Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive655

User:CactusBot

Could someone block my bot for 12 hours? There was an enhancement suggestion I want to implement and I've currently no access to the computer where bot runs.--Cactus26 (talk) 14:33, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Done. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:40, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks.--Cactus26 (talk) 14:42, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Policy on Classification by Ethnicity, Gender, Religion and Sexuality

Resolved

 – this is a content dispute and not an issue for admins; please visit Wikipedia:Content noticeboard instead!!

Hi, I have a problem with the article White Argentine. In the article I mentioned many people who are Argentine by birth and by option (they immigrated when they were children and stayed in Argetnina until their death, or they are now living there). All those people mentioned in the article are perfectly Caucasian by phenotype, and all have European/Middle Eastern ancestry. To see the names, check this older version of the article, for they are now removed. This is because some users appeared criticizing the article and alleging that mentioning all those persons without a source that explicitly define them as "White Argentine/Argentinian" was a breach to Wikipedia's BLP policy. Is that true? Because I read the article of WP policy on categorization by ethnicity, gender, religion and sexuality, and the topic "Race" is still under dispute. Besides, one of the users that criticizes the article is also involved in the proposal/discussion/RfC of the policy itself. If the matter isn't still resolved, can they apply a rule that it is not fully valid yet? If I provide sources that every living Argentine mentioned in the article is of predominantly European ancestry, isn't that enough to define him/her as White? Please, help me clarify this doubt.--Pablozeta (talk) 12:29, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

It's not clear to me what administrator actions you want here. But anyway, Wikipedia:BLPCAT has been part of BLP policy for a long while and is linked from the page you link to. I can't remember if the par specifically mentioning lists has always been there but I think it's been clear for a long time it's meant to apply to them. Of course even without that section, labelling a LP without a clear source (whether using WP:Syn reasons or not) still wouldn't be acceptable since it's a basic part of BLP. Nil Einne (talk) 15:26, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

When in doubt, the principle of self-determination is paramount. You need to provide evidence that a person thinks of themselves as a member of the category. In order for a person to be listed at the White Argentine, or categorized with a similar category, you need to provide clear, unambiguous evidence that the person thought of themselves in those terms, such as a direct quote from the person where they call themselves that term. Race is not a term which has any basis except one which is culturally determined, so there is no absolute "scientific" means of identifying a person with a race. Treat race like religion; if a person doesn't clearly state they are a member, don't include them. --Jayron32 15:35, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

"All those people mentioned in the article are perfectly Caucasian by phenotype". When the misused term from genetics is replaced by what Pablozeta apparently means, this amounts to "they look white to me". Also, Pablozeta himself has stated that the term 'White Argentine' (or any reasonable translation of) isn't commonly used in Argentina (here). On this basis 'White Argentine' isn't an ethnic group at all, and therefore cannot be the subject of an article about one. This is all going over old ground, and the relevant policy has been explained to him numerous times. The article as it stood when I and other 'outsiders' first became involved seemed to me to be in gross breach of WP:OR, WP:SYN, WP:V, WP:NPOV and WP:BLP. Given that Pablozeta seems unable to understand this, I have, along with others, sought to correct the worst errors of the article, though it clearly needs more work. It is of course debatable whether the article is necessary at all, given the excellent coverage of Argentinian migration, ethnicity, culture etc in other Wikipedia articles. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:53, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Andy the Grump - this is a huge problem with articles about ethnicity in all of latin america. American racial categories are being conflated with ethnicity and applied into a context where they are not valid or mean something else, and with no supoporting sources people are being conscripted into racial groups (posing as if they were ethnic groups) based solely on subjective perceptions of their family background or phenotype. It is clearly not viable.·Maunus·ƛ· 17:10, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

• - The User:Pablozeta clearly wants an answer to this as today he has asked the exact same question here and at the Vilage pump and twelve different sysop talkpages. - Off2riorob (talk) 21:03, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Unregistered bot?

It would appear that Fti74Bot (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is an unregistered bot. WuhWuzDat 18:46, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Blocked. Nakon 18:59, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

IP 70.127 edit warring and using personal attacks at Mercy11 on Oscar López Rivera

Resolved.

