come back, they haven't vanished. Maybe you're thinking of CLEANSTART which doesn't apply to users under active sanctions. 66.127.52.47 (talk) 06:18, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

(undent) I do think we should go through the trouble. If ROTA is the this guy, then he is evading MANY blocks and should be blocked (yet again) and range blocked to boot. ROTA has already disappeared, so it is obvious from their behavior they are guilty as sin. I have taken the liberty of reverting their edits, 90% were completely incorrect and downright vandalism. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 02:47, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

:By trouble, I meant speculation. Go ahead and re-open the SPI if you want, but assuming a link isn't credible enough to most editors to block. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 04:21, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

::It's a bit more than speculation. He admitted above that he created :Category:Clear Channel Cleveland "using a different user name", which would make him User:TheBlankingCompany79, one of the number of users blocked as a result of the SPI I linked. Deor (talk) 04:35, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

:::I know, I'm just saying that we shouldn't just assume a link between users. There have been many times where I have and I have then been proved wrong. I've also seen users accused of being a sock and the accusations were proven false. A quick investigation wouldn't hurt anyone though. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 05:03, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

::::I already suggested a checkuser, so anyone know one that is up? Could have found one about 5 hours ago when it first suggested it, but they ain't up know and this dude has probably made 10 accounts by now. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 06:22, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

:::::You don't need to ping a specific checkuser, just open a case at WP:SPI, say that CU is needed, and fill out your info. Someone will take care of it before long. -- Atama頭 16:17, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

{{discussion top}}

I just wanted to inform you of Identity Theft so to speak --> This User:StevenFraser account was created without my friends consent and It is a account which contains his First and Last Name which is in a way Identity Theft as he did not create that account. Tho I do have a idea on who did actually create it but I will not get into that. Steven has asked me If one of the Admins could either block or delete the account created in his name. Thank You 142.163.148.8 (talk) 12:37, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

:Putting the name "Steven Fraser" into a Facebook search gives 714 results - it's a very common name. Do you have any reason to suspect whoever created that account even knows who your friend is? It could very easily be someone else who's actually called Steven Fraser, and the account hasn't edited in several months. ~ mazca ^talk 12:41, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

:{{ec}} The account's first edit was in 2008 - chances are it's legitimate, and just another person with the (quite common) name of Steven Fraser.  f o x  12:42, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

::My ex friend created the account due to the fact she and he both are at war with each-other (they hate each others guts) and i already know it was her that created it since He goes on Blue Kaffee and the fact knowing her She would probably create a account on here with my name as she did on Facebook by creating a false account on there with another ex friends name Then go on a hating/harassing/spamming spree as I witnessed when I was her friend in the past. 142.163.148.8 (talk) 12:49, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

:::I am not sure you have noticed, but the world doesn't revolve around you. The account looks legit. Syrthiss (talk) 12:53, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

{{discussion bottom}}

Not sure whether the account is legitimate, but [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Blue_Kaffee&diff=prev&oldid=232134418 this edit], the first one that the account made, does not look legitimate.  Cs32en Talk to me  15:06, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

:It was also made 2 years ago. The edits from February appear legitimate. Nothing to see here. --Smashville^talk 15:31, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

{{resolved|Misunderstanding.  f o x  17:42, 7 April 2010 (UTC)}}

{{IPuser|66.99.248.6}} made what could be read as a threat in [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Endangered_species&diff=prev&oldid=354565261 this edit] (stating that a specifically named person was an endangered species) ... to me, it seemed relatively minor; but I wanted to report it here in-case others viewed it more seriously. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:37, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

:Disregard ... the user made a [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Endangered_species&action=historysubmit&diff=354565959&oldid=354565591 subsequent edit] claiming the same person was "the cutest" endangered species. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:38, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

:: I see where the possibility lies, but yes, not a threat.  f o x  17:42, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

User:LynnCityofsin has been asked to not accuse other editors of being fans or editing to insert POV at Talk:Glenn Beck multiple times (comment on the edit not the editor). She had previously been involved in long and heated discussions that were overall more suited for a forum than what is needed for improvement of an article. A final warning can be seen [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ALynnCityofsin&action=historysubmit&diff=346010674&oldid=346005313 here] regarding what I find to be surprisingly offensive (I don't want to be lumped in as a Beck fan for trying to keep a BLP acceptable). She took some time off but recently had a quick edit war ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Glenn_Beck&action=historysubmit&diff=354436719&oldid=354434012][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Glenn_Beck&diff=next&oldid=354440263][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Glenn_Beck&diff=next&oldid=354441519] and then made another inappropriate accusation on the talk page [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AGlenn_Beck&action=historysubmit&diff=354442661&oldid=354442016 here]. Cptnono (talk) 01:57, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Bring it out in the open then. That page is being over run by POV in favor of Beck. Note that up until this point all of my criticisms were contained in the talk page. Only recently did I try to edit the actual page. And my edit was reasonable and within the scope of the section in question. Still the Glenn Beck page certainly needs review from an editor without a dog in fight, because it is clearly the front in partisan war. LynnCityofsin (talk) 02:11, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

:Others do not agree that it was OK for inclusion. I don;t care since the reason this is open is you continue to assert that editors are fans of Beck. You have been asked not to do that multiple times and this situation seems to have emboldened you. You are disrupting the editing process.Cptnono (talk) 02:15, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Look, I am not the user that swears at people and attacks them. I may complain about bias, but I have generally refrained from personal attacks. You want to complain about someone on that page, DIGGITY should be the one. DIGGITY has crossed lines of basic decency. I've just tried to defend the entry that I think belongs on the page (and apparently others agree with me). I happen to believe that the pro-Beck bias is very obvious. I think like a lot of public personalities, he has fans who routinely comb the article and remove entries (rather than improve them) for the slightest violation. This is very common on now. I shouldn't be banned or punished because I noticed a trend. The trend should be brought to the attention of the higher ups, and the Glenn Beck page should be locked just like the pages for many prominent figures are locked. And just so you know. I am not an anti-beck liberal. I just want some objectivity on the page. LynnCityofsin (talk) 02:24, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

:So I really don't mind the above being said here since it seems to be the appropriate place. Can an admin make it clear that the repeated allegations on the article's talk page are not acceptable? If it continues, can a block be considered?Cptnono (talk) 13:24, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

::Looking at Talk:Glenn Beck it seems that everyone is getting understandably frustrated with everyone else. However, LynnCityofsin needs to assume good faith, especially of Diggity. Yes, they have a high criteria for inclusion of material into the article, but that is a good thing. LynnCityofsin has repeatedly refused to provide Diggity with sources to back up their claims, and should refrain from complaining so arduously about certain aspects of the article if they are unwilling to support their accusations with anything except escalated conflict.

::However, Diggity has also been abrasive and rude (with swearing, which I really look down on) towards LynnCityofSin. I can understand them being frustrated but that is not the way to handle the situation.

