Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive377

Arsenic 99

People who deny the Holocaust are indef blocked. But its perfectly OK to deny and delete anything related to Armenian Genocide. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_February_22#Category:Armenian_Genocide_deniers

Please point to anyone who has been indef blocked for "denying the Holocaust". Tendentious editing is a reason for blocking, but not beliefs. Corvus cornix_talk 22:28, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Um... HalfShadow (talk) 22:35, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Nope, try again. Corvus cornix_talk 22:44, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Someone should defiantly investigate the canvassing and the spa accounts showing up for the vote. Not to mention the personal attacks. VartanM (talk) 21:29, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

• This is the same VartanM who wrote to Arsenic99, the person about whom he now complains

"Comment I don't know what they teach you in the Turkish schools, but in civilized count[r]ies ... VartanM (talk) 02:54, 25 February 2008 (UTC)"[1]

VartanM owes an entire nation of people an apology for shamelessly promoting the idea of ethnic superiority and expressly setting forth his own contempt for an entire nation of people--and, meanwhile he so vociferously condemns genocide deniers-people who commit crimes against humanity based on the same sociopathic sense of racial/ethnic supremacy. To the Admin this is nothing more than a spurious witch hunt by a gang that has done everything it can to provoke the user they now complain about because he had the "audacity" to suggest a topic they are enamored of be deleted, and in the process they, specifically VartanM, impuged the integrity of everyone who posted an opinion contrary to his own. If any behavior requires investigating, it's that engaged in by VartanM. Pebblicious (talk) 02:58, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

• See the Hrant Dink article to see what happens when a citizen of your country talks about the Armenian Genocide in your nation. Can you show me one diff of Arsenic99 being provoked. Take a look at his contributions, see how many times he insulted users, based on their nationality. VartanM (talk) 06:07, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

• Are you trying to insult me now too by presuming you know what "my country" is? The issue is your derogatory comment regarding people of one nation of origin which is something you unapologetically do here again. You do not even apologize for the crass racist remark you previously made. The issue you raised here is the behavior of a Wiki user that you intentionally continue to provoke by insulting what you believe to be his ethnicity. What is becoming clear is that you want to have banned all you think are of a certain nation of origin against which you harbor prejudice by provoking them with racist insults and then complaining about them. Pebblicious (talk) 14:53, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

• • Hrant Dink was killed by a 17 year old, maybe someone didn't like him or whatever, maybe he was assassinated maybe the kid did not like him, but also remember that Armenians use to criticize him as well. Once he died, they now use him as a reference for whenever they wanna talk about how "uncivilized the Turks are", which you so shamelessly used again. Why don't you talk about how THOUSANDS of Turks marched the streets with "We are all Hrant Dink" "We are all Armenian" posters to protest how he was murdered. Why don't you wanna talk about the ethnic cleansing of Armenia from anyone that isn't Christian which is why Armenia is 99% ethnic Armenian Christian. You pick and choose what things to talk about, and you pick and choose what citatations to use and you use them to promote an Armenian POV and in the side promote how Turks are "bad". Your comments have personally attacked me and even though I even left you a nice message on your talk page complimenting you, you continue to stalk me and persecute me for disagreeing with your "infallible" opinions. Admins will see through you, and your continuous edits of Armenian Genocide related articles will be seen for what it is, Propaganda. Tell me, were you in the Armenian Revolutionary Federation youth groups, be honest (it doesn't mean you're bad, I'm just curious, so WP:AGF)? — ^talk § _Arsenic99_ 06:55, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

• VartanM is totally one sided and closed minded, he is also attacked me in personal level and deleted my posts in a discussion board. These sort of actions should not be tolerated. In the end as Wiki contributors we are trying to share the information to build the most accurate resources for our users to get information. otavilog (talk)
  • Otavilog, since you contributed very little outside of İstemihan Taviloğlu article. Can you tell me how you learned about the category discussion. Thanks for your honesty. VartanM (talk) 06:07, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
    • VartanM, my contribution might be little compare to yours (which I dont have enought time to go to your account to see your contributions, I am more mature than that, this is not a comparision on who contributed more or less, more contribution does not make you right) however; every information I have entered are not bias and does not represent only one side, in addition everything I have contributed are proven. So, I would rather contribute less and truth instead of contribute a lot that only shows one sides opinion and be against any idea that challenges your belief's.When it comes to your question, when there is a smoke it doesnt take to long to locate the source.

• Everything should be investigated defiantly. Definitely. Guy (Help!) 21:36, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Tendentious editing you say?

Just as a separate note, but long unorganized complaints tend to be ignored fairly quickly. Personally, I'm not going to read all that nor really respond to it. It would be helpful if you focused and gave specific arguments (pointing to "deleting a section here", "removing this here", etc. are really complicated to review). If you think an article should be deleted, head to WP:AFD and make your point. If it is really complicated (not that AN/I tends to archive within a few days), follow the dispute resolution procedures. Now, if you have a focused point or two, I would be willing to review here. Otherwise, I'd say that saying "people who are against my view should all be blocked" isn't going to work particularly well. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:03, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

When I made the complaint, a user was blocked because he made anti-semitic comments and denied the Holocaust. And I found odd that there was nothing being done not only to Arsenic99, but also to a number of other users that have systematically made anti-Armenian remarks and were genocide deniers. Corvus cornix pointed out that the user was blocked for making tendentious editing is a reason for blocking, but not beliefs. So I just showed him the tendentious editing of Arsenic99, who has called for the Armenian Genocide article to be deleted because its POV, removed categories and links to the article. Removed entire sections from articles. Radically changed the Taner Akcam article, the same kind of change that got him arrested before. Personally attacked users based on their nationality. Nominated the category to be deleted, then canvassed about it to other Turkish members and then SPA accounts appeared out of nowhere to support the delete vote. His POV and purpose here in wikipedia is clear, is to delete anything Armenian genocide related. So far he made very few edits outside of the Armenian Genocide topic and most of those edits have been reverted because of the strong POV by Armenian or third party users alike. Click around his contribution list and you'll see what I mean. VartanM (talk) 17:54, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes I agree, that is why anti-semitic users and especially anti-Armenian users should IMMEDIATELY be banned and blocked. But I have never ever been anti-Armenian, I simply do not want POV in articles that shouldn't have POV which usually push an Armenian nationalistic agenda.

If you follow through the list of "Tendentious Edits" you'll find that they are usually me presenting opinions in talk pages, and sometimes removing one or two point of view statements from an article not related to the Armenian Genocide. They are all very justifiable, and VartanM is exaggerating it like as if I committed a crime for presenting an opinion.

I can also follow VartanM's contributions and find that he's added Armenian-Genocide related comments to almost any article that even remotely deals with Armenians or Armenia. If it's a Turkish author, there is a comment about the Armenian Genocide, if it's an American who doesn't support the Armenian Genocide, such as Dr. Justin McCarthy then a magical "criticism of his work" appears on his biography violating many policies. I have never personally attacked you, and you may look at VartanM's talk page to see how nice I am to him. Many reverts by me are very justifiable because I deleted Armenian POVs. However, many reverts against me are usually by known Armenian editors. VartanM has a long list of incidents of harrassment against me and disputes with other Turks as well, and his contribution list of POV edits, is much longer than mine. He finds me a threat to his recognition of the Armenian Genocide POV so he has always been watching me and following me around wikipedia re-adding POV points. I removed some edits where he had citations but were unreliable sources or unrelated comments about the article. Such as in Murad Gumen's article, VartanM insists on adding a "TallArmenianTale.com" section, because some guy in America said that TallArmenianTale's writer is probably Murad Gumen, and he put this there with citations to that guy, and basically ruined Murad Gumen's (a Walt Disney cartoonist btw) biography. Since when did declaring someone as a possible author of a website become a fact that wikipedia required? I have mentioned that I wanted the Armenian Genocide article to be deleted yes, but things don't always go the way I want. I know that since there is much dispute on the issue, I cannot simply say "delete" or nominate it for deletion, since it is an article that many nationals watch. In that article, I've simply made 2-3 edits, which were always removed, and unsourced, unverifiable POV sentences were re-added and my edits reverted by nationalists. I don't think VartanM is a nationalist, but I think he is obsessively trying his best to prevent anyone from disagreeing with his point of view. I think he's a smart guy, but can sometimes be wrong about certain things, and sometimes doesn't realize his own POV edits, and that's understandable, I have my own POV edits as well, I use talk pages a lot before editing or maybe never editing (such as in the Nagorno-Karabakh article) but blocking me is just a little extreme. VartanM is also known for canvassing, but secretly using IMs and emails, and the SPA accounts that he mentions in the CfD, is an exaggeration, I only noticed 1, and don't know who it is, but if you suspect me, please check IPs or do whatever you can to prove it. But I don't think I should be blocked based on suspicion. Why was [34] deleted but this [35] is kept? Are they both not political labeling of people of differing views? If you said publicly well I think there is a God, and someone slapped a "Atheism Denier" or "Anti-Atheist" label on your wikipedia page, would you enjoy this? This is like me going up to John Edwards page and slapping a "liberal" category on his page, while it may be true, this is the danger of speculation and political labeling. This Category of "Armenian Genocide Deniers" was violating: Wikipedia:BLP, WP:Categorization of people,WP:OC#OPINION, and WP:NPOV, and yet people just fall over themselves and play it safe to appease the Armenians in wikipedia, why? It seems that the wikipedia I love is continuously falling under the power of nationalism and becoming a place where differing views are rejected simply because of seeking the truth. I admit I am new, and I admit I sometimes have made mistakes, but to label me away as a denier or a minority is simply un-Democratic. All one has to do is take a look at this page, VartanM User Page and scan around the history to see the nationalistic views and his primary focus on adding Armenian Genocide related comments on any article in wikipedia. — ^talk § _Arsenic99_ 20:17, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh and, denying the holocaust is wrong (because it's proven by Nazi archives unlike the Armenian Genocide, where Turkish archives contradict the genocide thesis), but apparently VartanM doesn't think so, he seems to think the Armenian Genocide is the only genocide in the planet:

::*Comment Whats your opinion about Category:Holocaust deniers. VartanM (talk) 01:31, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

and it is apparent, that he is simply trying to compare the Holocaust and the Armenian Massacres, when there are Holocaust victims (or sons of) who denounce the Armenian Genocide label. Such as Guenter Lewy and Bernard Lewis, labeling respected historians and citizens of the world as deniers for something that is yet to be proven is simply wrong. — ^talk § _Arsenic99_ 20:27, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comment I'm not going to answer this, sine its pretty much self explanatory. VartanM (talk) 05:42, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Yes it is self-explanatory, but if you aren't going to answer, why leave a comment? — ^talk § _Arsenic99_ 07:20, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

You can't indefinitely block or restrict the voice of people, when at least one country, with 70 million population, disagrees with one-sided branding of these massacres (unlike Germany which unilaterally accepts the definition of Holocaust). I am not sure why it has been so difficult to conduct an international tribunal alike Nuremberg and review all historical accounts on this heated issue, used and overused for political purposes across the world. But I don't believe it's up to Wikipedia to determine right or wrong in this controversial and serious issue. Considering that many hundreds of thousands of civilian Turks and Muslims perished on that same front at hands of Armenian and Russian units as well, perhaps, both sides stories need to be listened to. Massacre as much as accusation of it, is a very complicated issue which has to do with dignity and spiritual healing of descendants. So only understanding of that will help to bring about recognition and solution, not just blocking one side's voice and imposing outside decisions. Atabek (talk) 02:39, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Who told you that I want him indef blocked? Indef blocking someone with 0 blocks is a little harsh don't you think. Now to your point, I don't see your name mentioned anywhere on this page, so why are you stalking me? And unlike Arsenic99 here, who still doesn't know the rules, you were a veteran user when you did this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive282#Armenian_Genocide_being_removed You didn't forget about this did you? Also your above comment is nothing more then one big WP:SOAPbox. VartanM (talk) 05:42, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment You sure act like it, and I wouldn't be surprised with the amount of edit wars you've attacked me with. What rules, I haven't violated anything that might be considered violation o Wikipedia Policies (you even dared to claim I was canvassing, after-which I read the WP:Canvass and found out that I can contact Turkish editors that might be interested in a CfD, since them and Armenians are usually the only ones ever interested in this issue)... You on the other hand, your whole contrib list is a WP:SOAPBOX of how indisputable and undeniable the fact of the Armenian Genocide is, with minor exceptions here and there, so please don't take offense, you've done some significant work in other places as well, I hope as have I, but you do primarily edit articles and push an Armenian POV and no one can deny this. You're acting like I violated a rule by nominating a biased POV category for discussion.
  • On the one hand, I have tried discussing issues with you and even complimented you by using your talk page, but you on the other hand, have led a campaign to keep the Category, made incident reports about me for simply expressing some facts of which the interpretation did not agree with your opinion, and didn't even have the courtesy to warn me about this ANI. I really haven't seen anyone break so many wikipedia policies and get away with it so easily. Since you seem to be in good relations with many many wikipedians that think like you and have been a member for a while, I guess it's realistic for you to be so bold, sadly I don't have such an advantage. — ^talk § _Arsenic99_ 07:30, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Sarah777

I request an uninvolved admin take a look at this. I blocked Sarah777. She persisted in removing my post which was relevant to her unblock request and answers a significant accusation she has made against me. As an emergency measure I protected the page. Her unblock has been declined. No doubt she will appeal again and will again remove my post. Tyrenius (talk) 00:49, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Ty, I'm not uninvolved here, but I seriously think you should have asked another admin to block that time. Because it came from you and because both of you have a certain history, well ... You could have kinda predicted how this was going to go, too. Note to others: I blocked Sarah777 for 24 hours, just three days ago - Alison ^❤ 00:52, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I have no history with Sarah777 to speak of. The only significant contact is at Wikipedia:TER#User:Sarah777, and I think it's established there we do not let people violating policy establish "no go" zones by making accusations aganst admins. (talk) 00:53, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm no admin, but it certainly looks as if that block was justified. It doesn't matter how much an editor contributes or how good those contributions are, if they can't deal with problems civilly, they should face sanctions. --clpo13_(talk) 00:58, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Endorse block. Incivility is bad. Don't do it. If you need to do it, join an unmoderated forum like Usenet or the like. Simple. --John (talk) 01:00, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Aye, nothing wrong with the block, though Alison is right that it'd probably have been better for someone else to do it. I don't think you'd have found a shortage of takers. Black Kite 01:02, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

There is no reason why another admin should have done it. I am not in any editing dispute with the user. I have no history with the user, apart from warning her not to make abusive posts. The precedent otherwise is that an admin warns a user, a user makes some accusation against the admin, and the admin is then not allowed to interact with the user any more. This is asking for abuse and gaming the system. Tyrenius (talk) 01:08, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but she was blocked a few days back for telling you to "sod off" [36]. You're right though, I don't think it's a big deal to be honest. Black Kite 01:11, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

• I'd like to see this block lifted. Sarah777 was commenting on the block of another user that she felt was unfair. She said something like "trust the fascists to come up with an excuse" (not a quote, but words to that effect), and was blocked for it. That seems like overkill. There are far worse things said every day by people (including admins) whom no one would think to block for them. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:17, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

• A quick look at User:Sarah777's contributions reveals that the exact quote is "Admin-power abusing fascists like friend Ty". That looks like a clearly unacceptable comment to me. --Conti|✉ 02:26, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

• I think that comment was after the block, Conti. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:29, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

• Yes, I just noticed that, too. Did you mean another comment by her, then? Either way, that comment isn't really a good argument for the removal of the block. --Conti|✉ 02:33, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Even if there is a legitimate problem, it should be handled civilly. Name-calling exacerbates the problem. --clpo13_(talk) 02:31, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

• (EC) - I'm not necessarily "uninvolved" as I declined the unblock request for this user, however, I believe that the block needs to remain. This user has a clear civility problem, as evident from prior blocks, and this comment that she left today while blocked. - Rjd0060 (talk) 02:27, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

• I think this was the comment that attracted the block:

• "This is getting more and more like some institution run by a cult of abusers. 40k edits in "main"; not a single cross word ever uttered - and you get blocked. At least I put myself about as they say; there is simply NO valid excuse for blocking you no matter what self-serving rationalisation the fascists come up with. Plus, the block is totally illegitimate as you are using an undeleted system of categorisation." Sarah777 (talk) 22:24, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

• It was inappropriate, for sure, but I can't see that it was worth a block in itself. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:35, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

You might like to check out Sarah777's long term history of abuse. Wikipedia:TER#User:Sarah777 is a good starting point. Editors should not be subjected to her insults. Tyrenius (talk) 02:48, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

If we were routinely blocking users for those kinds of comments, it'd be fair enough, but we're not, which is the problem here. This seems to have become something of a self-perpetuating thing, whereby she makes an inappropriate comment, gets blocked, is pissed off, makes a snide remark, is blocked, gets even more pissed off, says something else, and on and on -- where each comment in itself wouldn't normally attract a block. I recommend an unblock as a show of good faith, which might turn things around a little. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:55, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

We do (or at least have been recently) routinely blocking for those sorts of comments in this particular subject area. The problem with Sarah, is that when an admin makes a decision not to her liking, it is always an example of fascist abuse, Anti-Irish abuse, Anglo-American abuse, and she is not shy in telling anyone who will listen. In the already politically fraught subject areas she occasionally edits in, her comments are particularly inflammatory. Its difficult enough to keep editors working together on the Irish/British issue, but when editors regularly throw accusations around like that, it quickly degenerates into edit-warring, sock and meat puppetry, legal threats, off-wiki threats of violence and we all end up at ArbCom again. I'm being a little dramatic, of course, but all those things listed have happened by editors in this subject area over the last year. Most of the participants put their actions down to being insulted or goaded. Hence the zero tolerance policy on civility and personal attacks on this subject, especially since everyone has been warned countless times already.

Now, Sarah is certainly not among those who have indulged in the worst behaviour I have listed above, but she does, for want of a better phrase, "have a mouth on her". We can continue to discuss issues with her (as I have done many times before) and ask her time and again to stop calling people offensive names, but she resolutely refuses to stop. If asking doesn't help, perhaps blocks will. Though I doubt it, to be honest. Rockpocket 03:09, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Sarah777 made the comment above, was warned by Rockpocket that is was likely to get a block and then endorsed her comment:

Sarah, please don't refer to other editors, named or implied, as "fascists". In addition to being wholly incorrect, it is also gratuitously offensive and likely to earn you a block yourself for WP:NPA before too long. How many times do you need to be asked - make your point without resorting to name-calling, please. Rockpocket 23:31, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd have thought it was a pretty good description. Don't you? And if some goon can block Ardfern then we should all be proud to be blocked, don't you think? And I reckon we'd be rather more interested in your take on the Ardfern block than on my civility (yaaaaaawn!) Sarah777 (talk) 23:36, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

She continues to insult editors whenever it suits her. Fine, if she states she will desist from making abusive personal comments, I don't object to an unblock, but in the past she has stated quite the opposite intention and there is no sign of her attitude changing.