can someone monitor this article, the IP is edit warring with Mercy and calling him/her nasty names, they just called Mercy a retard which is offensive, I think this IP needs a block to get their attention--Lerdthenerd (talk) 12:25, 7 December 2010 (UTC) I provided a source which proves that clemency was offered on August 11, 1999. Not September 11, 1999. The source also proves that Oscar refused clemency. Despite this, Mercy11 keeps reverting the source and claiming that Oscar was not offered clemency. This is false. What's the problem? I'm just trying to add correct information. Read the source if you don't believe me. http://www.tlahui.com/politic/politi99/politi8/pr8-30.htm --70.127.202.197 (talk) 12:50, 7 December 2010 (UTC) you called him a retard thats the problem, it was uncivil you should have stopped and went to the talkpage -Lerdthenerd (talk) 13:05, 7 December 2010 (UTC) There are incivility concerns, and I have spoken to the contributor about that. However, the incident occurred before your final warning. While the tone following that final warning still could use improvement, the "retard" comment has not been repeated. I don't think a block would be appropriate. In terms of edit warring, it's hard to see what's going on, since Mercy has been reverting without comment, but now that you've opened a discussion at the talk page perhaps conversation will follow, if the IP's source is for some reason in dispute. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:32, 7 December 2010 (UTC) ok but if you read the edit summaries, 70.127 has insulted mercy in all his edit summaries, and then he taunted him on his talk page saying he couldn't block, but we will wait and see how things go Moonriddengirl --Lerdthenerd (talk) 13:36, 7 December 2010 (UTC) Since Mercy has again reverted without explanation, here, I've made sure that s/he is aware of this thread and asked for participation either at the article's talk page or here. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:02, 7 December 2010 (UTC) THE ANONYMOUS user is trying to play fool with the rest of us here: This matter is not about when clemency was or was not granted, but about uncivility by the anonymous user. An encyclopedia cannot be built if you are dealing with uncivil people, as the anonymouns user has demonstrated to be. The sockpuppet anonymous user (first anonymous at 72.186.98.71 and then annonymous at 70.127.202.197) violated Wikipedia WP:CIVILITY policy. My reverts violated no policy. The history of violations by this annonymous user (who may quite well be a sockpuppet of a real registered user as well) goes like this: 72.186.98.71 at "White Eagle (robbery)": "You're a moron" --- HERE "You're an idiot" --- HERE "You're an idiot", again --- HERE 72.186.98.71, then showed up as 70.127.202.197 (locations 12 mi away from each other) at "Oscar López Rivera" as follows: "I already did[,] you moronic radical twit" --- HHERE "Here's your sources, you radical nutcase" --- HHERE "Not gonna happen, retard." --- HHERE "You are a major retard." --- HHERE The anonymous user continued the offensive, personal attacks even after I contacted user at the anonymous page in question HERE. The user changed IP addresses immediately after this to the 70.127.202.197 address and has not abandoned that IP address since. If we check the dates and times of the above edits, the offenses and personal attacks had no other intention than to disrupt the harmonious building of the encyclopedia. The attacks were deliberate, premeditated, repeated and, to this moment, unremorseful. They harmed the building of the encyclopedia by being disruptive as they were also intended to garnish moments of glory and delight for the offending user at the expense of the intention of producing personal harm. This anonymous user should not be allowed such significant levels of disruption to the encyclopedia. The user should not only be blocked at the 2 IP addresses, but the 2 articles in question should be locked until such time as civil editors can look into the validity of the anonymous user's alleged corrections of fact. A 30-day lock should be granted given the current and upcoming holidays. Again, the anonyoums user is trying to play fool with the rest of us here: This is not a matter of the article having an error of fact on the date of the presidential clemency; this is about uncivility by the anonymous user, and we should not lket the user fool us into thinking this is about anything else but that. An encyclopedia cannot be built if anonymous users are holding a gun to your head while arguing about an alleged matter of fact. The actions of the anonymous user are a violation of policy, and it should be dealt with accordingly: and prevent further changes to the article by anyone who is not a registered user. My name is Mercy11 (talk) 02:24, 8 December 2010 (UTC), and I approve this message. Civility is important, but we have processes for handling problems with it. If somebody is aggressive in a way that you think is detrimental to the project, you need to seek assistance, per WP:NPA. Blanket reversions of unblocked contributors because you find them incivil is a kind of vigilante justice that's not supported by any policy. There's no doubt that this IP's behavior has crossed the line, particularly as you point out that it has persisted across two IPs. Blocks are not punative, but preventative, however. If the behavior continues, a block will be certainly be forthcoming. But there is no exception for reverting rude people at Wikipedia:Edit warring. It's also important to provide an accurate edit summary. If you haven't looked into the content, your edit summary should make that clear, rather than implying that yours was the "last good version." And you have now not only reverted the IP, but reverted this edit by presumably an uninvolved editor (User:Quazgaa) with a summary reading, "Issues regarding this article are under currently discussion at the ANI board." The article isn't locked. Is there substantive reason to revert User:Quazgaa? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:54, 8 December 2010 (UTC) The short answer is "NO", and I went back into the article to undo my revert of Quazgaa's edits but I see the anonymous user in question had already reverted them - as well as his own. The longer answer is that my intention was not to revert Quazgaa: I was reverting the Anonymous User's comments when I got an Edit Conflict, due to Quazgaa's concurrent edit. Thus I reverted both - it seemed like the right thing to do at the moment, and as a note to Quazgaa and any potential future editors I also entered, at the time of my double undo, a note into the article's Talk Page HERE that the matter was being discussed in this forum, and hopefully put on hold other editors' potential changes. I don't claim to be perfect, and maybe some might consider my double undo wrongful action, but the record shows that the anonymous user started the controversy and continues, still unremoseful, to disrupt the encyclopedia by dragging additional Wikipedia resources into something that shouldn't have been. We cannot build an encyclopedia when an editor insists in having his persistent and unremoseful uncivility condoned by this forum. This is disruptive. My name is Mercy11 (talk) 17:23, 8 December 2010 (UTC), and I approve this message. Nobody is condoning the behavior. It was flatly, unacceptably incivil. There's no justification for speaking to others that way on Wikipedia, and if it continues there will certainly be sanctions. That said, it is best to deal with incivility through the means set out at WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:47, 8 December 2010 (UTC) What exactly, then, are we in this forum for? The Anonymous user has already been proven to have engaged in unprovoked, intentional, repeated, and flagrant personal attacks. He's also shown he is not willing to work with everyone else going forward - never mind rectify his past wrongdoings. WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL were both openly violated by a user whose contributions have been Zero, and whose track record HERE has been nothing but to inflict damage and disrupt the encyclopedia every time he shown up. I have made my wishes clear and they do not conflict with policy. You seem to be best versed with WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL; please initiate, then, the necessary action to deal with this matter. Thanks. My name is Mercy11 (talk) 05:10, 9 December 2010 (UTC), and I approve this message. (crossed out by Mercy11 in favor of my message below to the Anonymous User.) This is ridiculous. The article makes it clear that Clinton made the clemency offer in AUGUST 1999, NOT September 1999. It also makes it clear that Oscar refused the clemency offer. Despite this, Mercy11 ignores the source and continues to insist that the offer was made in September 1999 and that Oscar was not even offered clemency. My behavior is not polite but that doesn't give Mercy11 the right to ignore the fact that the article proves that clemency was offered in August, NOT September and that Oscar WAS offered clemency. --70.127.202.197 (talk) 14:07, 8 December 2010 (UTC) Once again, please read this link, Moonriddengirl and Mercy11. http://www.tlahui.com/politic/politi99/politi8/pr8-30.htm Sorry I couldn't get here earlier, It seems Both parties are involved in edit warring and are to blame, Mercy shouldn't have edit warred neither should have the IP even though your edit is correct you don't edit war to get it kept. the IP is also to blame for incivil behaviour even though you stopped when I warned you, you haven't apologised to Mercy and you adamently have refused to when asked --Lerdthenerd (talk) 18:00, 8 December 2010 (UTC) Lerdthenerd is quite right about edit warring, 70.127.202.197. If somebody reverts your improvements to the article, you should follow the procedure at dispute resolution. It may seem to add a bit of extra headache, but as this shows in the long run it has the potential to save quite a bit more. It's worth taking the time to discuss differences to avoid larger distractions. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:47, 8 December 2010 (UTC) TO THE Anonymous User: "My behavior is not polite" and "Please" go a lot further in this place that the other 4-letter words. That article and the other 13, plus the 4 or so individuals associated with the Wells Fargo robbery need updates and your sources were useful. If you are willing to contribute without attacking me personally and otherwise following policy, I am willing to forget about the whole thing. I await your response.My name is Mercy11 (talk) 05:10, 9 December 2010 (UTC), and I approve this message. Fine, I'm sorry for being rude. My sources are accurate though. Let's hope that Rivera gets parole. --70.127.202.197 (talk) 22:12, 9 December 2010 (UTC) Y OK, then as far as I am concerned this is a closed item. I'll let the appropriate individual seal and archive it as customary. Mercy11 (talk) 23:59, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