::I think both parties deserve a slap on the wrist, with promises to be more civil towards each other in future. LynnCityofSin perhaps needs someone to also explain how to easily find sources to back up their claims, what qualifies as a reliable source, and how they can work towards improving the article within the rules of Wikipedia. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 13:32, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

In my defense, I want to point out that at the time of those disputes, I wasn't contributing to the page. I was just commenting as a reader of the page. In the last dispute, when I actually contributed to the page, I felt the rules were being applied selectively, as there is a POV phrase in that section that attacks Mark Potok for misrepresenting Beck's treatment of conspiracies (though it may have since been removed). Also, I don't mind that people want me to put more sources up. I haven't been seriously editing for very long, so I know I am not well versed in the methods of wikipedia. But I felt like guys like Diggity, immediately piled on me and called me ignorant and attacked me. It just seemed like there was a political axe to grind there. I have had a history of run-ins with diggity. While my position has been strong and adamant (perhaps too adamant), I haven't resorted to the kinds of personal (and frankly unacceptable) attacks that Diggity has. LynnCityofsin (talk) 14:55, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

In my opinion, this page is being overly manipulated by people with pro-Beck leanings, and is often vandalized by Beck critics. I think the editors should review the page, and I think it should be locked, so regular users can't edit it. Only reputable editors should be allowed to edit the page. LynnCityofsin (talk) 03:26, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

:If you think attention needs to be drawn to the Glenn Beck article, please bring it up here. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 13:21, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

::I'm having a quick look over at Glenn Beck and the talk page as I've tried to help with the article in the past. Late last summer the article was indeed extremely skewed in Beck's favor (literally making it appear that there was nothing at all controversial about him, which is obviously absurd), but some balance was eventually brought to it. There was at least one editor who was editing in a highly POV manner/dominating the article and who was chastised by several people for it (I also had to block them for egregious edit warring), but they do not seem to have been active recently. In general the Beck article is a bit of a POV war zone (shockingly), and without saying anything definite about this ANI report I'll just point out that it's understandable that people working there would get frustrated. Experienced editors or admins who are willing to wade in and offer outside advice would probably be helpful, more so than doing anything in direct response to this thread. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 20:27, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Appreciate the words of wisdom bigtimeLynnCityofsin (talk) 22:07, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Right, I'm not really sure if this is the right place (or if a right place exists), but I received a bullying-sounding email from the purported Editor-in-Chief of GameZone based on a comment I made on a talk page. Basically, I noticed a user's ({{user|DarkBlade4658}}) sole [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/DarkBlade4658 contributions] were adding GameZone reviews and previews to articles - a little bit of looking and the user turns out to be an [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:DarkBlade4658&oldid=341504815 editor] for them. I gave the user [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:DarkBlade4658&diff=351786878&oldid=342121519 two] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:DarkBlade4658&diff=352226567&oldid=351786878 warnings] before reporting them to the COI noticeboard. The user then [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Falcon9x5&diff=354544602&oldid=352536163 replied] on my talk page and I explained the situation on [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:DarkBlade4658&diff=354553057&oldid=353541560 his talk page]. Here's where it gets interesting - I then received [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Falcon9x5&diff=354574276&oldid=354560161 an email] to my personal email account (the address of which is available on my website, the email wasn't sent through Wikipedia) from the purported Editor-in-Chief of GameZone, criticising my expression of opinion on the talk page (I [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:DarkBlade4658&diff=354553057&oldid=353541560 questioned] GameZone's reliability in passing). Now, seeing as this is essentially off-wiki, I'm not sure if it should even be here, but then again, seeing as it's (essentially) the head of a company sending (what I found to be) a bullying email for someone saying something about said company on a talk page, maybe it should. Thanks! Fin©™ 18:47, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

• I think he might just have qualified for a lesson in the law of unintended consequences. Guy (Help!) 19:12, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

User:Edson Rosa (Special:Contributions/Edson Rosa; Special:Contributions/Edson Rosa Brise) was recently banned for one week for persistently uploading images without proper documentation. (See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive604#Edson Rosa.) That ban was extended to two weeks after the user created a alternate account and continued editing in the same fashion. (See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Edson Rosa.) Today, following the expiration of the block, the editor again uploaded a non-free image, claiming it to be his/her own work and releasing it to public domain.

None of these incidents seem to be malicious vandalism. The user seems to sincerely wish to contribute to Wikipedia. Yet they are clearly persistent violations of Wikipedia policy, and at least in the case of uploading non-free images constitute serious problems. To my knowledge, the user has made no attempt to discuss these issues or seek ways to redress them. User talk:Edson Rosa and User talk:Edson Rosa Brise include more than 110 warnings, but no responses from the user. Cnilep (talk) 21:06, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

:See also: Special:Contributions/Edson Henrique Rosa Junior, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Edson Rosa/Archive Cnilep (talk) 21:15, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

• I've blocked this editor indefinitely. It's obvious that he/she is not getting the point here, what with no apparent intention of stopping the incorrect uploads and no attempt to communicate at any point in time. The multiple socks are definitely a problem as well. If the editor is willing to discuss their actions and learn why they're doing things wrong, then I'd be fine with an unblock at that point. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:22, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

There is a user page that I don't wish to name on this board, containing a physical threat against, as he put it, "Wikipedia." Is there any way I can notify you without having to use a public noticeboard? Thanks. Bento00 (talk) 21:54, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

::You could use the "Email this User" button on the side of the admin you would want to contact.--SKATER ^Speak. 21:59, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

:You could email WP:OVERSIGHT, but I would only do so if it was a threat against an actual user or person. If it was just to Wikipedia, I don't think that really warrants attention. Aiken ♫ 22:00, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

This account appears to be a single-issue, "throwaway" account, used primarily to make a series of drive-by edits to remove the term "Northern Irish" from all articles about Northern Ireland football clubs.

Perusal of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Iamstiff Iamstiff's contributions] should confirm this.

There are dozens of edits making the same change, and so I'm not posting them all, but example diffs are:

[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cliftonville_F.C.&diff=prev&oldid=350584150]

[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Glentoran_F.C.&diff=prev&oldid=350584461]

[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Harland_%26_Wolff_Welders_F.C.&diff=prev&oldid=350584547]

[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ballymena_United_F.C.&diff=prev&oldid=350584706]

[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ballinamallard_United_F.C.&diff=prev&oldid=350585141]

[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Armagh_City_F.C.&diff=prev&oldid=350585077]

[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lisburn_Distillery_F.C.&diff=prev&oldid=350584937]

I reverted the edits, as per WP:BRD. User:Iamstiff did not engage in discussion, but rather made the edits all over again. He subsequently declined to engage in dialogue and has apparently disappeared. I would like to be able to revert the edits without this being considered edit-warring.

I suspect Iamstiff may be a sockpuppet for User:Vintagekits who made similar edits in the past, and who is now banned.