Tyrenius (talk) 03:01, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Per this comment, and per lack of a clear consensus to endorse this block, I have left a comment on her talk page suggesting I will unblock if she states she willd desist from making personal comments. See how it goes ... - Alison ^❤ 03:14, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

No, there is a clear consensus to endorse the block, but I'm prepared to show good will. Tyrenius (talk) 03:22, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

My comment is in the below section- basically, a slightly longer block, but don't go mad and block for long, or we would have to block numerous individuals. Special Random (Merkinsmum) 03:33, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

If there are numerous individuals with long term incivility problems, then that needs to be addressed. ArbCom rulings show that it is not acceptable. Tyrenius (talk) 03:36, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Tyrenius, please see my comments below at #Sarah777:_there.27s_more_to_this_than_meets_the_eye. But I note from your comment above that you even think it was a blockable offence for her to call the admin who blocked Ardfern a "goon". Sorry, but I think that given the outrageousness of that block of a highly productive and respected editor, an expression of outrage was well-justified. "Fascist" and "goon" are not exactly parliamentary terms, but nor are they a completely unjustified or disproportionate response to a very bad block.

In effect, Sarah was blocked for objecting to another block, and that's a form of victimisation. If you can't see it that way, please recuse yourself from further use of your admin powers towards Sarah. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:18, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

No, she was blocked for how she said it, and other ways she expressed herself- swearing etc. Special Random (Merkinsmum) 12:25, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Community ban

Initiating this straw poll as a neutral party. Sarah's conduct is way over the line. The whole "Brilliant means block" section and the edit summary "get off my page you twat" is just the latest I can see in a row of gross incivility, and I think enough is enough. We don't need this, especially in such a contentious area. Ramp the block up to indef community ban. Will ^(talk) 03:17, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely not. I certainly won't endorse that and I feel you're "ramping up" the issue here just a bit - Alison ^❤ 03:21, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Is this really acceptable? Will ^(talk) 03:26, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Is this, please stop rocking the boat all over AN/I. David D. (Talk) 06:03, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

No, but neither is a community ban. If I show you an admin that called someone a "cunt", will you campaign to have them community banned? - Alison ^❤ 03:27, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Was in a contentious area such as The Troubles or Eastern Europe, where opinions don't need to be more inflamed then they already are? Will ^(talk) 03:36, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Strongest oppose. Look at her block log- they've all been short, she could be given a slightly longer one, say a fortnight, to reflect. I agree with SV on the other issues- I think there should be a block, but not a ban, because there are plenty of others who swear etc. on site and they haven't been banned.Special Random (Merkinsmum) 03:30, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

The word "twat" is used much more lightly than "cunt". However, there is a long term problem with her incivility, not just an occasional mishap. Community ban would be an answer. If not, then there needs to be some other arrangement in place to contain it, and to prevent her from excluding any admin who tries to address the issue. Tyrenius (talk) 03:35, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

A longer block would make her consider her actions more. In that regard, an analogous case would be User:TharkunColl, who after a two week (I think) block and warning that he would next face one of 3 months, has been comparatively well-behaved. :) Special Random (Merkinsmum) 03:37, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Ty, there are also cultural differences to be recognized here, too. Profanity in Ireland (where myself and Sarah are from) is treated a lot more lightly than in, say, the United States. Thus in her own view, her transgression may not have the same weight as it does to others. Seriously - Alison ^❤ 03:53, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Incivility is a problem on Wikipedia these days, but I don't think that community banning everyone who's uncivil is remotely the right answer. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:06, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

We'd only be left with about 5 editors. Nandesuka (talk) 05:40, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

(ec) I don't think there's been any gross profanity as such. It's the ongoing ad hominem posts like "Stop talking complete arrogant bull. YOU have imposed "criteria" that nobody bar your pompous self accepts. You abuse of power is passing the point of annoyance and becoming nauseous".[37] That needs to stop. The only question is how it can be stopped. Tyrenius (talk) 04:08, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

• I think Merkinsmum's suggestion is sound. Sarah is a productive editor with a volatile temper. A period of disengagement might help defuse some of the recent drama, and drive home the point that wikipedia is a collaborative effort, which means sometimes agreeing to disagree without launching into nationalistic attacks. Horologium (talk) 04:13, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

From an observers view - she seems to carry a big chip on her shoulder, and grudges against certain admins. I agree with Will (talk) in that somethings need to be dealt with firmly, and not just swept under the rug with a wink and a nod, and don't let it happen again. Its gonna happen again. Modernist (talk) 04:18, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I think we need to remain in the middle ground here; no community ban and no unblock - sit out this block, and we'll go from there. - Rjd0060 (talk) 04:21, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I tend to agree with User:Rjd0060. If we're going to community ban for this level/frequency of incivility, there are a lot more bans to be given out, including some to admins. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 04:27, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I tend to agree that a more comprehensive approach is needed. I think the proposed actions, e.g. long-term blocks or bans, are not in line with the way we have approached similar issues of late. Such actions would be viewed, correctly, as capricious, and the consequences of this might be worse than the problem we are trying to correct. Christopher Parham (talk) 04:32, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

(ec) I agree a ban is excessive at this stage. My concern is that the issue is addressed and not just ignored. As Rockpocket has pointed out, such behaviour impacts considerably in an area where there has been a lot of trouble. It would be a good start if Sarah777 were to recognise that attacks on others are not the way to address differences. To date she has asserted that she is justified in making them. Tyrenius (talk) 04:35, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

A ban is way to harsh at this stage, especially considering the leeway we have given to other editors for incivility. Rockpocket 04:47, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

• I think I see a clear consensus against a ban. Including by one of the admins that has previously blocked her. For the record, having reviewed this, I agree with the consensus above that a ban is inappropriate. If we were going to issue bans for incivility, there are multiple admins we'd need to ban before we got down to Sarah's level of incivility; I've seen so much worse from others. GRBerry 05:02, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Sarah has agreed to make a "supreme effort" not to repeat this if at all possible and has also apologized to Rockpocket. Per discussion above (esp. per blocking admin) I have unblocked her. I'll try to mediate over the next few days and try to address everyone's concerns here. I think BHG makes some excellent comments below and I'm largely in agreement. There is a lot more to this than meets the eye and I think amongst all of us us who are familiar with the situation here, we'll work something out. Unblocking - Alison ^❤ 11:30, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

That's great, as long as Sarah777 delivers on her promise to make that effort. We have to assume good faith and I would love to see Sarah continue to edit - yet it seems her incivility has been increasing in both frequency and magnitude of late, and there is simply no place for that kind of behaviour on this kind of project. Hopefully there will never be the need to block Sarah777 again, but should that need arise, I don't think a short term block would prevent any future occurrences. I'm against a community ban at this stage, but if Sarah's behaviour does not change, that stance will. Waggers (talk) 12:15, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Sarah777: there's more to this than meets the eye

The suggestion of a ban is a terrible proposal, and I'm glad to see that there is a consensus against it. Yes, Sarah does have an ongoing problem with her short fuse, and her responses exacerbate the situation. However, the latest block was a very bad one, by an involved admin whose objection was to the removal of his comment from her talk page, and traditionally we have given editors a lot of leeway in removing stuff from their own talkpages.

Furthermore, the issue that triggered Sarah's outburst was the rapid and unjustified blocking for alleged "disruption" of Ardfern (talk · contribs)}, who is an incredibly productive and uncontroversial editor who has no history of trouble, by an admin who had made a dodgy closure of a related DRV. I was shocked at Ardfern's block and had intended to raise the issue here later today, but while I don't use her colourful language I fully share Sarah's dismay at that block. I happen to be a lot better at biting my tongue, but I am starting to get very concerned at the way that Sarah now feels that she is be being "targeted" by a group of admins who were involved in "The Troubles" arbcom. The issues here have very little to do with that arbcom case, but some of the admins (notably John (talk · contribs) and Tyrenius (talk · contribs) who were involved in that case now appear to be running into regular conflict with Sarah, and I think it's time to ask them to step right back from dealings with Sarah, because whatever their intentions (and I assume good faith), they are not helping to calm things, and on the contrary they are consistently provoking the worst reactions from Sarah; they have become part of the problem. I would like to contrast this with the calm and balanced approaches of Alison (talk · contribs), who as usual seems to remain calm and to retain the trust of all involved; the contrast is important, but it demonstrates that this is not simply a case of any admin who confronts a miscreant being demonised.

There are several serious issue behind all this. The most visible cloud is the set of issues considered at The Troubles Arbcom case, a huge and long-running mess which still rumbles on 4 months after it was closed, and which now turns out to have been in significant part to have been underpinned by a bunch of sockpuppets of a banned far-right British politician (as well as the antics of Vintagekits (talk · contribs), whose misconduct continued after more "last chances" than North Korea has been given over its nuclear weapons). That arbcom was supposed to draw a line under everything, and to say "no more misconduct", but that didn't really happen: the far-right sockpuppets were only recently uncovered, and Vintagekits eventually turned out to have been sockpuppeteering too. So there is a long history of trouble here, and considerable post-arbcom evidence of some nasty stirring by banned editors.

One of the ongoing problems is cultural difference in what constitutes civility. I have lived in England for over years and understand how more of English people conduct themselves and can play by those rules, but as Alison (another Irish exile) pointed out above, social norms in Ireland are very different: raucous outspokenness and swearing are much more acceptable.

And one of the reasons that this comes to the surface so often is that Irish editors routinely find themselves outnumbered by British editors, and end up at a severe disadvantage in the formation of consensus. I have watched too many instances where Irish editors and British editors polarise on different sides of a dispute, and where there is no shortage of British admins ready to condemn the culturally different conduct of Irish editors, and thereby exacerbate a difficult situation.

It's far too simplistic in this mess to simply condemn the "wild" Irish editors; there's a lot more going on here. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:39, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

If you don't mind me saying, in the words of Ali G, "is it because I is black?" :) (joke). There are English, American, all sorts of people that swear, and people can't have licence to swear at other people and in other ways be incivil, just because of their country of origin. You do the irish a disservice if you say they don't have it in them to be as well-mannered as the English- any one I've met has been, more so if anything as they have a reputation for being friendly. On the other hand, it did seem weird to me that people were discussing a 'community ban.' Special Random (Merkinsmum) 12:18, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

May I offer the following poem by a pal of mine from Dublin, by way of explanation?

"Terms of Endearment"

Two Irishmen meet.
They like one another.
They are friends.
"There ye are ye bollix."
"Fair play to you you cunt."
"Ask me arse you tit."

Very shortly they will be best friends.
God alone knows how they will express
This extra closeness.

— Pat Ingoldsby, "Terms of Endearment"[38]

- Alison ^❤ 12:53, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

But as the poem said, they are friends already. It would be like me calling TharkunColl a drunken old c**t.:) I'm allowed because I'm his mate lol but people don't tend to in a formal situation such as wiki. Also Sarah777 wasn't talking to a friend, but to one of her wiki 'rivals', so her words weren't meant in a joshing way, you big !*^!er.:) (joke) :) Special Random (Merkinsmum) 14:00, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Nice try BHG and I appreciate you for sticking up for her. I am from an Irish family, and have spent a lot time in Ireland, North and South. Any contention that Irish people are unable to follow conventional rules of formal civility, though, is laughably inaccurate. Yes, in the pub, old friends will use terms to each other that would make a maiden aunt blush. We Scots are the same. However Wikipedia is not the pub and Sarah's ongoing incivility does need to be addressed. I did not (yet) support the idea of a ban, but that is the way this needs to head if Sarah demonstrates that she is unable to follow our norms, and we need to be clear about that and not make excuses for her on the basis of her nationality. She is not stupid and knows very well what she is doing. --John (talk) 16:01, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Point I'm trying to make here is that there is a certain cultural aspect to this, and that I feel people may be focussing on her language and delivery rather than looking behind it and seeing the frustration it stems from. Thus the root of the problem never gets fixed and she remains ignored (or worse, reprimanded). I've stated this a few times already - she may indeed have genuine grievances here about certain matters, so let's try to find out what's behind it all so we can all move on and get back to editing - Alison ^❤ 20:33, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I see your point. It's a fine line between cutting people slack and allowing for cultural differences, and making it carte blanche for certain users to be abusive. Let's hope Sarah takes all the advice she has been given on board as I do value her contributions. I approve the unblock but it needs to be clear to this editor that we cannot accept abuse from anyone here. --John (talk) 02:35, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

People can express legitimate frustration without resorting to swearing etc. Most can, anyway-- except maybe certain admins. :) Special Random (Merkinsmum) 17:54, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Response to BrownHaired Girl

You were in the minority in opposing this block, which was endorsed by clpo13, John, Black Kite, Conti, Rjd0060, Rockpocket and Special Random. I haven't mentioned or alluded to the word "goon", and I wasn't even aware Sarah had used it. Sarah was not blocked for objecting to another block, something she is quite entitled to do through the proper channels. She was blocked for a personal attack, namely calling someone a "fascist". Several of those who endorsed the block have no prior connection with the situation.

You state that I am an "involved" admin. The attack by Sarah wasn't made against me, and I wasn't involved in the conversation about it. I have had very little to do with Sarah777 previously, apart from very recently, when my only involvement was to address her incivility at Wikipedia:TER#User:Sarah777 and remove offending comments about John, which Alison said she was just about to remove,[39] which Sarah then reinserted and which I removed again.[40] In the meantime Alison, not I, blocked her for her response to my warning about that removal. That is the extent of my supposed involvement. According to your rationale, if an admin warns a user and the user is uncivil in return, the admin should then refrain from dealing with that user over any other issue.

You say I am running into "regular conflict" with Sarah. I have only had dealings with her for 5 days, since removing the posts mentioned above. Apart from John, I note she also objected to Fram, Ioeth and SirFozzie, all of whom she wished to see de-sysopped.[41]

You have also got your facts wrong, when you state my objection was the removal of material from her talk page. That happened after the block and was not the cause of it. She was not entitled to remove this, as it responded to a statement she made concerning the unblock which was incorrect, though that was an understandable mistake: removal of my correction was not.[42]

You have previously said the accusation that John is partisan "is not without some reasonable basis",[43] failed to provide any evidence, then apologised, [44] but still thought John should not intervene, because he had been accused of partisanship, regardless of whether it was just or not.[45] (In that post SirFozzie was one of the acceptable "calming" editors, but it seems he as now lost that status.) User:Lar said, "what I see as an outsider is John trying very hard to be helpful in the face of others applying the bias label unjustly."[46]

Your assertion that this is a nationalist issue is inappropriate, objectionable and false. Regarding "British admins ready to condemn the culturally different conduct of Irish editors", I have not stated my nationality, so you should not presume, Fram is Belgian, Ioeth is American, and SirFozzie is, if I recall correctly, of Irish extraction in America. You have also said Rockpocket (American) should not intervene because of what you perceive as "victimisation" and being "trigger-happy" (although he has never blocked Sarah),[47] and no doubt the "fascist" Fram is not welcome, so with John and myself, we are now up to 7 admins. It strikes me they cannot all be the problem.

Most "Irish editors" are not uncivil, and editors of any nationality can be.[48] Nationality is not the issue: WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA are the issues, for which I have previously blocked "British" editors, David Lauder,[49], Astrotrain,[50] (twice, as well as lengthening a block for continued incivility while blocked), and Counter-revolutionary,[51] (for "Derogatory implication based on another user's nationality"). In the Troubles ArbCom Astrotrain accused me of "bias and harassment" on behalf of "Irish" editors.[52]

The only admin that is allying themselves nationalistically is you:

Yes, once again, Irish editors have been stitched up, and wikipedia's coverage of Irish history has been impeded, but ... big but it's really important to remember that however much we are provoked, incivility or pparent WP:POINT violations won't help us undo the damage.[53]

I am surprised that you take this stance, as I have not noticed it previously, but it indicates that you are the one who should recuse yourself from this issue. I see no reason to recuse myself.

Tyrenius (talk) 15:52, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Point of information: I'm not American (though I live there). Neither I am Scottish, English, Irish (though I have lived in all three countries) or Welsh. I find the fact that we are even discussing the nationality of our admins utterly depressing and demonstrative of how much the false accusations of problem editors have influenced us. It doesn't matter what nationality you are from to recognize POV pushing, personal attacks and name calling.

I too take exception at BHG's accusation that I am involved in "victimisation" of Sarah by being "trigger-happy." My relationship with Sarah, from my own POV, is entirely cordial. I have never blocked her and I very much enjoy interacting with her. I don't think Sarah would dispute that either (though I could be wrong). If you have an issue with an unfair block, then I suggest you address that through the proper channels, BHG, but leave me out of it. All I did was ask an editor to stop calling another offensive names, which is about the least "trigger-happy" response I can imagine. Rockpocket 18:00, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

The last time I remember the "Its ok to call people cunts if you're Irish" defence being used was after an (admitted) drunken tirade by User:Vintagekits against an admin, where threats were made. It didn't wash then, it doesn't wash now. Anyone who disagrees with Sarah777 ends up being accused of being anti-Irish Anflo-American-centricism - no matter where they're from or what their politics - even the likes of User:OneNightInHackney, for God's sake! The bottom line is Sarah777 needs to accept that WP:NPA is a policy that applies to everyone on WP, including her. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 00:45, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to add my ha'penny-worth, but here it is anyway: (1) there is now a general mood to tighten up perceived incivility, and if that means hauling people up for what would have been allowed in the past, so be it. Sarah777 certainly wasn't the worst offender; she's now promised to calm down; a line has been drawn and we all know now where it lies. She, or anyone else, will cross that line now at their own peril. (2) I notice that David Lauder is described as 'a banned far-right British politician', which, as I understand it, is an assumption rather than a fact. Even if correct, it's a (pejorative) description of him rather than his editing interests, which lay in medieval Scottish history rather than overtly political subjects, and he, by-and-large, kept his nose clean in the issues surrounding 'the Troubles'. Whilst I certainly don't approve of the foolish politicking through sock-puppets, his contribution to WP deserves more respect than the casual reference to his politics and lumping him in with another editor with a considerably worse record.