LOIC

In short, I'm after a bit of input from administrators here. Should LOIC include a link to the tool at the bottom? Technically it's not an illegal tool, but... is it appropriate? A few people have come up to me via email and IRC and voiced their concerns, so I thought I'd bring them up here. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 18:54, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

(I'm not an administrator.) I would say there's no problem with having the link there, but the article might benefit from mentioning the warning given about the tool by Carole Thierault from Sophos as quoted by the BBC here [1] Keeping the link while also having the article potentially slightly misleading, could be a problem. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:30, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

(I'm not either.) Articles on software generally contain a link to that software's official website. I think we should do the same here, unless someone can come up with a compelling reason not to. Maybe bring this up at the Software project? They should be used to dealing with issues like this... Bobby Tables (talk) 19:42, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

One arrest has been made

...a 16-year-old boy was arrested in The Hague, Netherlands, in connection with the distributed denial-of-service attacks against MasterCard and PayPal.

Count Iblis (talk) 19:56, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

(Neither am I!) Open source software mate. It's nothing you can't download from the second Google link that turns up if you search for it. We can't control it's use/misuse (and we shouldn't, either). If someone wanted to download the LOIC, I think not listing it on the article really isn't going to make a difference - Amog | ^{Talk • contribs} 20:08, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

I suggest looking to see if there is a standard among similar articles - do they or do they not have a link to an application/download within the article. We simply stay consistent with that. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:29, 9 December 2010 (UTC) Realising, of course, that there may not be consistent practice...