Mooretwin (talk) 14:48, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

• Don't think it's VK, other edits are US-centric, and some show poor grammar, spelling or wiki-knowledge. Having said that, I don't think there's a problem with reverting all of those edits. Black Kite 15:31, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

:: So Black kite you are encouraging an editor to edit war there is a discussion on this matter on the talk of the Northern Ireland and consensus on which to prefer is far from established, if it is a sock then revert away if not wait for consensus, edit wars never do any good and I am surprised an admin would encourage them. Mo ainm~Talk 18:41, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

::: This guy Mo ainm is probably BigDunc based on dates of registration/retirement, and his interest in edit warring over this phrase. Has anyone got that tool that compares editors interests? I know there is no policy against users 'retiring' and then re-appearing under a different name, but they aren't supposed to edit in the same areas of past conflict thereby avoiding scrutiny, and this guy is referring to BigDunc in the third person [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gainsborough_Trinity_F.C.&diff=prev&oldid=345655713] too. He also bizarrly declares on his user page he is an alternate account of an established user, without naming the user, I know for a fact that's not allowed. MickMacNee (talk) 19:54, 7 April 2010 (UTC) Infact Mo ainm has picked up where BigDunc left off at Gainsborough Trinity F.C., edit warring over use of the Ulster Banner, I'd say all of this adds up to evasion of scrutiny and if BigDuc is infact not 'retired' (seriously, why does this stupid template still exist?), he needs to revert to his main account forthwith, or link to it from this new account. MickMacNee (talk) 20:01, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

::::If Mo ainm is BigDunc then he, too, has a history of edit-warring over this issue on the very same articles. Regarding the discussion at Tatlk:Northern Ireland, I started that to try and obtain a consensus, but it is clear that there is no consensus either that "Northern Irish" is acceptable or not acceptable. On that basis, under WP:BRD, User:Iamstiff has failed to achieve consensus to his changes and reverting them is quite legitimate. Ohterwise, Iamstiff's edit-warring will have been rewarded. Mooretwin (talk) 20:54, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

• This is just the usual disruptive forum shopping that Mooretwin usually uses when he does not get his way in his point-of-view campaigns. He brought it up here, was told to go away, went here where the discussion want against him, so now he comes here to try and get answer he likes. This is a content dispute, no administrator action needed other than someone stopping Mooretwin's relentless forum shopping. 21:26, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

The username, Iamstiff, seems a bit... questionable. Now, I'm not one to be offended by anything, but I've seen less suggestive names get blocked as violations of the username policy (I've been around as an IP before this). But given that their last contribution was March 21st, this may be a little late. The Blade of the Northern Lights (talk) 02:09, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

{{user|91.150.19.130}} was blocked for disruptive editing on March 17 per this thread. He has since made several posts on my talk page, persistently soapboxing about:

• "sick americans", "Nudity rocks" - [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Big_Bird&diff=prev&oldid=352190983]
• "Sick American aversion sex syndrome", "USA has been hijacked by a pack of religious Christian and other evil sects", " Nudity in films rock and thats a fact, no crazy American priest or evil sects are gonna tell me otherwise" - [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Big_Bird&diff=prev&oldid=352353267]
• "And while we are at it: Health care in USA! Only 100 years behind Europe!" - [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Big_Bird&diff=prev&oldid=352355246]

At times, he makes attempts to make his edits look legitimate, such as starting posts like [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Nudity_in_film&diff=prev&oldid=350603828 this one]. I've [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:91.150.19.130&diff=350604973&oldid=350455965 replied] to that post of his and even [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Nudity_in_film&diff=next&oldid=350776905 notified] him of this when he [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Nudity_in_film&diff=next&oldid=350603828 kept persisting] for a reply on the article talk page. My talk page is full of communication with him where I was very patient and offering advice in the unlikely event that he decides to do something useful. My last comment to him stated, among other things: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Big_Bird&diff=352725683&oldid=352355348 "should you cause any further disruption to articles or talk pages, I will report you and ask that you be blocked"]. He replied to that post today (from a different IP, {{user|91.150.30.17}}) by calling me an "American self appointed dictator asshole", "American fag" and told me to "Run home to mother you fuck" ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Big_Bird&diff=354578199&oldid=354094009]).

He edits from a dynamic IP and I think he deserves a block; a range block would be appropriate. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 19:26, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

:Can you list the IPs from which the edits came? It will be easier to nail down a rangeblock (if deemed appropriate). TNXMan 19:42, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

::{{ip|91.150.19.130}} and {{ip|91.150.30.17}} are the only ones I've seen so far. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 19:44, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

:::A CheckUser could help identify more info (IPs) and calculate a rangeblock more accurately.--mono 19:48, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

::::Unless there has also been activity from registered users in the range I don't think a checkuser would be much use here. Right now I'm seeing some blockable activity from two IPs, but it's very sporadic and there just hasn't been enough activity to nail down exactly what range is being used here, let alone justify blocking it. I blocked the recently-used IP for harassment but that's all that's warranted right now, I think. ~ mazca ^talk 19:52, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

:::::No, CheckUser is not needed when it regards only anon edits. That said, 91.150.16.0/20 blocked 2 weeks for abusing Americans disruption. –MuZemike 00:11, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

IP user 76.184.84.73 has made persistent uncited additions to Luger P08 pistol. Specifically, the users list in that article. The section he is editing has an edit banner stating that all additions need citations and warning that any additions without citations will be removed. He has also been warned by myself and others in http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Luger_P08_pistol&action=history edit summarys and on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:76.184.84.73 his talk page not to make additions without citations from a reliable source. He has not made any attempt to explain his behavior either in edit summarys or at his talk page, and I have not been able to find a source for his claim. ROG5728 (talk) 02:00, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

There is currently a sockfarm (of who I don't know) going around creating inappropriate articles and vandalizing pages together. One account makes this edit [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Utopia&diff=354532614&oldid=354443675], then another one creates a bogus article about Alex Beckman (now speedied). Several other accounts continue to vandalize the same articles in the same way [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Utopia&diff=354573664&oldid=354533039], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Utopia&diff=354648770&oldid=354586094]. Quack Quack, can we please block them? Burpelson AFB (talk) 02:18, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

{{resolved|Grundle2600 is banned indefinitely from Wikipedia. See below.--Chaser (talk) 03:43, 8 April 2010 (UTC)}}

{{archive top}}

On October 23, 2009, the [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=321538315#Enact_the_topic_ban following] restriction was placed on me:

"Grundle2600 is subject to an indefinite topic ban - he is prohibited from editing any pages relating to US politics or politicians. The ban will be enforced by escalating blocks."

I am asking that my topic ban be modified specifically and exclusively so that I may be allowed to make suggestions at Talk:Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. I am only asking to be allowed to edit that article's talk page - not the article itself. And I am only asking to be allowed to edit that one particular talk page - not any other talk pages.

I believe that such a modification to my topic ban will give me a chance to prove that I am capable of making constructive suggestions at a talk page for this topic. This would give everyone a chance to see that I have become a better editor in this topic area, without putting any of the articles at risk.

By restricting this proposed modification to the talk page of just one article, it makes it extremely easy for administrators and other editors to keep track of my activities. In addition, if any administrator believes that, during the course of this proposed modification, I have not been a constructive editor, the modification can easily be reversed.