A propos of posting here, it's my belief that posting on WP:AN/I, or even reading it, reduces your intelligence rapidly. A warning, similar to those printed on cigarette cartons, should be posted at the top of the page and someone should draw up a User box for everyone to 'lead us from temptation'. --Major Bonkers (talk) 02:38, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

You don't think everyone should be encouraged with the "this user loves wikidrama" userbox then?:) Special Random (Merkinsmum) 17:51, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Disregard for blocking policy

Resolved

On the 28th of January, I was blocked [54] by William M. Connolley, with whom I was involved in a content dispute at the time. I pointed out [55] that he had breached blocking policy, specifically:

"Administrators must not block users with whom they are engaged in a content dispute; instead, they should report the problem to other administrators. Administrators should also be aware of potential conflicts of interest involving pages or subject areas with which they are involved."

On the 5th of February, I asked for an undertaking that this breach would not be repeated, and then on the 8th I asked again. I'm still waiting. This is the second time I've become involved in a content dispute with a block-happy administrator, and it's not getting any more pleasant.

Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 12:54, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

If you don't want it to happen again, I suggest you cease inserting content without sourcing, and heed administrator warnings. KillerChihuahua^?!? 13:39, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

William M. Connolley did not breach the blocking policy and was not involved in a content dispute with you. Just because an admin reverts you does not automatically make you untouchable. You were blocked because you continued to repeatedly revert and insert unreferenced text despite having been warned several times. Nothing wrong here. Shell ^babelfish 13:42, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

P.S. This request is ridiculous. Shell ^babelfish 13:42, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Let's see... block expired a month ago. No one is seeing a blocking policy violation here. I don't see a need for urgent administrative intervention, and as the red type at the top says, "This is not the Wikipedia complaints department." I'm going to mark this resolved. MastCell ^Talk 20:27, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Althought the block happened a month ago, as stated by the respondent, this notice was posted only a short while ago-- an hour?. Since I have been blocked by this admin myself, the claim is not intrinsically absurd to me, and I would have wanted to look at it. So I object to summarily marking it resolved. Pete St.John (talk) 23:21, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

It has been looked at, both on William's talk page and now by 3 admins in this forum, and in both cases no one seemed to see a violation of the blocking policy here. In any case, this is a forum for incidents requiring urgent adminstrative attention - even assuming the block had been out of process, it's not clear what resolution this board can provide for a block that expired 1 month ago. There is a forum for raising concerns about abuse of administrative tools (RfC or, in more pressing cases, RfArb) - if there is a real problem here, then those fora would be the appropriate ones in which to address it. Nonetheless, anyone is free to remove the "resolved" tag if they'd like - I won't replace it if you decide to do so. MastCell ^Talk 16:47, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard

I've done the bold thing and created Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard, which was the last core/major policy whose implications seem to get fought over all the time and lead to no small number of edit wars. Lawrence § t/e 16:26, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

It seems like the "in thing" is to create more and more noticeboards these days - is there enough volume that this can't be handled on one of the other noticeboards, or at WT:NPOV? —Random832 18:35, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I personally like the addition, it will help lower the case load here at AN/I and help direct requests to specific user who enjoy working with POV violations. Tiptoety ^talk 19:21, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I support its construction without a doubt, per Tiptoety. Also, it only stands to reason that, logically, we should have a noticeboard for all three core policies. However, it may need a fleshing out. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 21:31, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

And the fringe board can probably be merged into the NPOV board. Lawrence § t/e 21:33, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Not a good idea. WP:FT/N also covers nonsense (== beyond fringe), where NPOV is irrelevant. rudra (talk) 23:44, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Oppose What constitute NPOV violation? It is just going to make it confusing and hard to follow, being that we will have a complaintents running around from board to board. ANI is not Arbcom and we should not just dirrect users from one board to another but try to help diffuse the situation. Igor Berger (talk) 23:54, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

ANI and AN specifically are not for content disputes. NPOV disputes can be very specific, and very intense, and often lead to (to my eyes) a disproportionate number of RFARs. This would lead to RFAR case deflection, making life easier for everyone. Lawrence § t/e 23:59, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Well we all work hard on article talk pages and user talk pages to enlighten the community about NPOV. I do not know how comfortable will editors feel if they are sent to NPOV board. And also will the board achive enough attention to give full consensus to an issue at hand? Will their be enough editors looking at it to be able to adjudicate rationally? Will their be a enough community attention to resolve the problems at hand without making it look as one or two admins telling the editors how to behave. Igor Berger (talk) 00:09, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think this is a good idea. Issues of NPOV are properly handled through dispute resolution, not through a noticeboard which I strongly suspect (let's hope I'm proven wrong) will degenerate into a sniping ground for disagreeing editors and factions. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 04:37, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

It's not that I think this is a bad thing, but I would think most of the issues would be taken care of at the COI notice board. I know there are other NPOV issues, but COI is the big one, and I'm not sure what's left over that can't be discussed/clarified on existing talk pages. -- Ned Scott 04:41, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

The problem with WT:NPOV is that editors often bring specific content disputes there, phrase them in bland generalities which lead people toward the response most useful to them, and then return to the content dispute saying: "Removing NY Times article per discussion at WT:NPOV." It may be more useful to have a forum where specific NPOV issues can be discussed, as a shortcut to getting the sort of outside opinions that 3O and RfC provide. Of course, it may turn into an auxiliary battlefield for the usual problem areas. I'd suggest we give it a month or so of "probation" and then assess how well it's working, whether informally or at MfD - that would be my preference. MastCell ^Talk 16:51, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

• I'd second MastCell, with the note that I quite like the idea but one can never tell how an idea will work out until it's implemented. Noticeboards seem to me to be a good place for editors who become very familiar with certain policies and guidelines to gather and offer opinions and suggestions in conflicts. More places to find help = a good thing. RfC has been a bit of a disappointment to me, at least. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk)

Possibly bogus/vandal edits

Could someone please check the contributions of the following:

• ArmadilloPadding (talk · contribs)
• LetsDoThisRight (talk · contribs)
• Spirikitik (talk · contribs) - see nothing wrong here
• SeekFind (talk · contribs) - see nothing wrong here
• Mfriedrich9 (talk · contribs) - see nothing wrong here
• JMVanDyk (talk · contribs) - see nothing wrong here, fixed one Wlink but that's all
• Jimtrue (talk · contribs) - see nothing wrong here

Thanks. Thatcher 18:01, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm taking a look at these as time permits. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 14:16, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm being impersonated...

Hello all, [56] this user appears to be making comments with my signature, notably at User_talk:Crystalclearchanges, a user I have filed a SSP for relating to banned vandal user:iamandrewrice. They have also been adding to and altering my comments at that SSP, notably here. Can someone take a quick look, as SSP has a backlog and I can be dealing with tracking down impersonators right now. Thanks Whitstable 21:24, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Who is it that "impersonated" you at my talk page then? Crystalclearchanges (talk) 21:29, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

IP:88.108.106.86 Whitstable 21:31, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

What is your IP address then? How do I know it was not you?? I dont understand what is happening here. Will someone please explain this?Crystalclearchanges (talk) 21:36, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

That IP has been blocked for 1 month. They are obviously not a new user, and thus deserve no quarter. If another IP address continues this, please let us know, and they will be blocked as well. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 21:34, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

That's a dynamic IP so a month block will serve no useful purpose. Polly (Parrot) 21:38, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

What does that mean?! Look it is me that is the victim here so why is no one explaining to me? Crystalclearchanges (talk) 21:40, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Can urgent action be taken here because we do not want the whole iamandrewrice farce starting again. Whitstable 21:41, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

And oh no-one is still explaining to me what is happening. Can't you "scan" my IP address or something to make sure I'm not the same as the IP since apparently Whitstable thinks I was talking to myself between an IP and my account somehow? Crystalclearchanges (talk) 21:45, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Does anyone else see a similarity in MO here? --WebHamster 21:52, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I do. It is very similar to the situation before. Whitstable 21:54, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm unsure whether this situation would qualify for checkuser. Hasn't this already been resolved anyway? Rudget. 21:49, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

If Crystalclearchanges is yet another sock of banned user iamandrewrice then it would seem they have managed to return. The edits are broadly similar, especially when iamandrewrice's Simple Wiki edits are looked at (before he was indef blocked from there, too!) and the disruption soon after I pointed that out - as mentioned on the SSP - suggests something is happening Whitstable 21:53, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Given the history of disruption from the Iamandrewrice account and the strong indication that the ban is being evaded at least through the IP a checkuser is entirely warranted. This needs to be dealt with early or we get in the same situation as last time. EconomicsGuy (talk) 21:57, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not even going to bother asking anymore then, as apparently, Whitstable is not talking to me for some reason. I am just going to get back to my editing, and this time, please do not interrupt me with taunts of me talking to myself or whatever you come up with next. Crystalclearchanges (talk) 21:52, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I havent been doing anything! look at all my edits and not a single one has caused purposeful disruption. Why are you assuming bad faith on me? Crystalclearchanges (talk) 21:54, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

By your second edit, you all but admit you were previously banned, not just blocked, then you start working in ianandrewrice's pet areas - fashion, Malta, Latin Europe. So it's hard to AGF Whitstable 21:56, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

But have I actually done anything wrong? Crystalclearchanges (talk) 21:58, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

If you are banned user iamandrewrice, and I take it as you are accepting you are, then clearly yes. Whitstable 22:00, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

No. Please tell me what I have done that is "wrong"? Crystalclearchanges (talk) 22:01, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Your second edit heavily suggests you are a banned user. In which case you should not be here. And I agree with EconomicsGuy (II) below Whitstable 22:05, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

If anyone involved here is Iamandrewrice I have no problem with contacting Alison and making sure that we do as we threatened last time. Absolutely no hesitations about doing that. EconomicsGuy (talk) 22:02, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

What am I doing that is wrong??? Crystalclearchanges (talk) 22:04, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

What you MAY be doing wrong, and I am saying this to Crystalclearchanges so that it is clear I am talking to you, is that you may not create a new account and resume editing if you are a person who has edited under a different account which as since been blocked. The accusation is that you are a blocked user Iamandrewrice. Do you deny this? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 22:07, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Add to that, based on their contribs, it looks like WP:CANVAS is a possibility too. --WebHamster 22:26, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

You don't even understand what the content of the email to EcoGuy was about so please do not assume any kind of canvassing here. I can assure you for one thing that it is not what you think, but he can tell you that if he chooses to afterwards. Crystalclearchanges (talk) 22:28, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Crystalclearchanges has denied being Iamandrewrice, and has also expressed a willingness to undergo checkuser. I think that is the next logical step to take. I shall be filing a request myself soon. Ayla (talk) 22:29, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

actually i was reffering to scanning my ip address to compare with that of the IP impersonator of Whitstable that was posting on my page. Buy yeah thats good too... Crystalclearchanges (talk) 22:32, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Strange how both iamandrewrice and Crystalclearchanges both spell consistency as consistancy, as a quick look at their edit summaries show, pure coincidence I'm sure... Polly (Parrot) 22:30, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

If poor spelling were indicative of being the same person, there would be exactly two people on the Internet: me (along with my millions of sockpuppets), and the other guy (along with his millions of sockpuppets). "Consistancy" returns greater than one Google hit for every 30 Google hits for "consistency", an awful lot considering it is a patently incorrect spelling. CCC has indicated he is willing to undergo a checkuser -- let's wait for that before we start analyzing spelling and grammar. - Revolving Bugbear 22:39, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Please remind me why that user is banned anyway? Crystalclearchanges (talk) 22:32, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

What happens with my IP address once you scan it though? Surely the person who sees it will then know my IP address and could go do anything (like fraud) with it. I will happily enter a user scan as long as it is automated and no human eyes see it at all... otherwise I refuse. Crystalclearchanges (talk) 22:51, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

No, knowing your IP address does not mean that anyone could perform fraud. Every website you visit on the Internet "knows" your IP address. Every single one. And chances are good, every time you send an email to anyone, that person could know your IP address. --Yamla (talk) 22:56, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I would prefer it to be done by a machine... but if you can guarantee that no one will use it for bad purposes. Can I have some kind of written guarantee for it? (You may know more than me about IP addressi so please do not mock me if i am wrong) Crystalclearchanges (talk) 23:00, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

It wouldn't be possible to use it for bad purposes. You are at no more risk by having a Wikipedia admin look at your IP address than you are every time you visit another website or any time you send an email via your ISP or via hotmail or the like. However, if it makes you happy, I can personally offer my guarantee that having a Wikipedia admin run a checkuser on you will absolutely not lead to fraud. --Yamla (talk) 23:07, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikimedia has a very rigorous privacy policy [57] which is enforced by the Ombudsman [58] to ensure that the very few users permitted to access IP data do not use that data outside of the policy. MBisanz ^talk 00:58, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Evidence posted at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Iamandrewrice. Ayla (talk) 00:57, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

And the checkuser result is in thanks to Alison. As predicted this is Iamandrewrice evading his ban but no socking it appears. In response to Ayla, please see this. EconomicsGuy (talk) 08:01, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Indef blocked as user evading ban. Can post to talk page or email unblock list to properly appeal. MBisanz ^talk 08:09, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Per [59] this banned user did many page moves that will require an admin to move them back. I'm signing out for the night, so could someone else please tag this as done when they do it? MBisanz ^talk 08:14, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I think I got them all, but I wouldn't mind a double-check. MBisanz ^talk 15:57, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Tom Bates consensus violation

Multiple IP addresses, most likely the same person, continues to violate consensus on page Tom Bates concerning sourcing of his military record. I'm not sure where to post this issue, so I've posted it here.User:calbear22 (talk) 01:53, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd try communicating on the various talk pages of the anons, or start a thread on the article's talk page. If that fails to get their/his/her attention, I'd attempt a dispute resolution starting with WP:RFC. If the POV pushing continues despite this, a temporary semi-protection on the page might be order - but approach this with caution. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 04:44, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I left another two messages on two of the user talk pages. I left another message on the talk:Tom Bates. This incident has been going on for some time now with a long history of exchanges on the article talk page. RFC has already occurred.User:calbear22 (talk) 05:27, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I took a closer look and noticed that. I'm not sure WP:RFPP would be appropriate as these users are actually constructively discussing things with you (more or less). This would effectively destroy their ability to edit the article. Are there blatant WP:3RR violations? Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 07:18, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

No. The back and forth has gone slowly. I counted about 23 back and forth. We had a constructive discussion early on when I added a second source, which was unnecessary but done to appease the IP contributor. But, the contributor has refused to budge since even after 3 editors joined me in consensus. Maybe if you were to weigh in on the article talk page, that would help. Thanks.User:calbear22 (talk) 08:23, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Self admited sockmaster needs additional eyes...

See User talk:Colleenthegreat. She admits to changing IPs and usernames to dodge a block. I have no idea where she has gone to, but one should check her contribs history carefully and block any relevent socks as needed. I am off to bed myself, but someone else should keep a close watch on this. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:49, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I just reblocked with autoblock on IP addresses. I protected the talk page (she deserved it) for only a day (at least a little time off) so she can try another unblock tomorrow and see if someone else is interested then. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:05, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Good idea, I think that should help. I'm going to bed, too. Useight (talk) 07:19, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

IP admits to being an open proxy

Resolved

 – Ryulong blocked it, two years. ➔ REDVEЯS knows how Joan of Arc felt 12:10, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

[60], looks like he just openly admitted to being an open proxy, looks like he may also be User:LBHS Cheerleader, and has recently been released from a block. Tiptoety ^talk 05:51, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Longer block requested

Resolved

 – User blocked

217.44.56.101 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) - IP was previously blocked for vandalism and personal attacks. Now he/she is back after the previous ban and making personal attacks again: 1, 2. The IP is removing WP:SOCK notices from other user pages: 1, 2,. IP is removing categories with no explanation: 1, 2. IP is vandalizing user page (in addition to the personal attack on my page): 1. IP is adding categories without explanation even after being asked to explain numerous times the reasoning behind it. 1. IP is adding WP:SOCK notice to a user page that I believe has not been accused of sock puppetry. 1 I'm asking that the user be blocked, this time longer than 31 hours because evidence shows the IP is not here to contribute to WP in a positive manner. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 12:13, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I've blocked the IP for a week for the personal attacks. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 12:20, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 12:24, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

St. John's University - UConnStudd

On February 29, User:Uconnstud made a major revert to the St. John's University (New York City) artilce despite it being semi-protected, and without discussing the changes on the Talk page. The version he reverted to caused many contructive additions to be lost, and constitutes vandalism. See version prior to revert [61], and then version UConn reverted and edit too [62]. This has been an on going frustration, and many less experienced users, like myself, are having a hard time dealing with this individual. Please take a close look at the content lost, and the actions of UConnStudd. He is using the article to degrade and misrepresent the university. See talk page for past discussion on his additions and reverts. - --TiconderogaCCB (talk) 13:36, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Looks like a content dispute, which administrators cannot help you with. Were you looking for dispute resolution? ➔ REDVEЯS knows how Joan of Arc felt 13:43, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Its not just content. This user continously reverts so that content is lost, and tries to report other users for vandalism each time they try to resolve the dispute. We have been warned not to revert the article, and now that I have corrected the situation, I am sure he will turn around and report me for reverting, however, the revert was necessary to restore pages of content that was lost when he reverted the article. Bottom line, I'm frustrated. This user continues to use the system to manipulate this article, and though it is partly a content issue, the manner in which he is adding content is absurd. He will not discuss issues on the talk page, and adds every negative item he can find while removing other additions of substance. Please help in some way. - --TiconderogaCCB (talk) 14:09, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Possible sockpuppetry/abuse on Council on American-Islamic Relations

• moved back to WP:ANI as per thread.M1rth (talk) 19:50, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

AIV is backlogged

Resolved

 – Empty as at this moment ➔ REDVEЯS knows how Joan of Arc felt 14:33, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Someone please handle it. It's a real pain having to revert a user 10 times since he was reported 16 minutes ago. The Evil Spartan (talk) 14:20, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

RFR - Not Done

Resolved

 – Have discussed this amicably with User:Bpeps on my talk page. ➔ Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 17:39, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Rollback has its fans - but its probably here for good. I've applied 5 times now and been beaten by a hedgerow each time [63] [64] [65] - Can just a single sysop say no and be done with. Whats the point of count and contribs if nobody ever bothers to look. I agree I was a little fresh this time but still shouldn't a couple of sysops decide before RFRbot sweeps editors away? Dunno bpeps (talk · contribs · count) --- BpEps - t@lk 14:48, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth, this single sysop says no. While I would consider granting rollback to some editors with two months' experience, I would only do so to people whose edits during that time have been calm, civil and collaborative. Please take a couple of months, work quietly on vandalism reverts and prove you need the tool. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 15:56, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Not being calm, civil or collaborative isn't a good reason to deny, having a fundamental misunderstanding of what rollback is is a good reason. John Reaves 16:39, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually John, if you have bothered to read my comments on the rfr page, I do have a good understanding of Rollback and its downfalls. want diffs - just ask. -- BpEps - t@lk 16:50, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Ah, you mean the comment when you said "Anyway, Ive done good now, give me candy."? 5 people have declined you, stop wasting our time. John Reaves 17:00, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