LOIC is a legitimate Sourceforge collaboration, and it shouldn't be off limits to Wikipedians just because it can be misused. An e-mail client can be misused. However, I'm not so sure about the third external link offering a Javascript version of LOIC pre-set to point at Paypal with the comment "We need your help in support of wikileaks leave this page firing as long as you can". I'm kind of surprised such a page hasn't run into some misfortune by now, but in any case I'm not sure it's an encyclopedic resource. Wnt (talk) 22:09, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

(not an admin) Most software pages have a link to the project or download page. I agree with Wnt that we should not link to any "preloaded" examples, however, as that's not NPOV. --Nuujinn (talk) 22:13, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

The PayPal issue seems to be moot, PayPal has just capitulated. The WikiLeaks funds kept by PayPal will be released, but Paypal will not do any further business with WikiLeaks. Count Iblis (talk) 23:15, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Use of inappropriate language by User:Ibn kathir

Moved from WP:AN § Use of inappropriate language by User:Ibn.Kathir

 – GiftigerWunsch [BODY DOUBLE] 17:10, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

The User:Ibn.Kathir has been using quite aggressive language; baiting and insulting users. Such language can be categorized as attacks based on race, religion, /creed, etc. The user is continuously refusing to have a constructive dialogue over disputed content on Talk:Aisha despite being urged to do so by various users. Other users have tried to point out during discussion that they are uncomfortable with her/his words but s/he relies on same language. S/He during discussions at various times have used sectarian words discrediting all attempts for abusive in nature. He is too busy in pushing her/his agenda (of discrediting all Western and Shia Muslim sources & is even selective regarding Sunni sources & selection of matter from them, I quote her/him ,"...most published works in the west are either shia sourced or heavily rely on on your perspective since anything positive would obviously be sourced from Sunni primary sources and the west at this point in time is not Islam friendly, their are no other third party perspectives or sources on this issue since it is entirely Islamic...") to respect anyone's opinion &/or Wikipedia policies. It seems s/he has set her/his own guidelines and policy regarding acceptable references. Few of his comments are as follows:

• idiocy of the...
• i wont agree to any sunni sources that are quoted or sourced from shia or shia sources...
• turning this into a shia propaganda piece...
• More idiotic shia misquotes...

S/He has consistently shown his hate/dislike towards Shia, Ahmadiya, and western community in general & scholarship in specific. S/He has shown similar behavior on pages Talk:Criticism of Muhammad, Talk:Abu Bakr, etc.
Also, it seems User:Ibn.Kathir is employing sockpupputs to advance her/his cause, e.g. User:Ewpfpod, User:Howard.Thomas, User:Zaza8675, User:Jparrott1908, User:UmHasan, User:Markajalanraya, User:Allah1100, User:Rehan45n, User:Markanegara, User:MazzyJazzy, etc
--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider^tc_s 17:08, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Looks like a content dispute, from your explanation. If you think there's sockpuppetry involved, you should file an WP:SPI report. Also, User:Ibn.Kathir doesn't appear to be registered; did you misspell the username? GiftigerWunsch [BODY DOUBLE] 17:14, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Believe it is Ibn_kathir.--Korruski^Talk 17:16, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Informed the user and corrected the username in the thread heading. GiftigerWunsch [BODY DOUBLE] 17:25, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

"Looks like a content dispute" ? This matter was filed because of bad user conduct, how is;

More idiotic shia misquotes of sunni sources, why dont you just quote from your own books and stop trying to put words in our mouths you seriously have an inferiority complex if you constantly seek our approval like this. Only an idiot would think our scholars havent been over every single hadith with a fine tooth comb in the last 1400 years and suddenly you have discovered something no one else has.

simply a content dispute? Tarc (talk) 17:25, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I invite you to quote the entire sentence; I made it clear I hadn't been able to locate the discussion and that from the quotes the user provided it appeared to be a content dispute. GiftigerWunsch [BODY DOUBLE] 17:30, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

(ec) Certainly not a content dispute - civility with perhaps a racism undertone starting. Nothing blockable yet from what I see - of course, this is an issue that should have been at WP:WQA first ... (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:34, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, correct name is User:Ibn kathir. And yes it is regarding content dispute but it seems s/he agrees to nothing and keep using allegations and accusations towards users, communities, creeds, etc. I didn't requested for blocking anyone I just reported the happening and my concerns. The attitude of user is blocking activity on Aisha & it seems on other articles also. We have tried to engage the user but s/he refuse to be constructive contributor. --Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider^tc_s 17:40, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

You're right that it's not just a content dispute. I've warned them about crossing the line into abuse, hopefully they will take heed. Fences&Windows 23:42, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

The SPI report was filed on 30 November at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ahmed Ghazi by Faizhaider. Enter CBW, waits for audience applause, not a sausage. 01:47, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Those comments where not aimed at him and meant in the general sense which is different from saying someone is specifically an idiot, further more anyone who can check ip addresses will see i have only one account so i think the person reporting this is doing their utmost to silence any opposition to his views.Ibn kathir (talk) 07:38, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Calling a group of people idiots rather than a specific individual only magnifies the problem. If you are calling more than one person an idiot, its a personal attack against more than one person. It certainly doesn't excuse the behavior. --Jayron32 07:44, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