Grundle2600 (talk) 18:53, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

:Well written and reasoned request. I ordinarily think such trials are a good idea, but having read the discussion leading to the ban, I'm hesitant. I'd like to hear from others.--Chaser (talk) 20:55, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

::Thank you for your kind words. Grundle2600 (talk) 21:30, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

::Grundle, your comments in this[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive606#Why.2C_exactly.2C_is_Grundle2600_getting_more_last_chances.3F] thread, from just three days ago, make it clear that you still don't understand the reasons for your topic bans. As long as you think you're in trouble because you're being "censored by liberals", I don't think you'll ever be able to contribute to political articles or talk pages. Sorry. PhGustaf (talk) 21:19, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

:::I just want to be able to suggest things for inclusion, for one article, as a test case. Grundle2600 (talk) 21:30, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

: If such a modification was to take place, I would be very reluctant to let the "test" page be such a controversial one. Black Kite 21:21, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

::I chose that one precisely because it is current, controversial, and very much within the subject of my topic ban. Grundle2600 (talk) 21:30, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

• I'm almost tempted to say that in the goodwill and spirit of Zombie Jesus Day, sure, why the hell not? The problem though is that the proposal is bit flawed, logic-wise. You're asking for a trial run to edit the talk-page, and if you aren't disruptive during the trial period then that is proof that the editing restrictions should be removed? argumentum ad ignorantiam to a T, IMO, so I dunno... Tarc (talk) 23:28, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

:*Actually, I thinking of doing it more gradually. If this request was accepted and I did well, then after some time, I would ask to be allowed to post on the talk pages of a few more political articles. Then later, I would ask to be allowed to post on the talk pages of all political articles. Then later, I would ask to be allowed to edit one political article. Then later, I would ask to be allowed to edit a few political articles. And finally, if I do well on all of that, I would eventually ask for my entire topic ban to be lifted. I was thinking the entire process could take six months or a year. Grundle2600 (talk) 04:17, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

• I'd say no. The diff provided by PhGustaf shows you don't understand why you're topic banned, and the article you've picked is far too controversial. You've said you see it as a gradual thing - so why pick the hottest topic in the American media at the moment as a starting point? Ironholds (talk) 05:43, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

• Strongly oppose modification request. We as a community imposed the restriction indefinitely so that it stays in place for as long as it takes to sink in - it clearly still hasn't, even as of 4 days ago ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=353424905 "No one ever showed any diffs to justify banning me from talk pages. I halve always been civil and polite on talk pages"]). PhGustaf's link to the April 1 2010 discussion reveals more than a severe lack of clue in vandalising an article. It demonstrates that Grundle2600's tendentious conduct that led to the topic ban has not changed (he refused to get the point when repeatedly told by Theresa Knott that the discussion was not about his topic ban), and then Grundle2600 made was the following comment which makes things quite clear: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=353424136 "The real reason for these bans and blocks is to censor the articles in question from my additions of well sourced, relevant content that is critical of the subjects. Everyone who favors banning and blocking me is on the political left, and wants to prevent me from adding relevant, well sourced information that is critical of politicians on the political left. That's why none of the people who favor my indefinite topic ban have ever had the decency to answer my 7 questions."] We cannot suitably manage talk page disruption short of a ban, while an undue amount of time and effort would be needed to supervise him (which will not be productive) - Wikipedia is NOT therapy. Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:47, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose per [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ASearch&redirs=0&search=Grundle2600+prefix%3AWikipedia%3AAdministrators%27+noticeboard&fulltext=Search&ns0=1&ns1=1&ns2=1&ns3=1&ns4=1&ns5=1&ns6=1&ns7=1&ns8=1&ns9=1&ns10=1&ns11=1&ns12=1&ns13=1&ns14=1&ns15=1&ns100=1&ns101=1&ns108=1&ns109=1]. My minimum standard for these things is a three month drama-free period. Not even close with this one. Guy (Help!) 10:04, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

A user named “Grundle”? Say ‘tain′t so! ―AoV² 10:13, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

:As I explain on my userpage, it's a video game reference. Grundle2600 (talk) 17:47, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose. Quite strongly. First of all it's worth pointing out that Grundle [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=353424136 again] referred to his notorious "7 questions." Whilst he was indefinitely blocked (for the second time) back in December he [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Grundle2600&action=historysubmit&diff=332469036&oldid=332450242 agreed] (see bottom of his post) to refrain from asking or referring to these questions again (this had been proposed on ANI, with the suggestion that if he did bring up the questions he would promptly be re-blocked). As far as I know no one has said, "Okay Grundle, it's okay for you to bring up those 7 questions about the Obama articles again." Technically he should probably be blocked for a lengthy period of time for even referring to them. Part of the problem here is that there have been so many restrictions, agreements, and unblocking with conditions of Grundle that people cannot keep track of them all, and while it may be a bit of WP:ABF on my part I think Grundle uses the passing of time to his advantage—only people who have been paying attention to this for a long time realize how long the disruption has gone on and how much time it has wasted. To this specific proposal to allow editing on one talk page, I am quite opposed. When Grundle was first topic banned from certain articles (implemented by User:Thatcher) he was allowed to post to article talk pages. The disruption did not stop. Grundle essentially took over (I know he contests this, but it's what happened) entire talk pages relating to Obama, posting dozens of suggestions (most of which were completely inappropriate/POV) which numerous editors wasted their time responding to. He even created sub sections of talk pages just for his suggestions, and article work largely ground to a halt. As far as I know this problem was never "fixed", and as such Grundle should never be allowed anywhere near political topics, be it in article or talk page space. It's been almost a year now (literally, I believe I first [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Grundle2600&action=historysubmit&diff=285312478&oldid=285276889#Presidency_of_B._Obama warned] Grundle about his editing on 4/21/09) that this editor has been wasting our time with this nonsense, and the mistake we made was lifting the indefinite blocks placed back in November and December. This is an editor who has said repeatedly [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Presidency_of_Barack_Obama&diff=291680142&oldid=291679512] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Presidency_of_Barack_Obama&diff=296998106&oldid=296896499] that everyone should get to add whatever bias they want to articles (as far as I know he has never rescinded this argument), suggesting that it will all come out of well in the end. It's a collective failure on our part that Grundle is still allowed to edit at all, and our inability to simply show editors like him the door wastes an extraordinary amount of time and community resources. Note that I am not one to lightly advocate what amounts to a ban of an editor (indeed I very, very rarely do so), but I've been watching/trying to forestall this train wreck for 12 months now and got completely sick of it at least 6 months ago. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 16:33, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

::Whoa! Bigtimepeace, you're claim that I "took over" Talk:Presidency of Barack Obama is false. I never prevented anyone else from posting there. As further proof that I never "took over" the talk page, since I was topic banned from political talk pages more than five months ago, there have been almost no posts at all at Talk:Presidency of Barack Obama. Surely, if it really had been my fault that other people weren't posting there, then once I was banned from the talk page, more people would have posted there. But actually, since I was banned from the talk page, the number of posts on that talk page has approached zero. Hardly anything at all has been said there. Therefore, your claim that I "took over" the talk page is false.