User Goth and Throbb99

Not really a vandal so much as clueless, so I thought I'd report it here. Has uploaded slews of copyrighted pictures, has had a slew of contentless stubs on the television show "Silverwing" deleted, has been blocked for disruptive editing before and has returned with yet another contentless stub based on this TV show. Hasn't shown any willingness to cooperate with other editors. Thought you should know. I left a message on the talk page which I hope will alert him to the fact that this isn't a fansite. Thanks. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 15:51, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

• PS: Just checked his history. No history whatsoever of editing a talk page. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 15:54, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely based on the lack of communication. Any other admin is welcome to unblock without contacting me if the user begins to communicate towards resolving the various issues with their editing. - TexasAndroid (talk) 18:21, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Mikkalai

• Mikkalai (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

I appologise in advance for not discussing this directly with Mikkalai but if you read his talk page you will hopefully understand why. He's put a notice up refusing to take part in any discussion within Wikipedia whatsoever and that talk page messages will go unanswered and most probably reverted. The note is inflammatory as well, calling other admins trigger happy cowboys and wikilawyers and if anyone comes to his talk with a concern about this, it makes them a jerk. A quick look at his talk history shows he's simply been reverting any complaint for some time now. I'm sorry to say it, but this isn't the behaviour we expect of administrators and communication is something that admins must be good at. This attitude, and lack of civility is simply not the way an admin should act, but I'm at a :loss as to what to do about it. Has anyone got any suggestions? Ryan Postlethwaite 04:03, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

• and here's his reversion to my AN/I notice. Ryan Postlethwaite 04:06, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

An admin who refuses to discuss anything should be desysopped. Corvus cornix_talk 04:10, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

We have had this conversation before regarding Gustafson. If you're an admin engaged in administrative tasks, you'd damn well better be prepared to admit liability for them, and discuss them. If he doesn't want to discuss editorial issues, that's a different issue, but if he's including admin tasks in this too, bad idea. No go. ~ Riana ⁂ 04:13, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

WP:AOR. He wouldn't pass a second time. seicer | talk | contribs 04:11, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok, this is really ridiculous now. It's almost like pouting. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 04:14, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

So you support this type of behaviour? seicer | talk | contribs 04:15, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Not pouting at all - just a serious concern about an admin who is refusing to discuss anything. Ryan Postlethwaite 04:17, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I was referring to the admin's unacceptable behavior. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 04:36, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

(ec)I have to agree with Riana, while it is not the best practice to not discuss article building, it does not require de-syoping. Now, if this user was not communicating about admin related functions, thats a whole different boat. Tiptoety ^talk 04:20, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

At the risk of sounding dangerously like Gareth Keenan, if you've got a man on the front line firing his rifle at people and not listening to anyone around him, you take away that guy's gun ASAP. Then you decide whether or not he should be allowed to have it back. -- Hux (talk) 09:58, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Considering he's still performing admin-powered actions [66] I'd agree that there is a problem given that another admin wouldn't be able to check an action with him before undoing it. A non-admin user wouldn't be as much of a problem, as the same rules of discretion in acting wouldn't necessarily apply. MBisanz ^talk 04:19, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry but I have to play Devil's Advocate here. Is anyone really disagreeing with his admin actions? Is it possible everyone could simply leave him alone for a bit and let him cool off? —Wknight94 (talk) 04:21, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

This has been an issue in the past, so when we have to inform him about issues regarding admin actions, we will get reverted. If you noticed, Ryan gave Mikka a chance to respond to this, but Ryan was rebuffed with a revert. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 04:23, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

You say "rebuffed". I say he read/acknowledged the note and didn't feel like it being there anymore. Common practice nowadays. —Wknight94 (talk) 04:32, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

It's not his admin actions I'm trying to bring up here - it's just the general inability to discuss things. It's his editing concerns he's not communicating about either, and simply rolling people back. It's not just been happening over a few hours/days - this goes back quite a long time. How long do we give him? Ryan Postlethwaite 04:25, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

We can't make him communicate. What we can do is make his continued participation here contingent on him conducting himself like a civilized editor. Sure, we could leave it alone- if we want to make it clear that we welcome childish sulking admins. Friday (talk) 04:23, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Ryan, but dont think that de-syoping him is going to change the way he communicates. Tiptoety ^talk 04:27, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Well the block of User_talk:Alex_Vogt is a good block since it was vandalism, but the lack of a template or notice to the user's page that he was blocked (and how to appeal it), is disturbing to me. MBisanz ^talk 04:26, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

For now I would take a cautious approach, we can't force him to communicate but if somebody disagress with his sysop actions then we have a problem, the last admin to ignore communication when asked about his use of the tools was taken to arbcom and temporally de-sysoped. - Caribbean~H.Q. 04:27, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Here's another one, an IP block for 2 week [67] without any comments to the user talk [68]. Again, the IP was vandalizing and should have been blocked, but a notice should have been left. MBisanz ^talk 04:31, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

(ec)I think this provides a clear example of his ability to communicate, when Ryan left him a message regarding this thread he reverted it, if he does not care to even leave a message here what does that say? Isn't this dealing with administrative issues (if that makes any sense :P), and still there he is silent. Tiptoety ^talk 04:33, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Deleting talk page messages and not leaving block messages for blocked users - both more common occurrences than you might think. —Wknight94 (talk) 04:35, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but that does not make them right. Users should still know their options for requesting unblock. Tiptoety ^talk 04:39, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Then there's a whole host of admins to bring here too. Why single out Mikkalai except that he's openly pissed off right now? —Wknight94 (talk) 04:41, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

This isn’t singling anyone out, how many admins do you know that have a “I will not communicate with anyone” notice on their talk page? Ryan Postlethwaite 04:45, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

The same number who have had their comments interpreted in a way that got them blocked within the last few days. —Wknight94 (talk) 11:50, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Well the block of User_talk:Alex_Vogt is a good block since it was vandalism, but the lack of a template or notice to the user's page that he was blocked (and how to appeal it), is disturbing to me. MBisanz ^talk 04:40, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

There's no need for block templates because we have MediaWiki:Blockedtext. John Reaves 04:43, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Opps, did not know that feature existed. MBisanz ^talk 04:49, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

It's important to distinguish his editing behavior from his administrative actions. If he refuses to discuss reverts and the like then he can be handled like we'd handle any other uncommunicative editor. Being uncommunicative can be a form of disruption depending on the circumstances. Refusal to discuss admin actions is far more serious, and in my view would be grounds for summary de-sysop. You just can't block people and so forth, then refuse to discuss the matter. (I hasten to add that disinclination to respond to pestering and badgering is of course within one's right as either an editor or admin, but that's not the issue here.) Raymond Arritt (talk) 04:40, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm with Wknight94. It serves neither the encyclopedia nor the community to continue hounding him when he's already pissed off. All it will do is confirm his low opinion that us. Meanwhile, if it really bothers you that these vandals didn't get their notices, go ahead and post them. Hesperian 04:48, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

WKnight, if there are others as well, & I agree that there are, all the more reason for us to get started doing something about them when they get noticed. Are we admitting its unacceptably wrong, and saying we should ignore it? DGG (talk) 04:57, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

What do you suggest we do DGG? Tiptoety ^talk 04:59, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

If Mikkalai wishes to not communicate via his talk page, then go ahead (I'm not condoning such behavior though). But Mikkalai should be warned that any of his actions, admin or not, can be overturned without his notification and consent. —Kurykh 05:46, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

It's a bad idea... the only thing that now seperates him from the POV pushers is the mop. Will ^(talk) 09:12, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

That and unreasonable content editing. —Wknight94 (talk) 11:55, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

If this was a new problem, just waiting a few days would be sensible. As Ryan points out, this has gone on a long time. So we are faced with a question: do we tolerate admins behaving in unacceptable ways, or don't we? He needs to understand that his editing here depends on him behaving like a reasonable editor. The only way I can think of to communicate this message is a desysop and/or an indefinite block until such a time as he comes around. Yes, it's time for the clue-by-four; we've already seen that lesser measures do not work. And, for the record, no, I don't care what good things he's done in the past. Editors are only welcome here as long as they continue to do the right thing. Friday (talk) 14:38, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

This admin needs to be desysopped. No matter how good the admin actions, a refusal to discuss them automatically makes them bad - it is not possible to be a good but uncommunicative admin. We could do an RFC on his behaviour, but I think it's safe to say that he wouldn't participate. I have little experience with ArbComm; would they accept a case like this without an RFC? Would they accept it with an RFC? I know ArbComm's the last step in dispute resolution, but where somebody's admin bit is concerned, there aren't really any preliminary steps, especially given a refusal to discuss anything. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 17:12, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

One thing is for sure (in my mind anyway), if you can't find any sysop-related infractions, there's little chance of ArbCom even accepting a case against him. Why desysop someone who isn't misusing the sysop tools? I'm still waiting for someone to point out a sysop-related infraction... —Wknight94 (talk) 17:20, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

so your post here will most probably be reverted without reading is a very childish attitude for an admin to take and how are blocks etc suppose to be discussed with an admin who claims, he will not read his talkpage? --Fredrick day (talk) 17:20, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd agree with Wknight that there needs to be a blatant infraction of an explicit rule before Arbcom would jump into it. But a user's participation in an RfC isn't required. And there is a special Admin-focused RfC procedure. MBisanz ^talk 17:59, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Precedence, ArbCom has already stated that admins, more than any other user, must communicate to the community. Just wanted to point that out. « Gonzo fan2007 ^{talk ♦ contribs} 18:10, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

The problem here is that what he is not responding to is basically everyone saying, "Hey, why aren't you responding to me?!" I haven't heard anyone raise any other issue that he has subsequently shot down. —Wknight94 (talk) 18:34, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Arbcom has stated that admins must be available and willing to discuss their actions. He is not responding to more than just "why aren't you responding to me?" [69] [70] [71] He is refusing to speak about his own administrative actions. That is a problem. If he continues to refuse to discuss his administrative actions, he should be prevented from conducting them. Simple. RxS (talk) 19:28, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

The three diffs you provided are for Richbold, Count of Breisgau. While he didn't respond, he did actually restore the article as asked. Then, in your third diff, Friday (talk · contribs) says he's re-deleting it anyway and says Mikkalai is "being a jerk" about it. All this within a few days of being blocked. Gee, I can't imagine why he doesn't feel like talking to people. </sarcasm> —Wknight94 (talk) 19:55, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

All of them were in reference to admins actions and he responded to none of them. If he doesn't feel like talking he shouldn't be in a position that requires him to. RxS (talk) 20:09, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Sure he responded. He responded to one by restoring the article - that's a response - while another was an uncivil jab and didn't deserve a response. —Wknight94 (talk) 01:46, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I would draw the communities attention to a request I made to Mikkalai back in January, to which I never received a response. This matter eventually wound up at ArbCom. I had previously requested comment in December, last year, from Mikkalai regarding his involvement in the initial area of dispute, again to no response. I recall I checked Mikka's contributions at the time to see if he was editing, and simply not responding - and it appeared he was. As I remember, I didn't bother chasing the matter as I was then compiling evidence for the ArbCom. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:11, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure of your point here. You were questioning Mikkalai about a three-week-old block that had already been undone (with his permission) - a block of a user who has since been banned in the very ArbCom case that you're referring to. I might have ignored you too. —Wknight94 (talk) 01:46, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Ah, well, Zeraeph wasn't banned when I made the first request - and it may have actually impacted on the subsequent ArbCom which resulted in the ban if I had had a response - and neither was she when I made the second; since I was clearly commenting about ongoing situations. Indeed, I was trying to gauge the basis by which he gave his permission. Now, unless it is your position that Mikka knew that Zeraeph was going to be banned and there was no point in responding to a polite request for information to assist in the administrative processes of the community, I would gently suggest that your responses appear to be simply imply that Mikka is outside of normal avenues of communication. I thought that that was the basis of bringing this discussion here in the first place, which is why I placed the comments I did.

Also, I will try to remember not to bother you with bringing up mundane questions regarding your actions in relation to editors and other such bothersome members of the community until after it has been decided that there was no case to answer, or that they were right, or something innocuous like that.LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:09, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Community desysop?

Resolved

 – WP:SNOW, no consensus to de-syop. Take to arbcom if you wish to continue. Tiptoety ^talk 19:29, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The community can do anything ArbCom can do, as long as we have the necessary consensus. Typically this is defined as "no admin objects". If the community feels that it is highly unacceptable for an administrator to refuse communication (for an extended period of time), then we can decide here and now to desysop, and then ask ArbCom to implement the decision. As observed above, an RFC will not work because the user refuses to participate. If any admin objects to desysopping, we can refer the matter to ArbCom and let them decide what to do. Jehochman ^Talk 17:22, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Strong oppose: No demonstration of sysop misuse. Plain and simple. —Wknight94 (talk) 17:23, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Oppose - He has the right to walk away for a short time or a Wikibreak. Block for a long period of time (1 month?) if necessary to avoid harm to WP. Bearian (talk) 17:28, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

But he hasn't walked away and is not on a break, he is just refusing to communicate but continues to wield the admin mop. Corvus cornix_talk 17:53, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Oppose - Not yet. Maybe in the future if things don't improve or the circumstances drastically change somewhat. Rudget | talk 17:30, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Oppose - While I don't agree (and that's putting it mildly) with how he/she behaved - If the admin is determined to take a respite for a short while, then there is no reason to desysop. If he/she returns and something similar is brought to ANI again, someone should consider reopening this discussion. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 17:33, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

So this idea has no support. No need to continue. It seems that the admin can proceed with the current behavior until there is a disputed block. If and when that happens, they may end up in hot water, but we can cross that bridge when we get to it. Jehochman ^Talk 17:41, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

• He knows he has a handful of rope; if he hangs himself, so be it, but until he abuses his power, there's really nothing to complain about. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 18:06, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
• So then we do welcome childish sulking admins? Act as poorly as you want, just as long as you don't abuse the tools? --Kbdank71 18:20, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Well I don't necessarily respond to every message left on my page. And I've even disappeared for a few months. Does that mean I am subject to desysopping too? How about everyone just leave the guy alone and stop coming to WP:ANI for everything (this one has been a waste of time, honestly) and see if he does anything wrong. I'd rather he quietly did everything right than noisily did everything wrong. —Wknight94 (talk) 18:30, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd prefer that too. Then again, if you're quietly doing everything right, there would be no reason to come to AN/I for anything. --Kbdank71 18:33, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Correct but we haven't been to ANI since his vow of silence ---- except to discuss his vow of silence (and a desysop discussion resulting from the silence). —Wknight94 (talk) 19:32, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

• I think the question is whether a pre-emptive refusal to communicate about anything constitutes abuse of the tools. Being an admin isn't just hitting the block, protect, and delete buttons or whiling away the hours in elevated discussion on IRC. An admin whose talk page states: "I hereby pledge to not engage in any communication in wikipedia whatsoever" (emphasis in original) is abusing his power - my sense was that ArbCom has affirmed that communication is a central part of administrative responsibilities (e.g. here). Add to this that he's not using deletion summaries as even a minimal form of communication about his admin actions. What if he deletes one of my articles, even justifiably, and then I go to his page and see a blanket refusal to discuss his actions or respond to my questions? Don't get me wrong - I've never crossed paths with Mikkalai, I'm biased in favor of grumpy rouge admins in general, and I'd favor giving him time to chill and regroup. Still, I don't think we need to wait for a bad block to call this behavior "abusive", and if he keeps using the tools even non-controversially while refusing all discussion, then that would seem to be a problem. MastCell ^Talk 18:40, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

• How do we know if tool use is controversial? A user who is aggrieved may go to his talk page and be discouraged from inquiring by the hostile message. This creates a poisonous atmosphere and should not be allowed. Jehochman ^Talk 18:42, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

This could be rather controversial, or at least out of policy. Mikkalai deletes Marathon dancing as a copyvio [72] (which it was). He then restarts it as a stub, which is ok. But now he's deleted Special:Undelete/Talk:Marathon_dancing the talk page twice, without restoring it when he recreated and stubbifyed. There wasn't a copyvio on the talk page, just discussion. MBisanz ^talk 19:13, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Also, I'm not seeing any reason why Special:Undelete/Cut-and-paste_job should have been deleted. It was 2.5 years old and didn't have any deletion/questioning tags on it. MBisanz ^talk 19:19, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I suppose he could have deleted Talk:Marathon dancing under G8 (talk page of a deleted page) and then forgot to restore it when he recreated the article, but I can't see any reason at all to delete Cut-and-paste job - it's an adequate stub, didn't meet any criterion for speedy deletion, and wasn't sent through prod or AfD. What's more, no deletion rationale was provided. Hut 8.5 20:00, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Cut-and-paste job is the first small red flag for me but it was completely unsourced. Articles like that get me inching towards the delete button too. So, if he doesn't want to talk about it, go to WP:DRV or raise the issue at WP:ANI, etc. If further questionable actions occur, try a WP:RFC and eventually WP:RFAR. But pre-emptive desysopping is silly, esp. when someone is clearly pissed off. —Wknight94 (talk) 20:37, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose - Even while MasterCell raises a good point, I do not think that there is a clear cut case where this has ever effected the way he used the tools. I would say differently if he was abusing the tools, or using they questionably and did not discuss it. But that just has not happened, how do we know that he will not engage in discussion when he must justify his admin actions? Tiptoety ^talk 19:53, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose, of course. Taking draconian action against people who get riled when relentlessly trolled is not a great way to reduce the amount of trolling that goes on. Guy (Help!) 20:06, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

• But should a administrator get riled when trolled? If they are unable to re-main civil and keep a calm demeanor, then what good are they to the project. Maybe talking with those "trolls" may change their contributions to the project. (I still oppose de-syoping) Tiptoety ^talk 20:17, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

• By definition, talking to trolls is unproductive. Hence WP:DNFT. Wknight94 (talk) 20:37, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Users DGG, Kim Dent-Brown and Friday are not trolls, thanks. And calling people trolls is hardly ever productive. RxS (talk) 22:49, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Huh? Straw man? How did we get from Guy talking about trolls to me calling DGG, Kim Dent-Brown and Friday trolls? —Wknight94 (talk) 01:50, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