The way to handle this, Ibn, is don't comment on other editors, comment only on content and how to echo sources in the text. Keep in mind, some sources might not agree with other sources and more than one outlook on a topic can be cited, following WP:NPOV and WP:WEIGHT. Gwen Gale (talk) 07:52, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

if you read the entire section you may come to think the other persons actions [quotations] where deliberate considering what i said earlier, hence my outburst, but yes you are right and i will tone it down. Just to clarify something Shia are not a race so their is no racist undertones. Ibn kathir (talk) 08:03, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Some do, sometimes and in some places, see Shia as ethnically linked. Either way, putting down a whole swath of believers in a given strain of faith can be every bit as harmful as a racial slur. Gwen Gale (talk) 08:10, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I never intend to silence any opposition, in contrary I (& others) tried to include user IK into the discussion and tried to address IK's views and comments even if they were opposite to mine (this can be checked by referring to the conversation on Talk:Aisha) but IK insisted on some points which are even contrary to WP standards (infact we were ready to accept that also and we asked for list of references IK will agree but to no avail). I only reported incident to ANI when it became unbearable for me (& to other users) so that corrective measures may be taken.--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider^tc_s 08:12, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

no less hurtful or harmfull than calling Aisha a wretched women, read the comments and you will clearly see that being said prior to anything from myself. She is considered a saint among my people. Ibn kathir (talk) 08:16, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Neither making a religious slur, nor answering with another slur, is on here. It only makes things worse (as seems to have happened). Gwen Gale (talk) 08:21, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I would like to add User:Ibn kathir insulted me as well in Abu Bakr and Islam and Aisha talk pages, and he called my contributions idiotic and garbages [2].--Aliwiki (talk) 17:14, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

User IK was the first person on Talk:Aisha to use words like idiotic and garbages and down play opinions of others by labeling them fringe/minority belief/opinion and addressing users based on their faith (religion/creed), geography, etc. e.g. Shia, Ahmadiya, Western, etc. User IK opinioned that no reference on the article Aisha is acceptable except Sunni sources that to interpreted by Sunni scholars and used by Sunni users i.e. practically user IK wants to block away all users from article who contradict opinion of User IK based on their faith (religion/creed), geography, etc. User IK is sort of running Non-cooperation movement added with insults and accusations which target whole communities save individuals.--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider^tc_s 17:48, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

a western person cant be anti western, the best muslims i have met in terms of hospitality and respect are the shia of iraq so im not anti shia, labeling something as inherently shia [such as thier hatred among other thing for the prophets wife's and companions which is exclusively their belief hence the label] is not anti a community its just stating a fact, and none of what you have said is relevant on this admin board so i dont know what else you are trying to prove. I will concede that the incident played out different in my mind but the time stamps say something else, but as i clearly stated earlier i was reacting to the other users quotes and accusations in which he essentially said Aisha the prophets wife hated her husband and lied about him and then their is this blatant lie in which he claimed the prophet called his own wife "The spearhead of disbelief and the horn of Satan” i know the full context of the hadith and its explanation by experts in exegesis and it has nothing to do with Aisha, but again this has nothing to do with the admin board.

Ibn kathir (talk) 07:50, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I just wanted to add prior to the quotes i had advised the other editor that primary research would not be accepted and pointed him to the relevant wiki policy of primary research after which he thanked me for the advise and said i had made matters easier for him and not long after he quotes what i stated and said the above, i thought it was a deliberate attack against her. Ibn kathir (talk) 07:54, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

User Ibn Kathir, what was written in Aisha page, were from prominent western secondary sources. That western orientalists have reported Aisha's life the way you don't like is not problem of Shia, it's your problem, and you can not solve this problem by insulting Shia users.--Aliwiki (talk) 12:24, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

i dont know what you are talking about, random comments about things i haven't spoken about wont increase the likely hood of me being banned. Ibn kathir (talk) 07:38, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Recent comment of Ibn kathir at talk page of Aisha reveals user's stand, I quote user's comment on discusion page hereunder:

lets make things clear i wont agree to shia interpretations of sunni primary sources, i think that can be used as a baseline.

— Ibn kathir (talk) 07:41, 9 December 2010 (UTC), Talk:Aisha

Preceedings discussion can be reffered to see that user is dicrediting WP policies/guidelines/conventions and general consensus and suggestions given to User on various paltforms including thisand user is persistent in not having a constructive work or allowing it (if not involved atleast) to counter user is consistently threatning to block any further activity (thiks gor some sort of veto power & that everybody is obliged to consider and act accordingly). In my precceding comment I specifically said that, "I didn't requested for blocking", but now, imo a corrective action is needed. --Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider^tc_s 08:17, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

i give up, ill make things easier for the admin's, can you please ban me because, i don't see Faizhaider making a case against me in any of our life times.