::Your claim that it's because of me that "article work largely ground to a halt" is also false. I never, ever erased any well sourced material that anyone added to the page. I never, ever prevented anyone from adding anything to the article. Therefore, I never caused "article work largely ground to a halt." Furthermore, during the more than five months since I have been banned from the article, hardly any new info has been added to the article. How do you explain that?

::How do you explain that during the more than five months that I have been banned, hardly any new discussion has taken place at Talk:Presidency of Barack Obama, and hardly any new info has been added to Presidency of Barack Obama? How can you blame me for this, when I haven't edited either of those pages in over five months? How can it possibly be my fault that hardly any changes have been made to that article or talk page in over five months, when I haven't made any edits there at all?

::How can you blame me for other people's lack of editing an article and talk page, when I have not edited them for over five months?

::What exactly have I done during the past five months to prevent other editors from editing that article and talk page?

::And even when I was allowed to edit those things, how did I ever prevent anyone else from adding content? I didn't. I never, ever erased any well sourced info that anyone added. And I never, ever erased anything from the talk page. So you accusations against me are false.

::Grundle2600 (talk) 17:47, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose I'm sorry, but the above statements concern me. Comments such as "censored by liberals" show that you're still not quite to the point where even a test case, let alone a test case on such a controversial topic, could end well. This isn't to say that maybe a less controversial subject matter may be appropriate, but I don't see something like this ending well. You've been indef'd twice, take some time to do some non-controversial editing and show that you're really here at the project to help, not argue. I feel that after three or four months of positive editing, I would be more inclined to support at a later date. Dusti^{Insert Sly Comments} 16:38, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose I was going to sit this one out and see what the rest of the community thought, but BTP reminds us that you brought up the "7 questions" again recently, which I'm pretty sure was explicitly covered in one of your restrictions. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:41, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose per Bigtimepeace. --John (talk) 17:06, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

OK. I understand that the consensus is very much opposed to my suggested modification. I understand and accept that. Grundle2600 (talk) 17:47, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

For the record, I still believe that I am being "censored by liberals," and as proof, I offer [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=321538315#Before_you_possibly_ban_me.2C_please_answer_the_following_questions this]. Grundle2600 (talk) 17:52, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose per BTP, and others, above. And just above, Grundle links to the damn questions again? Why is he allowed here at all? Jack Merridew 18:00, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose per all the reasons above. It seems he is definitely not ready to contribute to these types of articles. –Turian (talk) 18:07, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

• Grundle, Zombie Jesus is not happy. Isn't posting or referencing those insipid "7 questions" grounds for an indef? Tarc (talk) 19:18, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose. See WP:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive606#Why, exactly, is Grundle2600 getting more last chances?:

  As an example of how my topic ban has made wikipedia worse, I'd like to point out that even though it was [http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/30/business/30subsidy.html reported] by the New York Times, the article on Obamacare does not say anything about how Henry Waxman is planning to hold a hearing to question companies about their statements claiming that the plan will increase, not decrease, their expenses. As another example, even though the Boston Heralrd [http://www.bostonherald.com/news/us_politics/view/20100331sen_jim_demint_to_rock_hill_government_is_to_blame/srvc=home&position=recent reported] that Obamacare requires the government to hire 16,000 more IRS agents, the Obamacare articles does not mention it all all. If I had not been topic banned, I would have added both of those things to the article. Grundle2600 (talk) 21:04, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

  Grundle2600 is requesting that his topic ban be lifted so he can disrupt Talk:Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.
  Misattributing a claim "that Obamacare requires the government to hire 16,000 more IRS agents" to a "report" by the Boston Herald—
  which reprinted a story [http://www.heraldonline.com/2010/03/31/2056206/demint-government-is-to-blame.html DeMint to Rock Hill: Government is to blame] by Matt Garfield of The Herald in Rock Hill, South Carolina—
  about a Tuesday, March 30, 2010 address by U.S. Sen. Jim "Waterloo" DeMint (R-SC) to a business audience of 300 people at a York County Regional Chamber of Commerce monthly membership luncheon at the City Club of Rock Hill:

  During a Q&A portion of DeMint's address, an audience member stood up and said it was his understanding that the health care bill creates a "ready reserve army" in the surgeon general's office.
  DeMint said he didn't know what the guy was talking about, but quickly added there would be thousands more IRS agents as a result of the health bill.
  Republicans on the Ways and Means Committee warned that the bill could require the IRS to hire 16,000 additional agents to enforce the new rules.

  The IRS claim was from a March 18, 2010 partisan [http://republicans.waysandmeans.house.gov/UploadedFiles/IRS_Power_Report.pdf report] by Republicans on the U.S. House Ways and Means Committee—
  that non-partisan fact-check organizations [http://factcheck.org/2010/03/irs-expansion FactCheck.org] and [http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/mar/29/mark-kirk/kirk-says-health-care-bill-will-lead-irs-hire-more PolitiFact.com] found to be false and misleading. Newross (talk) 03:24, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

;King Punisher? {{anchor|King Punisher?}}

Not sure who this is or how it ties in, but I'm a bit suspicious of a user whose account isn't even 1d old, already running around and adding indef tags to Grundle's user page and a rather [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Grundle2600&diff=354181844&oldid=354180961 unhelpful comment] on the talk page. Tarc (talk) 21:24, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

:Account has been [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:King+Punisher blocked], also a sock report is up. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 21:27, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

: That new bunch are User:John254/User:Pickbothmanlol. Cheers, Jack Merridew 21:42, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

{{resolved|Community ban imposed.--Chaser (talk) 03:43, 8 April 2010 (UTC)}}

Really, this entire situation has gone on long enough, and there's no sign of it stopping. Grundle is again [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents&action=historysubmit&diff=354145581&oldid=354145172 referring] to these so-called [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=321538315#Before_you_possibly_ban_me.2C_please_answer_the_following_questions "seven questions"] he brought in October and which, as mentioned above, he [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Grundle2600&action=historysubmit&diff=332469036&oldid=332450242 agreed] not to mention anymore (I just reminded him of that in the thread above) with the knowledge that a long block could be the result if he broke that promise (Grundle had been posting these (already answered) questions over and over again to the point that he was about to, or maybe even did, get blocked for it). The fact that he is again bringing it up in the context of "liberals are censoring me" only makes it worse.

This comes on the heels of the recent April Fools' incident where Grundle made [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Guam&diff=prev&oldid=353400126 this] edit to Guam (referring to a jokey or just plain dumb comment made by a Democrat in Congress), [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Grundle2600&diff=prev&oldid=353411367 argued] that it was well sourced when called on it (it was sourced to YouTube), then [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=353416921 argued] that he was obviously making a joke "mocking the fact that wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth," then [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:The_Magnificent_Clean-keeper&diff=prev&oldid=353427658 promised to stop]. Please note that this cycle of: 1) do something disruptive; 2) defend it at first; 3) then apologize; 4) then promise not to do it again is standard procedure for Grundle—indeed it's exactly how he got out of his most recent indef block that arose from this situation which involved egregious WP:SYNTH to defame a biography of a living person ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Grundle2600&oldid=332539159 this version] of Grundle's talk pages shows the first three failed attempts to get unblocked and the way in which he finally succeeded in doing so).