You invoked WP:DNFT in response to Guy's claim that he was undergoing relentless trolling. At that point the last 3 editors that tried to talk to him were those 3 editors, and they got blown off. They were not trolling nor were they relentless. WP:DNFT absolutely positively does not apply. RxS (talk) 05:19, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment One of my biggest criteria at WP:RfA is evidence of communication - I think it vital for the position. Perhaps it is legit to not respond to "trolls" - but it appears that that sobriquet is being applied a little too liberally here. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:17, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment Before everyone forgets, Mikkai is a long-term member of Wikipedia, who can be expected to know what is good behavior & what is not. As at least one person pointed out above, he hasn't done anything that deserves desysopping. On the other hand, he's clearly a burn-out case. He's demonstrated a brittle & contrary attitude (to put it mildly) towards anyone else that crosses his path for some time now: one may wonder which is worse -- being blocked by him or receiving a message from him. :-)

To repeat myself, he hasn't done anything deserving action -- yet. Refusing to respond to questions on his Talk page doesn't help him in the long run, although it might in the short term. Many cases of questionable behavior can be adequately dealt with by exchanging messages on a Talk page; take that option away & the options we have left are desysopping or blocking. Probably the best option is to let this slide, while keeping a careful, non-stalking watch over him in case he does cross the line & needs immediate handling. -- llywrch (talk) 22:33, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment How interesting. The rudeness and refusal to cooperate are troubling, and perhaps the project might be giving him stress. On the other hand, judging by the edits he's a productive administrator who does good work around here for which administrative privileges are important, and seems to have good judgment about staying on the right side of a dispute [73]. Maybe we should just agree to call him User:Dirty Harry and be done with it. It might shock people to hear me stick up for a problematic admin but I really think the way to go is through discussion, kindness, and understanding here, not arguments and threats of desysop. Wikidemo (talk) 04:02, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose very strongly, this is one of our best editors and admins and deserves our full support against the harassment he is receiving, to desysop would be to side with his trolls. Thanks, SqueakBox 05:08, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

• Who has been harassing him? If we can stop them, perhaps he will cheer up? Jehochman ^Talk 05:09, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Check his talk page hsistory for details. I have been watching it for a long time myself. Thanks, SqueakBox 05:11, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose If anything, the community needs to help good users who are stressed or harassed, not stress and harass them further. Kicking somebody when they're down is certain to hurt the encyclopedia and the community in the long run. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:48, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

While I would oppose a too hasty desysop on AN/I, I'm equally uncomfortable with the idea that we should just wait until something goes wrong again and then press the point. This is the third time in ten days that Mikka's behaviour has been raised on AN/I (see here and here). There are obvious civility issues, along with the unresponsiveness. But all I see is a variety of bad options. A longish break seems best, but that's pointless unless he desires it. Marskell (talk) 12:49, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose community desysop. Desysoping is not the job of a group of people chatted about it for a couple days then had a vote. This is a job for arbcom, who will examine the evidence and rebuttal in detail. If it continues then that is exactly where it will end up. I do however endorse the communities right to block disruptive users. I also condemn the unilateral unblock of this user as a violations of the blocking policy, a fact the unblocking admin couldn't care less about. I think this is an even greater violation of admin trust that what Mikkalia did. _(1 == 2)^Until 15:42, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Discussion

Obviously de-syoping is not the way to handle this, but something needs to be done. Why don't we try and discuss other methods of fixing/improving this issue. Tiptoety ^talk 19:31, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

• It should be noted that he is participating on other user's talk pages and article talk pages...[74][75][76][77][78][79]. --Smashville^BONK! 22:35, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comment This is outrageous conduct for an administrator. Does anyone imagine an RFA passing, where the candidate says "Once I become administrator, I plan to delete things and block people and I refuse to discuss it with anyone"? There is no way that this is anywhere within the realm of reasonable. There is a DRV currently under discussion, where the editor had to take the issue straight to drv because the admin refuses to accept any communication on wikipedia. If the deletion policy and the instructions at Deletion review say for editors to discuss the deletion with the closing or deciding admin, then this implies that the admin should discuss it with them. To refuse to do so id an abuse of the tools. What message does this send out about administrators in general, and our collabarative consensual community? This can not stand. Desysopping would be the appropriate measure to take, so how do we get that done? Someone said arbcom? Is that right? Lets take it there... who knows how?... lead the way. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 03:30, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
  • A clear weakness in the system. If this came to rfa, how would it turn out. Yet since this occurs after the rfa clears the only word is "live with it."--Cube lurker (talk) 03:40, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Yep, it needs to be taken to arbcom, though i do not feel comfortable doing it. I do not think desyoping is the appropriate measure to take. Tiptoety ^talk 04:29, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I guess I wasn't clear a week ago when the last Mikkalai post was started when I said "per his pledge of muteness and per his previous actions, the next step should be arbitration". Now a week has past since that pledge of sorts and there is continuing problems arising. Again, my recommendation is arbitration. — Save_Us † 05:46, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

So let me get this straight.. there's no actual problem (as in, no one is currently talking to him about admin issues), but there might be a problem, but no one is sure if it even exists? Don't you people have articles to write? -- Ned Scott 06:17, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Ned. Is there a specific admin move that people are concerned with? I see some concerns with Mikkalai about the lack of warnings or posting for blocks (it can be a problem if blocked users don't know how to contest their blocks). If so, someone here complaining about that should just ask him. If he doesn't respond to that, you have something to go to Arbcom with. Otherwise, this is just pointless. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:13, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

There are multiple issues Ned Scott, and they have been addressed many times over. Mostly it is his civility issues. This week in particular because of his 'pledge of silence', there are issues with him blocking editors and not issuing warnings, improper deletions and protections which were addressed on his talk page (responded to them with a revert) and issues with him removing content from pages (which he again responds with a revert of the message questioning him). Then there is the message on the bottom of his talk page: "If you came here to teach or bait me, this is a proof that you are a jerk and I am right.", which is a personal attack to anyone who thinks commenting on his admin actions is worth discussing with him. And if you look at the history of his talk page recently, you will find that you're statement "no one is currently talking to him about admin issues" is patently false. — Save_Us † 09:01, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

• My recollection of the Gustafson mess was RFC first, then ArbComm. And that case resulted in only a thirty day suspenseion. To me, that seems the most relevant precedent, and if people really are that bothered they should take the time to do it right - expecting no more of an outcome than that. GRBerry 14:31, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

• I have a wacky, loony, goofy, koo-koo suggestion: what if we wait until this is actually a problem, rather than just a potential problem? I can think of a lot of reasons why one might cut oneself off from communication temporarily: a death in the family, a medical procedure, religious reasons, or simply to introspect and clear one's head. I wouldn't do this myself, and I make clear that I'm not condoning it per se, but at the same time it's absolutely nothing in comparison to Mikkalai's years of excellent work as an editor and as an admin. Give Mikkalai some breathing room and see what happens. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:26, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

• Did you folks read before you replied? there is a problem. An editor had their page deleted, and they wanted feedback on what was wrong or what they could do to get it right, and they went to the user talk page of the deleting admin and saw that nonsense about that admin not being willing to discuss anything wikipedia-related. THis particular editor had the wherewithall to go to deltion review, but how many editors will not know how to do that? How many brand new editors will just leave the project with a middle finger waving at the rear view mirror? We won't know how many, and we won't know if/ when this happens. But at least one editor was denied the due process described in the deletion policy, to have a civil discussion with the deleting admin. So that is a problem. Now let's deal with it, as you suggested. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 04:17, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

• Take us to arbcom then Jerry! Tiptoety ^talk 06:09, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

One possible compromise might be for Mikkalai's talk page to direct users to somewhere else to get answers to their questions. It could say, for example, that if you have a question about a block or delete by this user, you can post your question to AN/I (or to the talk page of someone who volunteers for this purpose, etc.) and others can answer questions. Based on some of the above discussion, perhaps it would not be that difficult to explain the reasons for the actions, and others might be willing to do so.

Apparently (according to the talk page) Mikkalai wants protection from insults and is willing to end the vow of silence when an effective system of such protection has been established. Another approach, therefore, might be to try to set up such a system. Others, too, could benefit from such a system, if it could be designed to work well. A previous such system which was discarded was Wikipedia:Personal attack intervention noticeboard.

Mikkalai's talk page contains not only a vow of silence, but also generalized insults which may be considered a problem in themselves.

While there has not been support for immediate desysopping, nevertheless the community could make a decision that certain behaviour is required or that certain behaviour is unacceptable, with the possibility of desysopping in future if certain rules are not followed. The community might decide, for example, that someone will post a message to Mikkalai's talk page informing the user that from now on, any blocks or deletes must be accompanied by either a talk page that seems to welcome questions, or a direction to the user where else to go to get questions answered. Subsequent admin actions in violation of this could then lead to arbcom or community desysop. Whether the user actually chooses to read the message is irrelevant -- the ultimate effect would be the same. --Coppertwig (talk) 13:16, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Proposed resolution (Mikkalai vow of silence)

Resolved

 – Pre-empted by WP:ARBCOM case having been filed. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 17:42, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I am proposing the following actions, which will be taken if consensus for same occurs here. Please participate below this proposal in a vote-style fashion.

A message shall be placed on Mikkalai's talk page informing the user that consensus has been reached for this resolution, and that the community makes the following requirements:

---

The community is concerned with your vow of silence in as much as it can negatively impact users who have the right to discuss with you any administrative actions you have taken. In accordance with Wikipedia:Administrators#Administrator conduct item #5:

“ Failure to communicate^[80] - this can be either to users (eg lack of suitable warnings or explanations of actions), or to concerns of the community (especially when explanations or other serious comments are sought) ”

You are hereby notified that it shall be considered an abuse of admin tools if your talk page continues to discourage legitamate communication from users affected by your administrative actions, and you subsequently perform any of the following:

• Any speedy deletion
• Closing of any XfD with a result of delete
• Protecting any page
• Blocking any user
• Using "rollback" to revert any user's contributions

It is hoped that you will provide an exception to your vow of silence to allow such users to have a civil discussion with you as the need arises. Should you choose not to comply, the matter will be referred to the arbitration committee with a recommendation for desysopping, administrator probabation, mandatory reconfirmation and/or other remedies be issued.

---

• Support (as proposer) Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 00:32, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

* So you propse Mikka now can't revert vandalism? Maxim_(talk) 01:25, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

• • Of course he can rollback - but if there's a good faith concern, he should be willing to discuss it. Ryan Postlethwaite 01:31, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
    • All it means is that if he reverts anything and a user comes to ask why, he must respond. Not that he cant revert. Tiptoety ^talk 01:33, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

• (Just clarifying) My understanding is that the above means not only that the user must respond if someone questions a rollback on the user's talk page, but also that the user may not rollback (or do other admin actions) while having a notice on the user talk page that discourages people from posting there. In case of non-rollback reverts, that can be dealt with in the same way it is for non-admins, whatever that is (i.e. probably no action). --Coppertwig (talk) 03:51, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

• I support this - I think it makes it clear that Mikkalai can carry on reverting his talk, but he must discuss good faith concerns with his administrator tools - this is what we're all supposed to do. With respect to Maxim above - of course he can rollback edits, but if there's concerns over his rollbacks, he must communicate accordingly. Ryan Postlethwaite 01:28, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
  • A serious concern I have at the minute is that if Mikkalai was to go through RfA now, or in the substantial future he would seriously fail because this attitude is not expected of administrators. This isn't about reconfirmation or anything, it would fail because of an extremely serious attitude problem. Ryan Postlethwaite 01:35, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
• Support - seems reasonable, better than being de-syoped. We need admins that are willing to communicate. Use this as a final warning before arbcom. Tiptoety ^talk 01:33, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

** Then why is communication needed only for admin actions? What about edits. I also propose we abandon voting - voting is not a substitute for discussion. Maxim_(talk) 01:35, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

• • • Discussion has taken place, and Mikkalai refuses to be a part of it. I am not sure of a better solution right now. Tiptoety ^talk 01:38, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
    • But his keeping his sysop bit is what's under discussion here - not discussing editing behaviour is one thing, but sysop actions have more serious consequences. Ryan Postlethwaite 01:40, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

**** It says above Please participate below this proposal in a vote-style fashion. Ie we're going to just vote whether to possible drag an admin to arbcom to be desysoped. That's completely unacceptable in my book . Maxim_(talk) 01:43, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

• • • • • Please don't wikilawyer maxim - just stick to the point at hand - is this acceptable or not? Ryan Postlethwaite 01:47, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

******* I certainly am not wikilawyering, I only believe that it is more appropriate to discuss this issue, not to vote on it. Maxim_(talk) 01:53, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

• Support - He can decline to entertain discussion on his talk page as long as he doesn't perform any administrative actions, and he can perform administrative actions as long as he doesn't warn off discussion. The problem lies in the combination of the "don't bug me" heading with use of admin tools, and this proposal neatly addresses that. Raymond Arritt (talk) 01:40, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
• (ec X several) Support - I still think his behaviour is desysopworthy, and that we shouldn't need to explain to him that using his admin tools and refusing to discuss this usage is abusive, but this is a step in the right direction. If it results in an end to the abuse, then it will certainly have been better than desysop-ing. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 01:41, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
• I regretfully support this measure. Perhaps in some ways it makes us exactly what Mikka thinks we are, but when it comes down to it, this is a project - a group effort. Play well or don't play at all. ~ Riana ⁂ 01:43, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
• Support as fair notice and an opportunity to for Mikkalai to reconsider things. Jehochman ^Talk 01:51, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
• Support Per Ryan, he put it best. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) 01:56, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
• Support Puts the ball back in his court. MBisanz ^talk 01:57, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
• Support (but not voting here, and please remember I'm not an admin) as a final option, but I still hope people make every effort to get through to him, cheer him up, help out, etc. It's sad and a little peculiar that it comes to this. Wikidemo (talk) 02:02, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
• Big waste of time. Continue your witch hunts, please. До свидания. Maxim_(talk) 02:12, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Coming from the administrator who doesn't care for the blocking policy, that is saying something. — Save_Us † 02:15, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Witch hunt? Not quite. Just concerned community members because an administrator is completely disregarding the standards expected of a sysop. Ryan Postlethwaite 02:20, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

• I have to Support He not following normal procedures and communicating with editors on his administration actions as he should be. He has been very unresponsive to these problems and his behavior may wind up getting him sent to Arbitration and getting him desysopped if he's not careful. Until he is willing to talk again, and without being incivil, he should be restrained from using the tools in the manner described above. — Save_Us † 02:15, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose: Bring the matter to Arbcom or don't. Stop threatening that you will. If he didn't know before, he sure as hell knows by now. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:17, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose (ec) Mikkai has been part of Wikipedia for a long time -- as measured in years. By now, either he knows what is good behavior & what is not -- or he never will; I doubt that the second is the case, otherwise he would never have been given the Admin bit. While I wouldn't consider us friends, I do trust him to know what is the right thing, & not abuse this "vow of silence." (And if he surprises me & does something wrong, then we can discuss taking the Admin bit from him.) Putting this kind of restriction on him will only make him more alienated from Wikipedia, & either encourage him to do something unwise -- or give us all a vulgar gesture & quit. Let's treat him with some dignity, people! -- llywrch (talk) 02:20, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
• Support - I'm not an admin myself, but believe there should be some accountability and responsibility from Mikkai. -- Jza84 · (talk) 02:38, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
• Support It is unfortunate to reach this point but an Admin that won't communicate cannot be an Admin in my view. -- Alexf⁴² 02:54, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
• Support as final warning. Viridae^Talk 03:16, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
• Support I agree with the message at the top of the section. To me, he is, or was, a tad uncooperative. He even kept removing the YouTube chronology section on the Smosh article, which he claims as "unreferenced fancruft". Personally, I think it should be there, as well on articles of other YouTube celebrities. With him being a Wikipedian for over 3 years, I don't think I've seen stuff like this from him; and I probably don't trust him. Is he trying to leave Wikipedia, or taking a break? If I were an administrator, I would not revert posts on my talk page if they were important; he is. Maybe I wouldn't de-sysop him, but this might be why I support this discussion. SchfiftyThree 03:17, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
• Support - It's just not tolerable for an admin to retreat into the bowels of internet oblivion in such a incivil fashion. Per the userabove me, yes, as a final warning. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 03:20, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

  comment - Personally though, considering the other opinions and comments from other users, this should probably go to Arbcom instead of continuing down this road. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 05:02, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

• "Oppose" - I think a lot of people are missing the point. We don't have to try to wiki-lawyer him into talking, when his silence is in protest of wikilawyering. Passing a "resolution" (what is this, the UN?) is just silly. Meet him on his level, because ultimately, he's right. If you think he's abusing his tools, just make a list of abusive actions, run the RFC, and then go to ArbCom if the perceived abuse continues. They'll do something about it. You don't have to "!vote" on and post some kind of official notice on his talk page, where he won't read it; that's so... it's like kids playing dress-up. This is a wiki. Just do stuff that makes sense. Get to that place of understanding, and you'll find Mikkai already there. He's communicating with his actions. If he screws up, desysop him. Some wikis don't even have talk pages, you know. -GTBacchus^(talk) 03:32, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

  Let me get this straight, Mikkai is the one in a place of understanding here?! I could not disagree with you more. He is persistantly incivil making comments, like last week, saying "Next time you start policing, please be advised than in some cultures calling someone "ass" will have your throat cut". After a fit, he makes a solemn pledge of muteness to not communicate with the community. He then spends a week making controversial actions (detailed in this thread and the history of his talk page), to only reply with a revert, every single time. And the pithy comment on his talk page "If you came here to teach or bait me, this is a proof that you are a jerk and I am right." with 'you are a jerk' pointing to the history of his talk page where he has reverted any message sent to him. That sounds like someone who is understanding to you? A notice sent to him saying that if he is performing actions anymore without talking, that he will be sent to arbitration, is not a stretch. — Save_Us † 04:00, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

  Then just send him to ArbCom. It's right over there. You don't have to warn him; there doesn't have to be any red tape involved. We would all be better off if people stopped throwing red tape around as if we're using it as streamers to decorate for New Years. As for, "if you come here to teach me or to bait me," I'd agree that those are jerky behaviors in this context, although I wouldn't agree with characterizing any person as "a jerk". Just start putting the evidence together on a page. This "survey" seems to be a bunch of nonsense - not that anybody intended for it to be. That's why I said a lot of people are missing the point.

  I'm not claiming that Mikkai's attitude is right or helpful, but he is understanding correctly in this sense: Actions communicate. You can communicate back to him via actions, like starting the ArbCom case. These words are so useless. Making speeches and passing resolutions is a big waste of time, energy, bandwidth, etc. What's the point in making official, voted-upon pronouncements to someone who isn't listening? It just satisfies the crowd's desire to perform word-magic against a perceived enemy, and I have no interest in encouraging such desires. -GTBacchus^(talk) 05:52, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

  I supported above because I would have liked to not think an administrator would not have conducting in such a manner. The problem I'm facing now is whether to lend my good faith out anymore to this editor, and by supporting above I was essentially giving my last bit of good faith out to try and stop him from winding up at ArbCom having to deal with that, hoping that he listened to the warning. No extra hoop, no bans, no anything, but a reminder to please act in according to policy instead of ignoring them all, with very little benefit. To reply to you below, no, I'm not bothered by a 'bad' word, and fuck, I'm not bothered by his comment which can be seen as a personal attack. Know why? Because that little spat is only icing on the cake, i.e. it is the least of his problems right now. I'm beginning to feel talk is pretty cheap right now too, and what needs to be done is here. If no one starts arbitration within the week, I will. — Save_Us † 06:22, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

  Look, I agree with you about Mikka's behavior. It's foolish and unbecoming an admin. This "vote", however, is silly. It's precisely like voting on whether or not to jerk off in the shower while there's a willing partner lying in the next room. "Within the week"? Why wait? "If you don't stop that, we'll agree to seriously consider voting on doing something about it!" You're trying to pass a resolution to leave a warning that will be ignored. Skip it.

  I'm not sure why you mention good faith, because I don't see that remotely being called into question. We're looking at perfect faith here, and terrible judgment. People aren't desysoped for having bad faith; they're desysoped for consistently displaying bad judgment. I suggest you extend your assumption of good faith to the grave - dropping it helps you not one bit, ever. The only thing not assuming good faith can do is hurt you. -GTBacchus^(talk) 06:32, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

  Minor contradiction on your part: you said extend good faith the grave but then said stop waiting and go ahead and go to ArbCom. Well, I agree, I was going to stop waiting, but just a few minutes before I posted this I realized Ryan went ahead and posted on the RFAr page, so I will comment there later, when it isn't two o'clock in the morning. I could probably make an argument for his faith if I had to, because I feel most of his intentions here are not becoming of an administrator, but like you said faith doesn't get someone desysopped or even glanced at by ArbCom most of the time. Last thing I have left to say to you tonight is that my good faith is eternal and I do carry assumptions of good faith to the grave, but its not my grave in which my good faith ends. — Save_Us † 06:59, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

  That's not a contradiction. You don't have to think that someone's acting in bad faith to take them to ArbCom. Faith has nothing to do with it. You say that his intentions aren't becoming an admin, but you can't see his intentions. They're eternally invisible to you. His actions are unbecoming an admin. That's the only thing we need to concern ourselves with. Anyway, from the other coast, where it's only 11 o'clock, have a good night. -GTBacchus^(talk) 07:15, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

• Support. In my opinion, the user has already abused the user's admin privileges, by carrying out admin actions with a "vow of silence" on the user talk page and no alternative channels indicated for affected users to discuss or question the actions. One final warning like this before going to arbcom or community desysop seems reasonable to me; I don't see how it can hurt. Additional problems include the generalized insults on the user's talk page, and two admin actions with apparently insufficient explanation in the edit summaries during the time the vow of silence has been on the user talk page: protected Poon for 63 days , deleted a user subpage. In fact, the protection of Poon can be further criticized: Mikkalai reverted an edit just before protecting, and the edit appears to me to be (although perhaps unsourced and deletable, nevertheless) part of an ongoing good-faith content dispute, rather than vandalism. I sympathize with Mikkalai, and an hour ago I was planning to try to help by watchlisting the user's talk page, deleting personal attacks, attempting to reply to queries on the user's behalf, and attempting to get Mikkalai to allow a notice to be posted directing users to post their questions to my talk page. However, the action proposed here would save me the trouble and be better for those who might be affected by the user's admin actions, I believe, as well as helping to maintain Wikipedia's reputation and standards. (Assuming non-admins can participate in this discussion.) --Coppertwig (talk) 03:51, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

  "I don't see how it can hurt" - It can hurt in this way: it encourages the idea that Wikipedia is some kind of rule-bound, formalized, moot-court ceremony, complete with subpoenas and "due process". Mikkai's point is that people are getting way too lawyerly around here, and he's absolutely correct. The correct response is not to get even more lawyerly at him. -GTBacchus^(talk) 05:52, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose. If you feel that there is a problem, and that a solution needs to be voted upon, Arbcom is that way → (otherwise just leave the poor guy alone). — CharlotteWebb 03:59, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose on the same bases as GTBacchus and Wknight. Also, I think if we leave this piece of WikiDrama(TM) alone it will go away by itself and pushing the point merely enforces people's resolve rather than fixing the problem. Orderinchaos 04:32, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
• Support: After parsing through the user's talk page, I came across this message regarding poon. It was semi-protected for what was only simple, isolated vandalism (which I unprotected). No reply was given -- it was outright reverted -- and I feel that this is only becoming a more prominent issue as noted above. seicer | talk | contribs 05:00, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose - what's the point? Its basically a way to bypass ArbCom, but since there's no precedent for a community based desysopping, we just say "don't use the tools ... or we'll ... go to ArbCom" I see we basically have 3 options here, and each of those has similar possible outcomes:
  1. This proposal:
     1. It succeeds, Mikkalai ends the vow of silence
     2. It fails, matter goes to ArbCom, likely desysopping
     3. Mikkalai never ends vow of silence, we're left with a de facto desysopping with an indefinite threat of ArbCom
  2. Straight to ArbCom:
     1. Mikkalai ends the vow of silence sometime before conclusion of case or even before it begins
     2. Full ArbCom case, likely desysopping
  3. Do nothing
     1. Mikkalai ends vow of silence voluntarily
     2. Eventually goes to ArbCom
     3. Vow of silence continues indefinitely
• I see no reason why this should not just go to ArbCom now. Mr.Z-man 05:53, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

• And what happens right after you remove the inappropriate protection by Mikka: he replies in edit summary, "off my watchlist. you wikidrama lovers may keep bullshit off this page yourselves" — Save_Us † 05:44, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

  Sounds like a win-win situation: it's off his watchlist. He said a bad word, too; does that bother you much? I guess "you wikidrama lovers" is a personal attack against other editors of the page. I recommend dealing with such a personal attack by ignoring the attacker, unless the problem seems to be chronic, in which case we've got a dispute resolution process involving RFC and ArbCom. I don't know why people aren't using it, but prefer instead to invent new procedural hoops to jump through before going to ArbCom. It's much easier to just walk directly to point B. -GTBacchus^(talk) 06:08, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. I am not an admin; if I were, I would tend to vote Support. But I'd like to make a friendly suggestion. When the smoke has blown over, the community should decide upon a policy to handle this type of situation in the future. Delineate clearly the kind of behavior expected from an admin, and state in clear terms what action(s) will be taken against someone who falls short of these expectations.

Someone wrote above (I'm paraphrasing), "Don't you people have articles to write?" While I feel that this discussion was necessary, it seems like a lot of time and effort have been expended to conduct it...all the more reason to make sure there's a policy to deal with this type of situation in the future, so the action to take (if any) will be cut and dried and the amount of effort expended by the community will be minimized. Thanks for letting a newbie have the floor for a minute. Jonneroo (talk) 05:59, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

• We've got a policy to handle this type of situation. It's called the entire dispute resolution process. We don't need to write a creepy "Admins' Manual". Everyone knows what good admin behavior looks like: it involves using common sense and communication skills. -GTBacchus^(talk) 06:08, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

  By the way, this is nothing like a vote, and don't let anyone make you think you need to apologize for not being an admin. We're janitors; we exist to serve, not to rule. Your opinion in valued in any discussion on the wiki. -GTBacchus^(talk) 06:20, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Nobody made me think that way. This is my first time posting at WP:AN/I and I wasn't sure whether or not my comments were welcome, but thank you again for your kind words. Jonneroo (talk) 06:29, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose, per above, particularly per Wknight94 and GTBacchus. Either do something - go through dispute resolution, draft an RfC to measure the community's and Mikkalai's response or go to ArbCom - or don't. Drafting a teethless measure and asking people to vote on it (or "participate ... in a vote-style fashion") is a waste of time. --Iamunknown 06:10, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
• Taken to ArbCom - please see Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Mikkalai. Sorry guys, there's no way an RfC is possible given the whole idea is the subject should discuss concerns - I believe arbcom are the best people to solve this. Ryan Postlethwaite 06:25, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

  They can always send you back to RfC if they want that to happen first. It wouldn't take long. -GTBacchus^(talk) 06:50, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

• GTBacchus, thank you for the explanation; I have only been a registered user for six weeks. I suggest you guys go through dispute resolution, and if Mikkalai declines to participate, his refusal to participate should be taken into consideration in deciding the matter. It sounds like you guys already have a means at your disposal to deal with the situation, so I would kindly suggest that it be utilized. Jonneroo (talk) 06:24, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

  Yeah, I agree. This particular survey seems to have been set up to do some kind of pre-dispute resolution warning, which I've never heard of before. I can't see the point in it, but sometimes people like to invent procedure for the sake of procedure. Working against that natural tendency is part of life here. In this case, I think people are a little bit freaked out to see a long-respected admin melt down. -GTBacchus^(talk) 06:32, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

  I've had no dealings with him whatsoever, but if I were to take a guess, perhaps he has some off-wiki stresses and a wikibreak was overdue. It's a shame that perhaps he stayed around past the time he needed to take a sabbatical. Again, I am just conjecturing. But if he's a respected editor, contributor, and admin, it will be Wikipedia's loss if something happens to cause him to leave. It's rather a shame that things came to this. Jonneroo (talk) 06:39, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

  There are a million reasons a person's relationship with a website might go south. Some disappear and never come back, some reappear with new names and a new outlook, some... I don't know what they do. Maybe ArbCom will recommend a WikiBreak, and maybe that will prove to be an agreeable and effective solution. Mikkalai has given years of great work to this project, and nothing is going to change that. It's nice when good things don't have to end, particularly not on a sour note. -GTBacchus^(talk) 06:50, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

  Even though Wikipedia is not a social networking site, people, and the success of one's interactions with those people, will be the main reasons why someone stays here or leaves here. I may be new, but I think that I've seen enough of the good and the bad to know this to be true. Jonneroo (talk) 07:10, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

  Can I quote you on that? (Trick question - all contributions here are licensed under GFDL so I guess I can. ;)) Seriously, that's why it's so cool that these discussions are open to anyone. Some things are really clear from a fresh perspective. I'd like to make your previous comment the entire text of a new project-space essay..., perhaps "Wikipedia:Some Observant Words Regarding Editing And People" (WP:SOW/REAP)? -GTBacchus^(talk) 07:32, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

  Why, most certainly. I am quite flattered, but yes, feel free to do so. Let me know when and where it is posted. Jonneroo (talk) 07:38, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

  Ahh, SOW/REAP...very clever! I overlooked the acronym the first time. Cool. Jonneroo (talk) 07:42, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

• Support These are not special conditions, part of using admin tools is discussing it with people when they have concerns. This is something we expect from every admin. _(1 == 2)^Until 07:04, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
• Strong support By taking this step, he has effectively resigned his adminship. I would hope ArbCom spares us the Sturm und Drang of a formal arbitration and summarily yanks the bit from him. Blueboy96 07:29, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
• Refer to ArbCom. Looks like Ryan has already done so. Posting this to him will achieve nothing except angering him further. The legalese ("You are hereby notified...") is unneeded and it is unclear on who will enforce this and how. He's headed to arb anyway; let's just get it over with it. Marskell (talk) 08:36, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

  I think it's safe to say that, if you're about to unironicaly post the word "hereby" on a Wikipedia page, then you're about to make a mistake. -GTBacchus^(talk) 09:36, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

• Ban all aggressive POV-pushers and then see if we still have a problem with Mikka. Guy

  [edit] happened just after the drama here started. If you know the history between User:Mikkalai and some anti-Russian editors, you will understand what Guy means. Judging from the number of people (a lot of them admins) who seem to monitor Mikkalai's talk page, why did Mikkalai have to delete that obvious trolling comment himself? --Paul Pieniezny (talk) 10:54, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

(Help!) 09:59, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

• I've watchlisted Mikkalai's talk page and intend to revert personal attacks, and encourage others to consider doing so as well. However, I may not necessarily check my watchlist as often as Mikkalai receives "you have new messages" banners. --Coppertwig (talk) 12:21, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose this absurd suggestion. Complete over-reaction. If and when (and especially if) there is a problem, it can be dealt with at that point. Until then, no. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 10:29, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
• Comment Have any of you read Crime and Punishment by Fyodor Dostoevsky? It takes a Russian to understand the Russian revolutionary soul. Igor Berger (talk) 11:20, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
• I think this thread is largely moot at this point. There's an arb request posted; we can wait and see what happens with that. Marskell (talk) 11:35, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
• Post Request for Arbitration comment - I feel that this process was inappropriate, in that there are already processes detailed for resolving issues regarding admins alleged abuse of the position. I see that one has now been instituted, although I would have suggested a RfC first. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:17, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

  This process is WP:STEAM We should have gave the guy some time to relax and get to his usual self of editing. What is the WP:POINT Igor Berger (talk) 12:53, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose per CharlotteWebb and Wknight. I've been involved with these sort of cases before, and the outcome isn't generally one in favour of the measures or community set. I should refrain from generalisation, but in cases such as this (especially in the light of the Archtransit incident [which I'm not aliking to this situation]) there is no option but to oppose this. I don't feel that de-sysopping the account is an acceptable course of action, but neither do I approve of what is essentially a waste of time. Rudget. 13:39, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Just a heads up

Resolved

 – ahh, the clutter is gone

WP:UAA is kinda backlogged at the moment. Cheers. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 02:51, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

This is not worth announcing here. John Reaves 13:26, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

When WP:AIV and WP:UAA are severely backlogged, yes it is - and I'm not the only user who thinks so. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 00:44, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Not UAA, there's no pressing issues there. Unfortunately yes, you aren't the only one who thinks that. John Reaves 14:03, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

User:EliasAlucard indef blocked by User:Will Beback

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

• From the discussion archived and closed ANI EliasAlucard_indef_blocked_by_Will_Beback it is clearly can be seen that there is enough opposition for Will Beback indef block of EliasAlucard. It also looks that the decision to make the original block of 24 hours by Nandesuka into an indef block by Will Beback in the first place was done without measuring and achiving consensus. This is against Wikipedia policies of doing an indef block in ANI and should have been decided by a consensus first or brought to ArbCom for a decision of community ban.
• I would like to ask Will Beback to rescind the indef block and come up with some sort of a probation for EliasAlucard or let's bring this issue to ArbCom for evaluation. I would like to hear what other editors have to say about this. Because this is about preserving Wikipedia process of NPOV and not about taking sides of who is right and who is wrong in the whole matter at hand. Igor Berger (talk) 18:18, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Will, at the previous discussion you said , "I would support any strong editor who is willing to take a menoring position with his editor." Does that still hold? DGG (talk) 18:41, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Should EliasAlucard indef block be taken to WP:RFAR

Support The indef block by Will Beback of the EliasAlucard editor was done without a consensus. Igor Berger (talk) 18:18, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment: EliasAlucard, like any banned user, may appeal his block to ArbCom directly. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 18:31, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

No - it was done with the overwhelming consensus of admins who commented, which is the requirement for a community ban. No admin who disagrees has decided to reduce or remove the block. While some non-admins have disagreed with the basis of the ban, the consensus among administrators (the purpose of this page) has not changed. Avruch ^T 18:35, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Will had originally said that he would lift the block if one other admin said it should be lifted. I am an admin, and had said that I needed more time to decide and that it wasn't urgent. I don't mind closing that thread, as what was there was noise, not signal... but unless Will has changed his mind, this may well be lifted at some point in the future. I don't think it should be taken to RFAR until either an admin definitely decides they want to lift the block themselves, or they discuss it directly with Will and are in disagreement, or the blocked user makes an appeal. But, it may end up there... GRBerry 18:44, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

GRBerry I agree with what you said. This thread can now be closed and archived unless someone else objects. Thank you, Igor Berger (talk) 19:14, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

IP revealing personal info

Resolved

 – Blasted into space.

This anon editor has revealed personal info in 3 different places (last 5 edits). Can an admin delete these, and should they go to RFO? Thanks. Franamax (talk) 18:54, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

FYI - I checked a lot of this anon's edits. All were vandalism. (It's an alleged educational institution.) Wanderer57 (talk) 19:06, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I've sent an e-mail to Oversight-ers. They should handle it. The account has stopped since the last warning, but keep a close eye on it. - Mtmelendez ^(Talk) 19:17, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

It's done. - Mtmelendez ^(Talk) 19:43, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Followed up with friendly email to school administration. Should I just go straight to RFO next time? Franamax (talk) 21:25, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

For getting p-info removed, generally a good idea. For blocks or such (if needed), probably still here or WP:AIV. Thanks for bringing it up for attention, all the same. – Luna Santin (talk) 23:00, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

School has now replied with thanks and promise of investigation and immediate action. Extra rosaries all-round this weekend kids! :) Franamax (talk) 23:10, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Blatant Vadalism

Resolved

 – Stale

I would suggest that the IP Address 71.212.60.4 be added to the block list for the blatant and vulgar vandalism to the Kurt Angle and Christopher Daniels articles as seen in the respective articles histories. JakeDHS07 (talk) 19:07, 29 February 2008 (UTC)JakeDHS07

IP was blocked for 31 hours yesterday and has not vandalised since. In future, reporting to WP:AIV will get a quicker response. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 19:09, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Can there be a block that does not appear in the block log or user talk page? Just wondering how this works. Thanks, Wanderer57 (talk) 19:20, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, looking at the wrong IP; however, the one cited has not edited in 3 days, but was warned at the time. Anybody could be using it by now, so there's no point blocking it. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 19:24, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Wrestling and Olympic Games

Resolved

 – Semi-pp

I think that these two articles need to be semi-protected. For a long time, day after day all they get is vandalism. --David Broadfoot (talk) 02:29, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Magnets for the less mature editor. Both semi-pp for a month. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 02:34, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Haha... "less mature" is such a nice way of putting it. And you've chosen April Fool's Day for them to start back in! --David Broadfoot (talk) 03:08, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I didn't notice the date. I'll get me coat... --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 03:18, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Amazing cow

Resolved

 – indef blocked --Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:02, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Amazing cow (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) continues to add an admin userbox to their User page. They've already been blocked for 24 hours for vandalism and their Talk page protected due to repeated disruption there. The User page needs to be protected, or the User indef. blocked. Corvus cornix_talk 04:33, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I indefed them before you even posted this... But thanks for your alertness and diligence! Keep it up! --Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:02, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Sneaky vandal "Jerk, Beefy!"