In the process of responding to the recent April 1st incident, Grundle made a [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=353425446 wikilawyerish statement] arguing the Guam edit had nothing to do with politics (it was based on a dumb statement by a Democratic congressman), [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=353422137 technically violated] his topic ban about politics by essentially saying "if I wasn't banned here's what I would be working on," and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=353419508 claimed] he never really did anything wrong (while still managing to reference Obama, who I believe is a politician of some sort) and that he was being censored by liberals, a point he is now repeating with reference to 7 questions he asked back in October and agreed to stop asking while he was indef blocked and trying to be agreeable and get unblocked.

Can we please get a consensus that it's past time to put an end to this, and that User:Grundle2600 is banned from editing en.wikipedia, period? If someone has a better idea I'm all ears, but bear in mind that what I describe above is about 1/10th of the total disruption of the past year, that the editor has already been sanctioned by ArbCom, sanctioned twice by the community, indef blocked twice and then gotten the blocks lifted when he promised to improve, and discussed ad infinitum on noticeboards.

If someone feels this should technically be moved to WP:AN then feel free to do so as that is where we generally have ban discussions, but this seemed like the better place since there is a current thread. Sorry if my frustration comes through too strongly in this comment, but as I said it has been almost a year of this stuff at this point. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 19:34, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

:All I've ever waned to do here is add true, accurate, relevant, well sourced material to articles. Your suggestion is extreme and unwarranted. Grundle2600 (talk) 20:18, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

:I would be open to a ban on me starting new discussions at ANI. That would solve the problems that you are complaining about. Grundle2600 (talk) 20:19, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

::I don't think that it would i'm afraid. What would solve everything would be for you to get a clue, but what are the chances if you haven't by now? Theresa Knott | token threats 20:24, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

:::I would very much like to get a clue and learn, which is why I would like for someone to please answer my [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=321538315#Before_you_possibly_ban_me.2C_please_answer_the_following_questions seven questions]. Please go ahead and teach me - help me to get a clue - and answer my questions. Thank you. Grundle2600 (talk) 20:32, 5 April 2010 (UTC)'

::::OMG I can't teach you! I can't believe that you would bring up the 7 questions again immediately underneath a post proposing a total ban because you keep bringing the seven questions. There is nothing to work with. Theresa Knott | token threats 20:36, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

:::::Indeed. I believe we could recall every AN & AN/I topic on Grundle2600 and we would see that they invariably contain some variation of "All I've ever...". That is the heart of the matter; this user, like his good buddy ChildofMidnight, still feels himself to be the victim. Tarc (talk) 20:41, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

• Support site ban per BTP. Clue ain't gonna happen, apparently. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:38, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
• Support per BTP. Victim card played too often. —ShadowRanger ^(talk|stalk) 20:45, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

::You people keep saying that I'm ignorant and I don't understand wikipedia policy. But at the same time, you refuse to answer my [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=321538315#Before_you_possibly_ban_me.2C_please_answer_the_following_questions seven questions]. That's very hypocritical of you people to do that. Grundle2600 (talk) 20:45, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

::Before you possibly ban me, please answer the following questions {{anchor|Before you possibly ban me, please answer the following questions}}

::[redacted]

::Grundle2600 (talk) 20:50, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

:::Well, shit. I'm frankly sympathetic to the idea that Grundle should be able to express his concerns about neutrality, because I think we should listen to concerns about the political neutrality of our articles on political topics - but he just can't stop shooting himself in the foot every time he opens his mouth. It's perfectly plain that every discussion he's involved with in the future will come down to the same issue above, and everyone is already out of tolerance for that. It's also perfectly plain that no attempt to have him edit under restrictions will ever work. There's no real alternative here. — Gavia immer (talk) 20:51, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

• As the user reneged on [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Grundle2600&diff=prev&oldid=332469036 the promise] that lead to [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Grundle2600&diff=next&oldid=332535364 his unblock] ("please abide by this undertaking or I, or someone else will reimpose"), I have re-instated the indefinite block. Discussion may continue whether this will be considered or replaced with an 'outright ban'. –xeno^talk 20:58, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

• Earlier I composed a post warning Grundle that if he mentioned his 7 questions again, I would block him for disruption for a week, but was neutral on the permaban. However, since I edit conflicted with him posting his 7 questions again, I Support a siteban. And since I edit conflicted again on Xeno's block note, I'll add "good block". Just doesn't get it, and apparently never will. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:02, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
• The indef block notwithstanding, as Xeno says above the discussion should really continue as to whether we are imposing a formal community ban or not—that needs to be perfectly clear going forward. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 21:10, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
• Support — Put {{tl|done}} on it. Cheers, Jack Merridew 21:14, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
• Support ban. Doesn't get it, too many last chances already given. --John (talk) 21:38, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
• Support – Nothing will change if given more opportunities. –Turian (talk) 21:40, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

::Comment for the future - Keep an eye on any editor who uses "2600" in their username. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:44, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

• Reluctant support - Given clear warning to stop editing disruptively in some topics, topic banned from them, and continued to return to them in the belief that they were doing no wrong. At this point, clearly doesn't agree with the reasons they were topic banned and doesn't believe that they have a problem. Until and unless they come to the point that they do understand the basis for this and agree to abide by lesser restrictions, a ban seems reluctantly necessary. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:50, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
• Support I was going to skip this incident but I am supporting a site ban after noticing that Grundle keeps referring to the misguided seven questions ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=354145581&oldid=354145172 example]). The user has no understanding of what should happen here, and anything other than a site ban will lead to masses of more wasted time. Johnuniq (talk) 23:25, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
• Support If he thinks he is being "censored by liberals" he can go edit Conservapedia. An editor who is both disruptive and blinded by their POV should not be tolerated here. RadManCF ☢ open frequency 23:43, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
• Support - History of POV pushing and tendentious behavior indicates Wikipedia would be better off without this editor. Burpelson AFB (talk) 00:46, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
• Support per above discussion. I'm sure it's been discussed somewhere, but how was this guy not blocked per WP:BADNAME? Are we not aware what that term means? Şłџğģő 03:13, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
• The name “Grundle” apparently comes from the video-game Adventure (Atari 2600)—a perineal favorite I′m sure. ―AoV² 03:27, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
• So that's the lie he told when he decided "taint" might be too obvious. Huh. Şłџğģő 03:39, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
• What on earth are you talking about? Tarc (talk) 12:54, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
• cf. ^{Caution: NSFW link ahead.} Grundle. –xeno^talk 12:58, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
• Interesting. I'm certainly no stranger to vaginas, but I've never heard that term before. Tarc (talk) 16:42, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
• Who says wikipedia is not educational? However, this still leaves unanswered, the question of the significance of the 2600. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:21, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
• Perhaps he believes information wants to be free. –xeno^talk 17:51, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
• See also 2600 hertz, the frequency that AT&T once used to hold a circuit for a long distance call. Early phone phreaks used a whistle which came as a prize in Cap'n Crunch cereal to capture a circuit and make free calls, hence the nom de phreak of John Draper, "Captain Crunch". Whistles begat black boxes which begat blue boxes.... (Oh, it was a heady time, indeed.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:53, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
• I was at HOPE, 1997, this Grundle is definitely not the type. The video game angle is far more likely. Tarc (talk) 19:58, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

• Support per [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=354069052 my earlier comments] in response to his restriction modification request above and per above regarding repeatedly toeing the line and violating his unblock agreement. Sadly, I have to agree with Bigtimepeace's earlier comment also that it seems to be a collective failure on our part that he's been allowed to edit at all for as long as he has. Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:36, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
• Support - Grundle keeps coming back to this board with the same problems, like Theresa I don't think that we can have hope of improvement at this point. -- Atama頭 17:38, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
• Support due to utter lack of clue, and lack of any evidence Grundle thinks he has anything to learn. Or am I being redundant? KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 17:48, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

::No personal attacks please. Dancing on people's graves is highly uncool. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 17:57, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

:::Who are you talking to, George? I see no personal attacks above. I see many people wexpressing concern that this user simply does not get it. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 18:04, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

• Comment. If his topic ban was against editing articles about US politics or politicians, how is an edit to Guam a violation? Using a reference to a comical (sad, really) YouTube clip might deserve reversion, but it doesn't deserve a ban on all contributions. And some of these comments (e.g. "victim card") make it sound like you're holding it against him that he defends himself, and you don't care whether it might be justified. But the duty of any judge is to wade through such paper morasses and not to allow impatience to trump the law. Wnt (talk) 18:36, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

::How is an edit relating to a US politician's comments about a US territory not a violation? — Gavia immer (talk) 18:40, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

:::Once the political comment is introduced, the article becomes political. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:04, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

::::If that's how you feel, wouldn't it be clearer to say "he is prohibited from any edit relating to US politics or politicians" instead of "he is prohibited from editing any pages relating to US politics or politicians"? People here really don't like repeat visitors, so you should be sure to say what you mean. Wnt (talk) 20:00, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

:::::That's redundant, and an unnecessary clarification. Any article that has political information added to it is by definition a political article, that's what Bugs was getting at. Take something innocuous, like doughnut. Currently there is nothing political about the article, but if someone were to include some political scandal involving a US senator, a doughnut, and a pair of underaged congressional interns, the article would from that point become political. Especially important is whether or not the topic-banned person were the person who added the info, or was editing that info. Getting past the wikilawyering of language, the intent of the ban was to stop Grundle from getting mixed up with political BLP information which he has abused in the past, and these edits were more of the same. -- Atama頭 21:32, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

::::::I don't know this case and I'm not taking a side, but I think you do have a general problem, possibly with many topic-banned editors, when you say that users are banned from editing certain pages, but then it turns out what you mean by that is it's OK to edit some parts of certain pages but not other parts. I mean, whether you count doughnut as a political article or not, either it should be a political article or it isn't.

::::::I just don't see any way to get past wikilawyering when you're running a wikicourt, and when you're judging topic-banned editors not based on whether their contributions are accurate but simply based on whether they're following the ban you placed. Obviously you can place any ban with any wording that you want and editors will prefer it to being blocked outright - but you should take a moment to make sure it actually says exactly what you want, so you don't end up holding proceedings like this one based on differences in interpretation. Wnt (talk) 01:36, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

:::::::There's no holdup. People know exactly what this topic ban was about, which is why there has been practically unanimous support of the full ban. -- Atama頭 16:09, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

::::::::Well, that's the trouble, isn't it? If the ban said "articles", then it was not precisely worded. It's supposed to be a "topic ban", right? But if it says "articles", wikilawyers would say Guam is not (primarily) a political article. So instead of just saying "articles", such a ban should say "political articles and/or political topics", and that should cover it. If they want to talk about the types of trees found on Guam, no problem. If they want to "coatrack" a political comment (a comment that really has nothing to do with Guam as such), then it would be a violation. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:51, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

:::::::::It doesn't. Read here, where the ban is listed. It says, "he is prohibited from editing any pages relating to US politics or politicians". It's explicit with the word "pages", which means that his restriction applies to places outside of article space (talk pages, deletion discussions, etc.). Also, the "type" of ban on the page is "topic", not "page", which means he is banned from the whole topic Again, these arguments are meaningless wikilawyering over semantics, the ban is pretty clear, and nobody has actually objected to the enforcement of this ban. -- Atama頭 17:56, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

{{anchor|Evasion?}}

I noticed a username that had the same four numbers at the end of his username as the guy that you are talking about and I filed a SPI case on him out of curiosity. The Syntax (talk) 21:08, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

:Never mind, the sock was already blocked. The Syntax (talk) 21:20, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

::I've asked JzG to clarify what evidence there was that this was actually Grundle2600. I think it's more likely this is #King Punisher? continuing to troll. –xeno^talk 21:35, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

:::Contribs were not that innocent, in my view, but "2600" is an old meme for phone-phreakers and hackers, so should not necessarily be acted upon without supporting evidence. Rodhullandemu 21:41, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

::::2600 Magazine is still around. I pick it up once in a while and it's generally lame. 66.127.52.47 (talk) 02:45, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

:Confirmed, this was just an attempted joe job. I've deleted the SPI, changed the block reason for Wobble2600 and unblocked an apparently innocent party who got caught up in this. –xeno^talk 21:52, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Grundle is now requesting unblock on his talkpage with more wikilawyering and empty promises. Propose ban enactment. Also his talkpage access should be locked. It is just ridiculous at this point. Burpelson AFB (talk) 02:25, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

:I have denied the unblock request, and if the attitude evinced in his request persists (indeed, he insists on a lifting of his editing restrictions as part of any unblock) I cannot imagine a situation where an unblock request could be successful. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 02:57, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

{{archive bottom}}

{{Resolved|{{vandal|Malice123}} blocked indef by Materialscientist. -FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 03:30, 8 April 2010 (UTC)}}

Malice123 has been blanking the Pokemon HeartGold and SoulSilver article. Clerkenwell TALK PAGE! 03:04, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

:AIV is over here. HalfShadow 03:05, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

{{Resolved|User blocked, then unblocked for one more chance, the message bar has been removed.--SKATER ^Speak. 03:57, 6 April 2010 (UTC)}}

I'm moving this thread to the bottom for block review. Fastily indefinitely blocked TheClerksWell (with talk page editing disabled and email blocked. The indef block came at the end of a 24-hour block (discussed above) for a fake "new messages" bar with a link to Special:Logout. After the 24-hour block expired, TheClerksWell replaced the message bar with a link to Goatse. Fastily blocked him indef.--Chaser (talk) 06:11, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