Resolved

 – indef blocked — Coren ^(talk) 15:32, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

"Jerk, Beefy!" is the very reason that the "sneaky vandalism" definition is included in WP:VANDAL. Some examples:

• Keratoconus - added suggestion that obese people are more likely to be afflicted with keratoconus, citing article that does not contain any such statement.
• Flowers for Algernon‎ - using an edit summary of "removed duplications", one duplicated statement was removed along with another, not duplicated statement. A possible error, but acknowledged as deliberate in this diatribe."Jerk, Beefy!" (talk) 12:34, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
• Crepuscular & Julian Barnes - repeatedly added "Crepuscular is the favourite word of novellist Julian Barnes". Also in Julian Barnes, added unsourced assertion that a novel was being simutaneaously published in Romanian, giving Bulgarian name of novel.
• Cal Henderson - repeated addition of assertion that Cal Henderson is colourblind, with reference to a web page related to colour vision, but containing no indication that Henderson is colourblind.
• Max Miller - unbelievable assertion that "For ceremonial occasions, Miller's [statue's] outstretched hand is adorned by a large boxing glove", with invalid (page not found) reference.
• Rachel Robinson - asserts that "Author Judy Blume name-checks Rachel in her book Here's to You, Rachel Robinson", which is a book about a fictional teenage character named Rachel Robinson. Interestingly, the assertion in the Rachel Robinson article that it is actually about the real life Rachel Robinson was added by blocked user HappyUser (sockpuppet of blocked user Kitia), who seems to share "Jerk, Beefy!"'s interest in Judy Blume articles.
• Dark Star (brewery) - addition of list of beers, including "Beefy Bitter", which is not listed on the Dark Star site. This was also added to the Evening Star (pub) article with the claim that it won an award for best ale.
• Teletext - some plain old vandalism here
• Don Black (white nationalist) - slightly cleverer vandalism here, added category "Black People"
• for added fun, see Chris Parkinson a complete nonsense article, to which "Jerk, Beefy!" contributed the image. Note the overlap of articles edited by other contributors to Chris Parkinson. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Delicious carbuncle (talk • contribs) 05:53, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Concerning the last item, why don't you AfD it if it's nonsense? JuJube (talk) 07:03, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
    • I went ahaead and did just that. — Edokter • Talk • 09:41, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Maybe the user needs some guidence from a more experienced editors on what is Wikipedia and how do we edit it. S/he should try to get input from others before actually making an edit to build up confidence of what should be added and what should not be. Igor Berger (talk) 07:07, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay. Here's a reference for the Julian Barnes novel. It's true, I made a mistake by calling it Romanian not Bulgarian. . A more thorough discussion takes place in Vanessa Guignery The Fiction of Julian Barnes: A Reader's Guide to Essential Criticism Palgrave Macmillan, 2006. Pp. 240

But I've lost my copy at the moment. As I've stated in my 'diatribe', it's widely sourced across the net that Julian Barnes's favourite word IS crepuscular.

I've sent Cal Henderson a message asking him to confirm the colour blindness statement.

As regards the Chris Parkinson indident; apart from vandalism (nothing to do with me!), it seems like a fairly reasonably sourced article to me. I'm interested in poets based in Brighton. It definately doesn't look like a nonsence article to me.

Teletext: I think there are quite a large quantity of people who would consider digitiser, and the sacking of Paul Rose quite an important chapter in the history of teletext. Linking to it doesn't really seem like vandalism, does it?

As regards the allegation that I have something to do with some kind of sockpuppet Judy Blume vandal; I resent that. I was correcting vandalism on the Judy Blume page, in fact. And I think there must be quite a few people who like to vandalise Judy Blume. "LOLOL he calls it ralph!!1"

Maybe I've made some edits that weren't sourced. I'm sorry. Sourcing isn't my forte. I need to get better. But I don't like these accusations. "Sneaky Vandal"? "Jerk, Beefy!" (talk) 12:34, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

• I'm sure Chris Parkinson is a clever and witty fellow, but you didn't address the other exampls I gave. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:55, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh. I missed one that I gave the user a vandalism warning about. Asserted here that Paul Zenon was a sex addict. Again, the source was lacking any confirmation. And here's a not to be missed beauty that may be difficult for the user to explain. How much evidence is required to prove that the user is a sneaky vandal? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:26, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm all for assuming good faith; but every single contribution from this editor has been, at best, dubious. I was about to give them a sterm, final warning when I found a comment that "the game is afoot" on their talk page. Wikipedia is not a playground to see how much damage you can cause before being put to task. Game over: indef blocked as vandalism-only. — Coren ^(talk) 15:31, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

This could be an AIV thing...

Resolved

...but would someone take a look at the recent Public Broadcasting Service history? Bjbarnett2 and an IP have very painstakingly (over a series of nine edits!) changed all references to "PBS" to read "Galaxy". It's all been reverted by Georgia guy, but I'm thinking that BJ and the IP need an all-expense-paid trip to a nice quiet corner of nowhere.Gladys J Cortez 15:35, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

That doesn't appear constructive. Warn them accordingly and then report to WP:AIV. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 15:54, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Bulk creation of articles for French villages

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

Resolved

 – no adminstrator action is needed--Jayron32.talk.contribs 17:48, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Blofeld of SPECTRE (talk · contribs) is creating large numbers of new articles at a high rate, one for each French village. They're generated via a template: ("Created page with ''''{{subst:PAGENAME}}''' is a village and commune of the Seine-Maritime department..."). About 3 articles per minute are being created, in alphabetical order. The articles are one-line stubs; they have no useful information about each village other than its name and department. Not sure whether this is a good idea. --John Nagle (talk) 16:51, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

It was only about a week ago this was on ANI before, and it isn't a problem. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 16:52, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

It's come up here once a week for the past three weeks: it's a project, and the stubs will be fleshed out from fr:wiki once they're all there, which will be another week or two. Acroterion _(talk) 17:03, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

OK. It chokes the new pages page and makes RC patrol difficult, though. Should this be done from a bot account? --John Nagle (talk) 17:10, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

It does indeed, but so far nobody has proposed a way that all will accept to auto-patrol the articles . Given that Blofeld claims to have created 1 in 130 articles on en:wiki, but does not choose to be an admin (which would auto-patrol his creations), there ought to be something that could be done. Acroterion _(talk) 17:23, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

(Advice as a bot owner) : if I may, you should require that he add adequates interwikis to the pages (at least one), since it's template made. Else all the interwiki part will also have to be made by hand. Darkoneko (talk) 17:24, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

We have discussed this many times in the past month and said there is no problems. Just drop it and move on. As for the auto-patrol stuff, maybe have a permissions, similar to rollback, where their edits are "auto-patrolled" and is granted by admin only. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 17:31, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm closing this thread. He is doing nothing wrong, and there is no administrative action to take. A bot would be nice, but is not required. When he is doing it, all us new page patrollers are just gonna hafta deal... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 17:48, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Still, you have to wonder whether this is productive or necessary. Bulk creation of hundreds of one-line stubs per day doesn't seem worthwile at all. Surely it's far better to have substantial articles, or even developed stubs, rather than all this. Exploding Boy (talk) 18:18, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Of course it's productive. An article is better than no article. Someone who is familiar with the village may see it and add to it. But if there was no article, they may feel it isn't worth creating (or they may not have an account). Majorly (talk) 18:23, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

That doesn't sound terribly convincing. Accounts aren't needed to start articles. And if there's no article, maybe no article is needed. Are little-known French villages inherently notable? Important enough to justify the bulk creation of literally hundreds of identical 1-line articles? Exploding Boy (talk) 18:26, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Exploding Boy, log out and try creating an article. I guarantee you'll fail. And yes, all villages are notable. Majorly (talk) 19:34, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Problem AfD

Resolved

 – This one at least. Speedy deleted and the AfD closed —αlεx•mullεr 19:50, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Baradonai.pdf is an issue. The content was uploaded into image space, and then AfDed through article space by User:Undead warrior. I rm'ed it to take it to IfD as a corrupt image, and then decided CSD was better, as it's an empty image. The nom is convinced that "because a PDF is a condensed article", it goes in AFD, regardless of namespace and has reinserted the AFD nom. Could someone sort this out? MSJapan (talk) 19:38, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

IFD. I've listed a few myself. If he wants an article, make an article. It's media right now. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:43, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

It's already been deleted, but my concern is that the user claims precedent for nomming PDFs as articles, and there is therefore a misunderstanding that I think needs to be addressed by an admin more familiar with policy. MSJapan (talk) 19:53, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Request block on wikistalking single-purpose sockpuppet

Resolved

 – Obvious sockpuppet blocked

User:Halrours is obviously another account of the indefblocked User:Panelgets, User:Amazing_cow et al. --Saber^Excalibur! 21:51, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

You're gonna need a bit more evidence than contributions, friend... I'll warn them either way. Scarian^{Call me Pat} 22:02, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

What other evidence is there, especially since he's known to use proxies? But OK. Random IP address also involved in the Maddox trolling reverts an entirely unrelated edit of me [81]. Same IP reverts an edit on User:Panelgets talk page [82]. Panelgets in turn is (according to me) the same user as Amazing_cow per [83]. This is the very same editing pattern. --Saber^Excalibur! 22:07, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Danny Daniel (talk · contribs) redux

Resolved

 – Blocked by Evil saltine.

• DardGarnd (talk · contribs) is an obvious sock, and most of his articles are up for AfD. Can someone just take care of this so no more time has to be wasted on this nincompoop? JuJube (talk) 22:23, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Abuse by User:Tvarkytojas User:T_bullshider PLEASE PLEASE HELP

This user account lay mostly unused for months, anad then suddenly has made hundreds of edits in a few days, in bouts lasting for a few hours with many edits within a single minute. There is concerne it's a sockpuppet but I don't know how to measure that effectively. Cleaning of the categorization mess is going to take a while. Many of the edits are identical to ones tried by ZZcon earlier this week. I don't know the procedures, and I'd rather work on cleaning it up than tracking down the procedures. Can you (all) DTRT? Tb (talk) 21:24, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Please see also http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Lokyz&diff=192815984&oldid=192688463. Tb (talk) 22:27, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Again today, acting under what seems to be an IP address sockpuppet, he reverted the sock-puppet warnings on his user page. He is back again, every day, with his wild recategorizations. Can some admin please at least look at this and let me know? Tb (talk) 14:52, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Now there is a personal attack against me: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Tb&diff=194632004&oldid=194553392. Tb (talk) 13:17, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

And User:T_bullshider seems to be connected: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Tb&diff=194633125&oldid=194632728. Tb (talk) 13:17, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Will SOMEONE at least REPLY? I don't know the proper procedure, and the abuse is only likely to get worse. Tb (talk) 13:17, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment: This guy could really use some assistance. Everything I looked at looks like he's getting hit pretty hard for no real reason by these two guys and some anons. I'm uninvolved in this situation. CredoFromStart ^talk 17:44, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

And today again, User:217.44.56.101 has removed the sock-puppet warning from User:Tvarkytojas. I haven't a clue how to go about tracking a sock-puppet, or how to ask for some response to the abusive comments this person(s) have made, and I'm distressed that this noteboard seems to get responses for every other incident and nobody is willing to actually help me. Tb (talk) 12:49, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Repeated vandalism today, following the pattern (one very frequent change is to add Metropolitan Community Church to a putative "former Anglican Churches" category). User:217.44.56.101 has been used as an anon sock-puppet, I think, by this same person(s). There are also personal attacks left on user pages. Tb (talk) 12:52, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, this is definitely the same person as discussed in Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive325#Persistent disruptive re-categorizing anon and Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive284#User:Pionier. As I have already noted ([84]), I can't think of any good long-term solution... Warning him is rather pointless. Blocking only stops him for the rest of the day (although that is still better than nothing), for he will just create another sockpupet. Even noticing him is hard, for there are many potential targets (almost anything related to religions, Lithuania, Jews, communism, special services and martial arts), and many of the individual edits might seem rather harmless. It also seems that this user has created accounts in several other Wikipedias. As far as I know, his activity was confined to Lithuanian and English Wikipedias, but now there are accounts in German (de:Benutzer:Tvarkytojas), Spanish (es:Usuario:Tvarkytojas), French (fr:Utilisateur:Tvarkytojas), Croatian (hr:Suradnik:Tvarkytojas) and Dutch (nl:Gebruiker:Tvarkytojas) Wikipedias too... However, it is possible to decrease the damage a little - at least, the user page of Tb could probably be semiprotected to avoid edits like [85] or [86]. --Martynas Patasius (talk) 03:05, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Clem32 and User:Mario scolas

User:Clem32 is an account clearly opened with the aim to create a confusion with the account User:Clem23 (sysop on :fr as fr:Utilisateur:Clem23), who has been for several months if not more a favourite target of a disruptive and obstinate user known (among other accounts) as "Mario Scolas". See m:Vandalism reports/BogaertB for details. If you read French, see also detailed comments about recent developments on this week sysop's bulletin on :fr.

This week, we have got numerous attempts on :fr, by the use of false quotations, to try to discredit Clem23 as a racist (see for instance [87], in French -among many others). The only intervention of "Clem32" here on :en is obviously part of the same game, and the speedy reaction of User:Mario Scolas is not suprising and typical of his several personae play.

Certainly User:Clem32, only created as a disruptive account, should be immediately blocked Has been done through a parallel request on WP:UAA, while an administrative inquiry should be launched about User:Mario scolas who, though careful here on :en, has been disruptive enough on :fr and :nl to justify a strong treatment here also. French Tourist (talk) 21:37, 27 February 2008 (UTC) (sysop on :fr as fr:User:Touriste)

As noted, I've blocked the account for a Username violation. It's interesting that the account's two edits were to add a comment in favor of deletion of Boubaker polynomials, and then to reinsert the comment when Mario scolas (talk · contribs) removed it (calling it harassment). I've also warned Mario Scolas for removing the comment, and would not object to a block if disruption continues. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 21:59, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

We are currently facing some really serious issues on fr:, related to Mario Scolas AND to the Boubaker polynomials. A summary of the issues can be found here in French :

In short, the community decided to delete Boubaker polynomials, and as a result, several sock puppets and IPs spammed articles and user pages of admins and entourage of Clem23 (40+ and counting), insulting Clem23, and related sysops and users, mostly claiming that the deleting was a consequence of racist behavior. (Boubaker is Tunisian) Legal threats were raised, the number of affected pages is impressive : We are taking this problem very seriously.

There are no proved links between Mario Scolas and these issues, but a fact is that Mario Scolas immediately backed up on en: the boubaker controversy.

Now, about the situation here, I'll bring these diffs to your attention :

• (very bad English to French translation :) [Clem23's full name] [...] you'll eventually end up with slaps in your Nazi face
• [88] & [89] : it will be the first slap in your racist face
• Mario Scolas is reverting Clem32 : Please don't get fooled : Drama and disputes between two of his sock-puppets is definitely part of the modus operandi of Mario Scolas, as stated on the meta page (Creating conflict with 2 of his accounts)
• The AfD page of Boubaker polynomials is a mess : sock-puppetry, canvassing, and so on.
• Please take a look at the en: contributions of the French vandal IPs : they are all related to Boubaker polynomials.

We are currently investigatins IP ranges, as 196.203.x.x, 41.224.x.x and 41.226.x.x might also be involved in some related but undetected yet vandalism, but we'd really appreciate some help down here...

Thanks...

NicDumZ ~ 22:41, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Hello, and my apologies for this intervention out of the blue.

About that last part, to clarify, in The IP list, 196.203.x.x, 41.224.x.x and 41.226.x.x belongs to the true Boubaker (193.95.x.x does too, likely), whereas 70.85.16.16 & 64.131.83.138 are impersonations (supposedly Scolas), as I kinka doubt Boubaker know how to use proxies.

A Dual CU on en: and fr: (comparing with IP history) might help putting things to light, but this will be heavy ; really heavy to do.

Darkoneko (talk) 22:52, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Update : a few minutes ago, three new disruptive impersonations playing with Boubaker polynomials : User:Tonton Bradipus, User:Pere Cormier, User:Olmec23. Don't hope things to settle by themselves without strong sysop interventions ! French Tourist (talk) 11:53, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

A bit of clarity, again :

• the names refers to fr:user:Bradipus, fr:User:Hégésippe Cormier, fr:user:Olmec & fr:User:Clem23 respectivly, which are all frwiki sysops.
• The edits of all accounts were made straight at AfD/Boubaker's polynomials at random places of the page. He also took liberty to delete some comemnts statings which other votes were likely to be sock (see diff). I took the liberty to revert them "en masse".

Darkoneko (talk) 12:33, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Shell Kinney (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) has hit them all with {{usernamehardblock}}. Lara❤Love 14:34, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks. But what about the (99% sure) main account ?

Darkoneko (talk) 17:15, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Just as I was writing this, another (pretty obvious) sock appread : user:ClemClem32 [90]

As Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Boubaker polynomials (2nd nomination) is becoming a war zone due to all that commotion & sock-puppetry, does enwiki's policy allows to put the page protection at "autoconfirmed" level in that kind of cases ? (ever since the creation of the page 3 days ago, every single non-confirmed account & IP edits have been pov-pushing from Boubaker, and socks) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Darkoneko (talk • contribs) 17:32, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Darkoneko (talk) 17:18, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

It's usually just tolerated on AFDs themselves. As has been my frequent observation, single purpose accounts never actually affect the outcome of the debate, and 95% of them never edit again once the article is deleted. As such, admins here usually don't consider page protection necessary. Someguy1221 (talk) 17:36, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for the answer :) Darkoneko (talk) 19:38, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Mario scolas has been a very painful issue for fr:WP (260 socks) and nl:WP (over 30). I hope the vandalism does not spread too much here, at this time he is mostly focused on fr: admins (see the history of my talk page) but knowing him I doubt he'll restrict his vandalisms in the future. I hope you can do something about that, at this time he is only gaming the system, playing with his socks and proxies while trying to play the victim with his main account. Clem23 (talk) 17:51, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Last time the m:Vandalism reports/BogaertB case was really noticed here, as far as I know, can be seen in this noticeboard section (death threats and the like). Bradipus (talk) 22:02, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

BTW, of course User:Tonton Bradipus is a direct reference to me. Interesting links between User:Tonton Bradipus and User:Mario scolas:

• Post in a french spreaking chat signed Tonton Bradipus and linking to a blog of Mario Scolas (his signature i all over the page)
• Post of Mario Scolas in a chat starting with a texte referring to Tonton Bradipus. Bradipus (talk) 23:11, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

And, if I may, these death threats refer to you as "Tonton Vincent le Bradipus". Even if no links were proved at the time between Mario Scolas and these threats, serious doubts got raised. This makes a lot of coincidences... NicDumZ ~ 09:28, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I think I've seen enough of this guy. Indef-blocked User:Mario scolas. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:45, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Great ! Thanks. DocteurCosmos (talk) 15:26, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Fut.Perf., I bless you till the 5th generation  ;-) Bradipus (talk) 20:20, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Vandals flooding RfB with self-noms!

Vandals have flooded RfB with self-noms! They appear to have taken a cue from WT:RFA, and look what has happened:

• Wikipedia:Requests_for_bureaucratship/Ryan_Postlethwaite
• Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/RyanGerbil10 3
• Wikipedia:Requests_for_bureaucratship/Riana
• Wikipedia:Requests_for_bureaucratship/Mr.Z-man
• Wikipedia:Requests_for_bureaucratship/Maxim
• Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/Majorly 3
• Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/Wizardman
• Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/Neil
• Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/Acalamari
• Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/The Rambling Man
• Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/Avraham

Come watch the inevitable fireworks? Avruch ^T 03:02, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

• "This is MADNESS!" нмŵוτнτ 03:04, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

  Open season! seicer | talk | contribs 03:07, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

  Sorry, Seicer, you still have about 70 minutes more to wait before you can join in. Ronnotel (talk) 03:16, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

  My gun fell out of the holster. seicer | talk | contribs 03:19, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Madness? THIS IS WIKIPEDIA! Rebelyell2006 (talk) 04:23, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Never rains but it pours. Ban 'em all!!!! :D - Alison ^❤ 03:19, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, at least some mandatory checkusers? You never know, might be a troll trying to slip through ;) Ronnotel (talk) 03:28, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Good idea. Suggest rangeblock on 0.0.0.0/0 until checkuser results are in. Raymond Arritt (talk) 03:48, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Obviously all one user.... :P Tiptoety ^talk 04:35, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Suggest mandatory mentorship from stewards and that they are required to add themselves to Category:Bureaucrats open to recall. MBisanz ^talk 04:38, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I consider this canvassing. x42bn6 Talk Mess 04:39, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

That Neil guy waited for the Ryans to fall by the wayside before diving in for the win and great justice. I don't like him. Proto (talk) 10:26, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I can't say I'm fond of his alter-ego, Proto either. Especially since that guy quite possibly has a worse username than Neil. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂0) 10:31, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Loathe as I am to spoil the party, my application was forced upon me by Dweller and Andonico. No dirty self-nom for me. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:58, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

:D I'm not one for abbreviations, but laught out loud. Rudget. 21:13, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes TRM, your lack of self-glorification has now forced us to create a template for prodding people into the hat race. What shall we do with you. MBisanz ^talk 18:29, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

RfBs are supposed to be self-noms. Prodego ^talk 22:02, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

David Shankbone

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
David Shankbone's attitude toward authors who don't like the photos he's taken of them is bossy and bullying. He takes disastrous photos of authors. Taking more unflattering photos could hardly be possible (See Edmund White, A.M. Homes, Francine Prose, Kathryn Harrison, Mary Gaitskill). It's gotten to the point that authors he hasn't assaulted yet with his camera are afraid to go to readings for fear he'll be there, waiting for them. I don't spend much time on Wikipedia, but when I come upon an author's page with a terrible photo, I now know it's been taken by David Shankbone. I became curious about how these authors felt about the photos he'd taken of them, so I went and looked back in the history of a couple of them. First I checked in the history of A.M. Homes, and sure enough, someone tried to take down the Shankbone photo (possibly even A.M. Homes herself or someone close to her), saying it was not a good photo, and he repeatedly put it back. I also looked in the history of Sharyn November, and she herself had an exchange with him on one of their talk pages saying she preferred another photo of herself instead, but he would not let her have her way, and I don't remember the details, but his attitude was unpleasant and bossy. She quickly backed down sweetly. A few days ago I came upon yet another disastrous author photo by David Shankbone and decided to Google his name, because I've been thinking that sooner or later an article will inevitably come out in the print media about authors' frustrations with this offensive photographer. I wanted to see if any articles had been published yet about it. I didn't dig very deeply but did find that on February 18th, 2008, lots of Wikipedia editors wrote about their frustrations with David Shankbone (in a section called: Does Wikipedia want David Shankbone or should we just tell him to leave?), to the point that he promised he'd leave Wikipedia (he shouldn't make promises he won't keep-he didn't even leave for one day, as far as I can see from his list of contributions). All those posts from upset people have been deleted from Wikipedia, but I was able to find them by going into the history of the page: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Authors are not the only celebrities Shankbone has upset. I came upon discussions (on Wikipedia) about the actor Mike Farrell, who was upset by the photo Shankbone took of him, but Shankbone insisted his photo stay up on Farrell's page (it has now been replaced by a much better photo taken by someone else). And I'm sure it's happened to countless other “notables”. Many notable authors who are distressed by their photo will just remain quiet and try not to look at their Wikipedia pages, either because they don't know how to take down photos and post messages on Wikipedia, or because they fear that fighting David Shankbone will be futile and will only increase their distress. Authors are often shy and insecure about their physical appearance. Why make it worse? And why be stubborn and nasty about it to the few authors who do muster up the courage to request that an unflattering photo be taken down? As with any contributor to Wikipedia, David Shankbone should have no right to assert that his photos take precedence over the photos of others, especially when more appropriate pictures are available and copyright free. He claims that he has allowed better pictures to take the place of his, but this is clearly not true in many instances, given the way he fights to retain his pictures even in instances when any reasonable third party observer would agree that another picture is either better or more appropriate for the article. David Shankbone might be using Wikipedia to try and make a career for himself, and maybe that's okay, but he's hurting a lot of people along the way. I am an author, with a few published books, and there is a page on me on Wikipedia. That's why I care about this issue. I'm appalled at what David Shankbone is doing to authors. As I don't know the best place to post this message, I'm posting it in three places: David Shankbone's talk page, Jimbo Wales' talk page, and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Anonymous 374 (talk) 12:15, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

• Long personal attack multiple-posted (from an editor hiding behind a different account) compressed. ➔ REDVEЯS knows how Joan of Arc felt 12:18, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Is there anything of substance to the statement? --Kim Bruning (talk) 14:54, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I've certainly encountered situations where David edited vigorously to keep an image of his that was, on even casual inspection, markedly inferior to the alternatives into an article (most recent example I'm aware of: [91] [92]). Extending good faith to David, there are also times when he has reverted to his images when they are superior (eg, here). My experiences with him in this regard -- well documented here on AN/I -- is that he is not terribly detached when it comes to evaluating his own work, and is fairly quick to attribute bad faith to editors who are simply trying to improve the quality of the encyclopedia. I can certainly see how a less tenacious editor might be intimidated by this. I have no comment on the issue of authors being unhappy with photos taken of them by him, because I haven't been involved in any of those discussions. David is a valuable contributor with thousands of high quality photos here, but I don't think that those contributions entitle him to any presumption of quality for any specific photo, any more than those of us who have written thousands of words deserve to have our words protected from good faith editing by others. Nandesuka (talk) 15:09, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

• Harassment of DS continues, multiple postings to multiple forums, disparaging and insulting subheaders, nothing new here. This thread should be nuked, it's really getting tiresome. R. Baley (talk) 20:52, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

• I hate to find myself agreeing with a SPA account, but I do see a kernel of valid complaint in there among the hyperbole and ranting. The accusation that authors are "afraid to go to readings for fear he'll be there, waiting for them" is ridiculous, and there's no cause to assume Shankbone's contibutions aren't wholly in good faith: as has been pointed out, he's contributed many, many quality images. But some of those cited above are unflattering past any bounds of reasonability. Compare our Francine Prose with an official portait (and yes, I know we can't use it): it's barely recognisable as the same person, and in "our" picture she's clearly distracted and caught offguard. Compare our Kathryn Harrison and a press photo. Again, barely recognisable, seems annoyed and/or startled. Our Mary Gaitskill vs. press photo. Again, I stress that I don't consider any of these to be bad-faith contributions, but I feel extremely unflattering portraits, especially of BLPs, can be worse than having no photo at all. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:12, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

It's probably quite difficult to get a good picture of an author at a reading. They don't really have the time to pose if they're busy signing autographs or speaking about their book. --clpo13_(talk) 21:17, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Plus, if any subject doesn't care for the best "free use" photo that Wikipedia has, they can always freely supply one that is better. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 21:19, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Been there, done that, printed the crap photos 'cause they were all I had. It's not really easy to compare a photo shot under studio lights with great makeup and perfect conditions to one shot under fluorescents after the subject has been signing books or talking for some time. Most of the time, people don't look like they do on TV or in the magazines, and these pictures reflect that. As Agne27 says, if the subjects want to supply a free use image to work with, they're free to do so. I can't really speak on the accusations that David Shankbone is scaring people off (though I doubt that's the case without firm documentation of it), but the level of hyperbole involved in these continuing complaints seems to be really overboard at times. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:23, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, exactly. Studio photos are quite often virtually unrecognisable as the person you meet in the street, it's a bit strange to suggest that the everyday look is somehow less "correct" than the studio portrait. The repeated insertion of the baseless Michael Lucas dispute doesn't help, either, especially since the anon ios block evading to do it. I searched OTRS and found four threads that might be construed as complaints about David Shankbone. Two were people who sent in better pictures to replace ones they didn't like, one was a fact-free rant about some editing dispute on Wikinews, and one appears to be a complaint from a PR firm that David Shankbone wouldn't let them whitewash the article on a client (my heart bleeds). If the problem were anything like as it is being made out here, I think we'd have seen a lot more than this. Guy (Help!) 08:13, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Actually this SPA IP admits to being the same person who posted obscene and graphic insults against David Shankbone in the recent past.[93] I know this person has been blocked before on previous roving IPs. When the person approached me, I found myself assuming good faith and supposing there might be meritorious concerns and a little trouble adjusting to site standards. Then I saw the personal attacks. Intolerable. If the behavior doesn't cool down then a community ban might be in order. Durova^Charge! 21:25, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) If any specific individual has a problem with what photo we are using there is an easy solution; release a better photo under the GFDL or appropriate creative commons. Can we move on? JoshuaZ (talk) 21:26, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Might I also point out that the title of this thread is rather unfair to David and somewhat inflammatory--especially since it is so unsubstantiated. I know we wouldn't tolerate a similar claim in a BLP article and I see no reason why we should in an AN/I thread about a fellow Wikipedian. At the very least the title should be refractored and shortened to just David Shankbone. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 21:30, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Good point. Done. JoshuaZ (talk) 21:31, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

• it makes a discussion rather hard to follow when sections get blanked. DuncanHill (talk) 22:42, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

• Support ban as proposed by Durova — It seems that every two or three days, the same IP editor posts incessant personal attacks against one of our best contributors. This has happened on the administrators boards, on WT:JIMBO, and on just about every other page this attacker can think of. I don't see why we should continue to put up with this and I think this individual should be regarded as having exhausted our patience and be banned by the Wikipedia community. *** Crotalus *** 02:17, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
  • To give examples of how bad the problem is, see these diffs.[94][95][96][97][98][99] The article talk page has been semiprotected ever since then. Durova^Charge! 02:44, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
• Support ban as proposed by Durova et al. Bearian (talk) 02:50, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
• Support ban as an effective deodorant for Durova et al. Move ova Durova. Charge! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.68.115.156 (talk) 04:46, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse ban per Durova. seicer | talk | contribs 04:49, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse ban against said IP editor continuing to harass one of Wikipedias best editors. Lets help David out here, he has done little to deserve this... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:53, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse ban - This is starting to get ridiculous. Even though I haven't actively participated in the related discussions, my patience is exhausted just from following them. --jonny-mt 05:03, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
• Support ban. It gets tiresome really. R. Baley (talk) 05:18, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Just for the record: I posted the original post in this thread and I am not any of these other IP addresses or people I'm being accused of being, and I don’t know any of them. I am an individual who has never before written anything about David Shankbone. The topic of his awful author photos is the first time I’ve written about him. I’d been thinking about it for a long time, but kept trying to talk myself out of it, not wanting to waste the time. The urge became too strong when I saw yet another awful author photo taken by David Shankbone. I’m sorry that he seems to coincidentally be having problems with other IP addresses. I have now seen some of the insults that were directed at him (I hadn’t seen the insults over the topic of the porn star when I wrote my first post) and I completely disapprove. But even though I am sorry he is going through this stress, I feel even more sorry for all the authors he is hurting, many of whom will probably never even speak up about it. But you can be sure they’re not pleased about what he’s done. As I mentioned in my original post, I witnessed two of them on Wikipedia object to photos he insisted to put on their pages (and I wouldn’t be surprised if many more authors objected, too, to his photos of them, but I didn’t dig very deep). He acts like a tyrant. He should be a little more sensitive, a little more human, and not ruthlessly use the following arguments I’ve seen him use: but my photo is bigger, my photo is more recent, my photo is better than your photo, the fact that you are even writing here is questionable regarding neutral point of view so don’t you dare object to the photo I took of you or you may not be allowed to write at all (I’m paraphrasing this from memory, but he gave this kind of argument to Sharyn November (she's an editor at Viking and has a Wikipedia page on her), which seemed to scare her because she immediately backed down). Perhaps his arguments are valid according to Wikipedia rules, but if an author prefers a more flattering photo, or no photo, rather than a hideous photo that Shankbone took of them, it seems right that their feelings be taken into account. These are living people, and they are being made miserable when they are told: no you cannot use your preferred photo, I will use my hideous photo of you because it’s a little bigger, or a little sharper when blown up to gigantic size, or a little more recent, or whatever… Thank you to the people who have posted message here or on my talk page saying they agree with me. I hope I will not feel compelled to keep writing about this because I didn’t intend to spend much time on this (I also didn’t realize I wouldn’t have free-speech on Wikipedia and that my posts would be erased (as it was on Jimbo’s page, and as it was here, partially) or altered (as my title was) as soon as I’d posted them). But if I keep seeing terrible author photos popping up, I may be unable to resist voicing my distress again. I know many of these authors personally. Perhaps that’s why I feel sorry for them. It pains me to see them portrayed at their absolute worse. But most of all I’m sad about how it makes them feel.Anonymous 374 (talk) 08:27, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

And I'm sad about how cowardly you appear to be be in not using your real account here; hiding behind this SPA account in order to make attacks on a good editor (and great photographer) is disgusting and you should be ashamed of yourself. I wonder why anything to do with images on Wikipedia is always poisonous? What is it about images that brings every troll and sociopath out on the noticeboards? ➔ REDVEЯS knows how Joan of Arc felt 08:36, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

With crowds like these at the Brooklyn Book Festival (or a Barnes & Nobles, or whatever) authors look the way they want the public to see them. WP:NPOV should apply to photography, not just edits, and I see no need to have photos that whitewash what a person looks like, especially if they are going to big events looking that way.

The argument by the Anonymous 374 above is so stupid, I wasn't going to address. First, Sharyn November and I did not have a bad exchange, she actually asked me to send her the other photos I took of her, and deleted the one that she had up.[100] In the end, writers and authors are not starlets and celebrities. They typically do not care what they look like because they are not "sold" by their looks, but by their thoughts and words. But if they are concerned, then why is Francine Prose, or A.M. Homes, or any other author appearing at one of the largest literary events in the country, the Brooklyn Book Festival, looking the way Francine Prose does in that photo? Because she didn't expect to be seen or photographed by the press at a gigantic event with over 200 authors? Yeah, sure. And yes, just like we don't take into account that subjects don't like some of the things that are found about them on their Wikipedia profiles, some subjects may not like that a photo might look like they really look in real life. My heart bleeds. So we shouldn't have NPOV in photos? We should hide what people really look like? Should we do the same for our text then, or will the Anonymous user next be complaining aboutBut we have an Anonymous user, most likely the IP range (can someone please perform a WP:Checkuser?) upset and sad that a site full of volunteers don't hire out studios to do our photos. Next, Anonymous will be "sad about how it makes them feel" when we report things that are unflattering and bother the subject. Perhaps we should whitewash the whole site, and not just the photos, ay Anonymous? --David Shankbone 08:52, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Of course, some sites take my photos and make comic strips out of them. --David Shankbone 09:02, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Those illustrations are laughable. Aren't there child labor laws in this country? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.76.12.139 (talk) 11:43, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Nothing unusual about that cartooning style, and it's a funny cartoon. Keep in mind that cartooning standards have dropped a tad since the days of Prince Valiant. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 11:48, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Right, accept mediocrity and low-brow content because things have gotten so mediocre and the culture has been dumbed down. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.76.12.139 (talk) 12:22, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

It's a funny cartoon that effectively makes fun of its subject while citing a time-honored joke. Its style doesn't matter. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 12:35, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Note, in case it hasn't been pointed out somewhere that I'm not aware of, the IP two comments above appears to be another sock of the accused vandal. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 12:37, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

That figures. I'm at a loss as to what the real issue is here. It sounds like some folks don't like some of David's photos. I'd like to know what the issue is with, for example, the crowd shot just above. What's the problem? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 12:41, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

B-Bugs, it takes something from nothing and makes something mediocre out of it. Style doesn't matter?? -- man you are a card-carrying member of this culture! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.76.12.139 (talk) 13:00, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm waiting for you to call it "sophomoric". Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:06, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, he's been blocked, so he can't say anything just now. So I'll respond anyway: "'Sophomoric' is an elitist code word for 'funny'." Paraphrasing P. J. O'Rourke. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:16, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Hey Bugs, you jumped in front of Will. Did you say "excuse me?" I don't hafta 'cuse myself, 'cuz I'm a Noo Yawker, oh, I mean, a Newarker (accordin' ta Shankhead). I don't know about your contemporary take on "elitist code words" -- sounds more like resignation to mediocrity on your part. The "comic strip" is more soporific for me. Kisses all around, Ban this! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.127.227.212 (talk) 13:31, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Looks like he found another IP to use, not blocked yet. And an obvious troll. See ya. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:55, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Support ban of Anonymous, agree that the subject can always provide a better picture. Will ^(talk) 13:05, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

That should always be made clear to them first and in the most polite manner possible. I'd like to direct everyone to Talk:Martha Nussbaum for a revealing conversation on the subject. Relata refero (talk) 19:59, 29 February 2008 (UTC)