• Support block. This guy was having a laugh. Not here to improve the encyclopedia. --John (talk) 06:16, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
• A necessary block. The user claims to be 14, which probably accounts for a lot of his (apparent - AGF!) obliviousness to the problems this specific joke can cause. Maybe when he gets about 4 years older he might have an improved perspective and could apply for reinstatement. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:18, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
• I think an indef block at this point is a bit hasty. Blocking him with e-mail and talk-page-edit disabled is a huge problem though and needs to be undone posthaste. ÷seresin 06:19, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
• Yes, at least give him a chance to file an unblock request. If he abuses his talk page after that, then stifle him for the next 4 years or whatever. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:22, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
• Support block - Apparently here to screw around, not to build an encyclopedia. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:24, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

::Sorry - yes, I agree that cutting off his talk page & e-mail went too far. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:25, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

• It's perfectly fine with me if we all agree that talk page access and email should be restored. I believe it was a necessary step to take at the time, but if someone feels the need to restore ClerksWell's email and talk page access, go right ahead. -FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 06:33, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

::No - what has been agreed is not that talk page access and email should be restored. It is that you shouldn't have taken them away in the first place. Now rather than putting the responsibility of correcting your actions onto other editors why not correct your overzealousness personally? Weakopedia (talk) 08:02, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

:::That was inappropriate. I agree that the talk page/email block is perfectly fine. He has made his intentions known. –Turian (talk) 12:49, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

:::Protecting a talkpage if the user had put a goatse image there was a perfectly good call. 66.127.52.47 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:15, 5 April 2010 (UTC).

::::You're right. It was a reasonable judgment at the time, as the user seems to not be here for any constructive purpose, and it's reasonable to let the user have a chance. It only takes a keystroke or two to modify the block conditions. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:53, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

• Sound block due to extreme lameness and resolute failure to get it, but we need to make sure he has some route to contact us if he ever stops acting like a child. I'm looking for a diff of the talk page which is actually abusive,. rather than simply lame. Guy (Help!) 09:57, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
• Amend block to offer him a way to contact us saying he's not going to act the muppet any more. Stifle (talk) 12:40, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
• It looks like talk page access was restored @ 06:37, April 5, 2010 (but not email), about a half an hour after the heavy indef. This suits me just fine, providing an avenue for a constuctive unblock request after a deserved block. — Scientizzle 14:59, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

::Yes, I restored his talk page access. Sorry for not noting it here.--Chaser (talk) 19:04, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

• Support block- He was asked repeatedly to remove the prank (which I have no problem with, fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me), and he refused. The Goatse thing was completely uncalled for. Try again in 2-4 years--SKATER ^Speak. 18:09, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
• Support block rather reluctantly because he is only trying to have a laugh. But the thing about having a laugh is that you need to be able to stop when it isn't funny, and he has shown himself unable. It's probably that he is too young. Give him a couple of years and who knows. Theresa Knott | token threats 18:15, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
• No comment on the block itself, but if he's got his talk page back so if he wants to file an unblock request promising not to be a twat in future and accepting what he did was wrong (or at least poorly judged in the case of the logging out message banner thingy) I think it might be worth considering. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:13, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
• Support Block We all remember Mister Wiki don't we? We certainly don't need a copycat of him. With regards to the talk page and email access, I wouldn't have revoked his access to them as I don't feel it's necesary, but if Fastily saw the need, I will give him the benefit of the doubt. RadManCF ☢ open frequency 00:05, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

{{resolved|The user has actually already been unblocked for more than 15 hours, further supports or opposes are probably not productive. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:20, 6 April 2010 (UTC)}}

[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:TheClerksWell&diff=354211350&oldid=354211079 He's now asking for an unblock]. Imo I'm skeptical that he could have a change of heart so fast...--SKATER ^Speak. 23:58, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree. It would be worth reading this thread:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive592#MisterWiki._Again. It's a rather similar situation, involving a teenage editor who created a prank redirect in mainspace, which resulted in an indef block. IMO, this editor was slightly less disruptive than TheClerksWell. RadManCF ☢ open frequency 00:14, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

::I wouldn't mind chalking it up to hormones or him taking out frustration on us for something, and generally it's my opinion to at least give them one more chance. Idk, I still believe he could be set off like this again.--SKATER ^Speak. 00:19, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

:::Seeing as he kept his nonsensery out of the mainspace, I'm inclined to grant this unblock or at least reduce the block length on the condition that he understands he will be reblocked if he tries something like this again. Nakon 00:32, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

::::That sounds fair, not trying to tell you what to do but I'd leave him blocked for 24 more hours and then put him on watch.--SKATER ^Speak. 00:36, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

::::Except there is a lot of support for an indef above, and while I haven't weighed in, I'll support the block as well. Considering the effort that's already been expended on him, What's the benefit of to the project of an 11th hour plea? He says he's no longer here to troll, etc which means that was his original intention. Someone who comes here to intentionally disrupt doesn't get n chances when they're finally shown the door.--Crossmr (talk) 00:39, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

::::Good point Nakon, but I think that we should leave the block in place for at least two weeks to a month to show him we're serious. Also, with regards to skater's comment about "Chalking it up to hormones", keep Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not therapy in mind. RadManCF ☢ open frequency 00:39, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

:::::Of course it isn't, I'm not even going to attempt to justify his behavior through this whole situation I'm just saying it's a possible cause.--SKATER ^Speak. 00:44, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

::::::Also take note of how he [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:TheClerksWell&curid=25616413&diff=354217757&oldid=354215328 changed] his unblock request after reading what Crossmr say. --SKATER ^Speak. 00:48, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

• I don't really think we need to keep him blocked at this point; AGF is a good principle. If he relapses into problematic behavior, it is no great thing to indef him again. So I support unblocking him with the understanding that he has no more chances after this. ÷seresin 01:56, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
• Unblocked per WP:AGF & the user's apology. Second chances are a good thing. — Scientizzle 02:50, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
• He already had a second chance and stated that his intention was to come here to disrupt. AGF is not blind. Unblocking when you don't understand the situation is not a good thing.--Crossmr (talk) 06:45, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
• I'm not sure why you would assume I don't understand the situation. In any case, I concur with Seresin's post-unblock [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:TheClerksWell&diff=354246813&oldid=354238255 warning]: a re-block is easy to do if there is further disruption... — Scientizzle 14:47, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

:Absolutely not. People get caught up in second chances and they almost always get burned. Keep blocked, and lets stop wasting time. –Turian (talk) 15:07, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

::We have to Assume good faith, he's actually done some good work here and isn't like, say, Willy on Wheels or Grawp requesting an unblock request. He's been warned, let's see what he does.--SKATER ^Speak. 15:30, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

:::We don't see contrition in unblock requests very often. Unblock the guy, and re-block in a New York second if he betrays that good faith. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:32, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

::::Agree with Bugs here. The fact that he was forthcoming and admitted his disruption (rather than try to explain around it) is refreshing. Reblocks are cheap. –xeno^talk 15:39, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

::::I'll agree to unblocking on the condition that any further disruption results in an indef block. RadManCF ☢ open frequency 17:18, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

:::::I agree with the unblock, with the condition that this is "probationary" (which it essentially is). -- Atama頭 18:18, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

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