Ibn kathir (talk) 07:42, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

User:The Fat Man Who Never Came Back

User has been blocked, talk page access removed, and user refered to WP:BASC for further review. This discussion has long passed the point of being useful.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Can we indef block this guy? Per this, he's been indef blocked twice already with other accounts, one being the super-troll User:Bad edits r dumb. All of Fat Man's edits are trolling, and he has been calling other users "dumb" constantly as of late. Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:58, 6 December 2010 (UTC) For saying what? "I hate admins?". Ceoil (talk) 21:36, 6 December 2010 (UTC) Do you have any recent diffs to support problems recently? Wikipedia review notwithstanding, do you have any on-wiki evidence of recent disruption? Perusing his recent contributions, I do find some positive content work, including some extensive work on expanding and cleaning up at least one or two articles. While content work cannot override bad behavior, his edits don't appear to have consisted of, "All... trolling" as you claim. I am well aware of this users past, blocked identities, but given that he seems to have turned over a new leaf, and is not currently causing a problem, on what specific, diff-supported grounds do you wish to see him blocked? --Jayron32 21:02, 6 December 2010 (UTC) [3], [4], [5], [6] to name a few. I just think that his trolling has far outweighed any positive contributions he has made. Eagles 24/7 (C) 21:08, 6 December 2010 (UTC) This ANI section is more disruptive than anything linked above. Please contribute to the encyclopedia rather than attempting to ban a good editor.--William S. Saturn (talk) 21:17, 6 December 2010 (UTC) Why does everyone keep trying to defend this troll? "Good" editors don't have their main accounts indef blocked four times now. His unblock requests even show that he is just a troll (see his talk page). Eagles 24/7 (C) 21:24, 6 December 2010 (UTC) Please side with love rather than hate.--William S. Saturn (talk) 21:27, 6 December 2010 (UTC) "The love you take is equal to the love you make." Such as the love shown for both the editors and for the English language, in comments like "u r dumb." ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:35, 6 December 2010 (UTC) I agree, it's time to block. Per my comments here - Kingpin13 (talk) 21:30, 6 December 2010 (UTC) That's four sketchy edits in the past month. I agree that the 4 edits you provided are bad, and should ideally never happen, but I do not think that they rise to the level of instantly blockable. --Jayron32 21:32, 6 December 2010 (UTC) Fine with an indef block. --John (talk) 21:34, 6 December 2010 (UTC) You people are being unnecessarily ruthless and thin-skinned. Users should not be blocked for something they wrote on another website with the exceptions of canvassing and child pornography.--William S. Saturn (talk) 21:41, 6 December 2010 (UTC) [7], [8], [9]... all within the past month. I don't read the crap he writes on WR, I am basing this purely on his disruptive editing here and with his other trolling account. Eagles 24/7 (C) 21:43, 6 December 2010 (UTC) He said "u r dumb" as recently as today.[10] Having escaped 4 indef's, he probably figures he's teflon. Maybe time to apply the brillo pad. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:45, 6 December 2010 (UTC) Teflon is cheap and artificial; I'm more like carefully seasoned cast iron, rich with years' build-up of carbonized grease and free of metallic flavor.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 21:48, 6 December 2010 (UTC) Slippery, either way. :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:50, 6 December 2010 (UTC) Then why start off with a link to WR? That appears to be the motivation for this thread. These wiki-links (mostly from early November) appear to be attempts at humor. --William S. Saturn (talk) 21:49, 6 December 2010 (UTC) "Hey, Saturn, U R dumb!" That was pretty funny, yes? :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:51, 6 December 2010 (UTC) I LOLed.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 21:54, 6 December 2010 (UTC) I will now file a grievance at WP:EQ.--William S. Saturn (talk) 21:53, 6 December 2010 (UTC) I'm shaking in my jackboots. :) Or is it Fat Man who'll be your target? :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:58, 6 December 2010 (UTC) The things that really made me start this thread were (1) his post on WR right after BErD was indef blocked, and (2) the diff provided by Bugs to TCNSV's talk page, which is on my watchlist. I searched through WR for the original post (I assumed no one else made the connection between the two accounts yet, for which I was mistaken), but found this one instead. Eagles 24/7 (C) 21:59, 6 December 2010 (UTC) After Fat Man's sock was blocked for giving wikipedians the BErD, it's odd that his original account was allowed to continue to operate. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:01, 6 December 2010 (UTC) Never mind what I said earlier, based on his last comments here today, he shows no remorse or signs of intending to take the project seriously. I would support an indefinitate block here. Significant is his prior history. I would never think of blocking a user if this was the sum total of problems. But given his extensive history of general trolling, I see no evidence he intends to stop. --Jayron32 21:54, 6 December 2010 (UTC) I, er, refactored my comments, like when i said that guy was dumb.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 22:00, 6 December 2010 (UTC) Well, yeh,[11] after the threat of indef started to look realistic, and meanwhile invoking the ID of your indef'd sock. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:06, 6 December 2010 (UTC) Every comment here, including this one, is troll feeding. --jpgordon::==( o ) 22:04, 6 December 2010 (UTC) NOM NOM NOM NOM NOM P-:--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 22:07, 6 December 2010 (UTC) Yup. See ya. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:06, 6 December 2010 (UTC) Why, again, are we not blocking him until he starts acting like an adult human being again? --Conti|✉ 22:10, 6 December 2010 (UTC) Not sure, clearly hasn't changed and is evading block. Someone just do it. Netalarmtalk 22:14, 6 December 2010 (UTC) NOOOOOoooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!!!!!!!!!! i will submit to mentorship and adoption and arbcom sanctions and all manner of indignities. but pls don't block me because i have a lot of constructive edit todo before i die. :-(--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 22:17, 6 December 2010 (UTC) I can only hope this means you're going to die soon... HalfShadow 22:19, 6 December 2010 (UTC) Possibly at the end of something resembling cable. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:23, 6 December 2010 (UTC) HE MADE DEATH THREATS TO ME!--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 22:27, 6 December 2010 (UTC) I don't think so. Looks like a hope for divine intervention of some kind. That's not a death threat. Unless he has God's private phone number on speed-dial. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:29, 6 December 2010 (UTC) Times like this I wish the computer had a punch button. Isn't there a cartoon you could be watching, Fat? HalfShadow 22:32, 6 December 2010 (UTC) HalfShadow 22:32, 6 December 2010 (UTC) Judging by that block log, the blocked sock and the several nonsensical comments above, the user is either on a long-term trolling campaign or simply does not have the temperament required for useful contribution in a collegial, collaborative, adult environment. I agree with Jayron32 and Eagles247 and support an indefinite block.  Sandstein  22:18, 6 December 2010 (UTC) i hope you do not become an arbcom sandstein becos you are wrong in this case. also a lot of my block log are outright MISTAKES (do your research) but a couple of them were legitamate and things like this.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 22:23, 6 December 2010 (UTC)  Administrator note I have blocked User:The Fat Man Who Never Came Back indefinitely for trolling and disruption. Eagles 24/7 (C) 22:35, 6 December 2010 (UTC) Re-open discussion, The Fat Man indef I see a whole lot wrong with this block, and it needs to be undone. First, several of the diffs above are old and have nothing to do with current activity. Second, Eagles jumped into a matter that was already settled. Third, the allegation that TFM has made no productive edits is simply wrong. Is no one paying attention here? You don't get to re-block someone based on an old, already visited block without new problems. This is a bad block, looking like someone just wanted to block The Fat Man based on a months old post to WR. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:51, 6 December 2010 (UTC) Is that another boomerang coming this way? Signed by Barts1a Suggestions/compliments? Complaints and constructive criticism? 22:54, 6 December 2010 (UTC) Well, it's troubling that Eagles247 puts up old diffs, of an already discussed unblock, then alleges no productive edits (which TFM's contribs clearly shows is untrue), jumps into an already settled matter to allege disruption, and then everyone else piles on like sheep and no one bothers to check. Bad all 'round. If you want to block TFM, you can't do it because you don't like something he wrong on WR months ago. Is anyone paying attention here ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:58, 6 December 2010 (UTC) As I mentioned above, I made a judgment solely on his contributions on Wikipedia, not WR. Eagles 24/7 (C) 23:03, 6 December 2010 (UTC) i actually agree with this block, but why did the administrator Eagles start the thread in the 1st place if he was just going to block the guy regaldess of anything anyone here said? why not just do it yourslef if you werent seeking consensapproval without going through this weird ritual? User:Smith Jones 22:56, 6 December 2010 (UTC) I'd like to know what Eagles was doing in there at all. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:58, 6 December 2010 (UTC) While I would have agreed with the block being a person who supported indef before, there was no consensus in here for a block, the best solution is to create an RFC. So unblock and develop a better consensus on this Secret account 23:01, 6 December 2010 (UTC) I didn't want to do anything as big as this without first getting the opinions of the community. I am still a newer admin, and TFM has been indef blocked many times and subsequently unblocked. I waited a little bit for another admin here to do it, but I decided to step up and do it. Eagles 24/7 (C) 23:03, 6 December 2010 (UTC) That is really poor reasoning, as are your old diffs, your diff to an old post on WR, and the 22 minutes you allowed for discussion. Please undo this bad block now, and gain consensus for an indef. Deciding to "step up and do it" doesn't show the valiant judicious decision you might think it does; it shows impulsivity and a lack of diligence or even review of the matter. What brought you to this matter? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:10, 6 December 2010 (UTC) Sandy - did you even read the crappy luz-filled edits from this editor just above?. I give him top marks for being a manupilative and clever little prick, and artfully manouvering various editors as they jump though wiki-hoops to AGF etc. etc. Ultimately however a pointless troll whose fun needs to end (if only because we're all bored of it now - Fat Man - seven year olds find repetitive comedy humorous - the rest of us like fresh material - there's a good chap) - keep blocked and block the future socks. It's not complex. Pedro :  Chat  23:04, 6 December 2010 (UTC) Pedro, why are you not blocked for calling another editor a "clever little prick"? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:31, 6 December 2010 (UTC) I don't know Sandy - perhaps you have an idea - why not fill the rest of us in on your thoughts? Whilst we're at it I've a mental list of admins and bureaucrats whose behaviour has gone well beyond blocking yet nothing ether happens - your mate Raul being a shining example. I'm sure there must be a reason why these people (me included) don't seem to get blocked.... Pedro :  Chat  23:42, 6 December 2010 (UTC) Looks to be a freshly minted admin making a mark. But others weighing in here didn't exactly look at evidence before issuing an indef. Wrong on many levels; 22 minutes between notification and indef block? That's lots of discussion. Unblock needed. Pedro, I think LULZ is a rather normal response when one is targetted by a freshly minted admin. Yes, I went through all the diffs before weighing in here; how many of you did ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:06, 6 December 2010 (UTC) Sandy, with respect I'm not exactly the most block happy admin around - but the "oh look a death threat" and "nom nom" all caps bullshit is hardly overlookable. I don't need to remind you that indef doe not mean infinite..... I personally think we'd all be happier without Fat Man, but that's my opinion only and consensus may well be different. Pedro :  Chat  23:16, 6 December 2010 (UTC) For gosh sakes, why not respond with lulz to something as stupid as this? Beats indignation. Of course, we don't yet know the background or what brought Eagles247 to this matter anyway. Maybe you'd be happier without TFM, but speak fer yerself. I'd be happier with less child admins. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:24, 6 December 2010 (UTC) I'm not quite sure which bit of but that's my opinion only you missed in my comment immediately above yours but funnily enough I was speaking for myself. Complex stuff, clearly. Pedro :  Chat  23:38, 6 December 2010 (UTC) Maybe I am missing something really obvious here. But if he has been indeffed under other accounts, and those indef blocks still stand, is he/she not evading a block with this new account? Sorry this question seems so obvious I think I must be missing something.--Mkativerata (talk) 23:08, 6 December 2010 (UTC) ...or is The Fat Man account the master account and the former accounts were blocked as socks? --Mkativerata (talk) 23:10, 6 December 2010 (UTC) Fat Man is the main account, then he devised the plan to troll with BErD. Eagles 24/7 (C) 23:18, 6 December 2010 (UTC) it doesnt really matter whether or not that Eagles is a new admin or not. he has the right to block accorind to Wikipedia policies. my real confusion here is why he bothered to even make this WP:ANI report in the first place. he was already convinced that The Fat Man should be blocked when he made it; he left it open for about .22 hours worth of comments then indef blocked him. my question is -- why not just skip the WP:ANI rigmarolodex and just block the guy, if consensus is so unimportant?? User:Smith Jones 23:12, 6 December 2010 (UTC) If everyone here said "NOOOO DON'T BLOCK HIM!" then I wouldn't have blocked. I wasn't sure what the rest of the community would think about my decision if I just blocked him, esp. because other admins have unblocked TFM in the past. Eagles 24/7 (C) 23:18, 6 December 2010 (UTC) the notice here was made for teh Lulz. now eagles is a big time AN/I endorsed admin blocker of problem editors. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 23:20, 6 December 2010 (UTC) no offense, and i dont want to tell how to do your job, but you shouldnt really care about that. or, if you are going to care aobut that, you should give us more than a couple of minutes to talk about it. opening this thread and then abruptly resolving it without ereaching any consensus just creates more bad feelings than if you had just blocked the sucker (evne though i agree with your block, i still think that you picked a weird way to do it). Your decision was right, but you kind of took the long way around and now you're rubbing lots of people the wrong way who now think you just asked for their opinions specifically so that you could cut them off and ignore them halfway thorugh a convservation. User:Smith Jones 23:23, 6 December 2010 (UTC) As a wise admin once said, no one is perfect when they obtain the tools. Adminship is a learning process, and I have learned from this thread how to address a disruptive user. Thanks, Eagles 24/7 (C) 23:32, 6 December 2010 (UTC) Looking through the diffs I have to say I support this block. It's annoying because the user has made good edits, no doubt about it. The user himself asked on User talk:Gimmetrow (can't be bothered fishing out the diff) "Can I have, like, a trolling "allowance" where I can perform mostly (let's say 93%) innocuous edits?". No, that can't be allowed to happen. And it will happen if he is not indefinitely blocked. --Mkativerata (talk) 23:24, 6 December 2010 (UTC) Eagles, those diffs look stale to me. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:26, 6 December 2010 (UTC) Can you please elaborate further? I know he was blocked less than a month ago, but he clearly has not changed based on his comments in the thread. Eagles 24/7 (C) 23:32, 6 December 2010 (UTC) Posts on WR are mostly meaningless here. As for the en.WP diffs, blocks are preventative, not punitive. What's he done lately? Gwen Gale (talk) 23:36, 6 December 2010 (UTC) A proposal should be made to Fat Man that he should stop trolling, or it's indef the next time it happens. Undo this block and I'll propose a solution, his comments and article writing are sometimes spot on. It's hard to tell the difference between trolling or a good faith comment. Secret account 23:27, 6 December 2010 (UTC) I would agree with this proposal, but I doubt he'd take it. Eagles 24/7 (C) 23:32, 6 December 2010 (UTC) Seriously? We block troll accounts all the time. Why is this one an exception? AD 23:34, 6 December 2010 (UTC) Why not do your homework instead of asking dum questions here? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:35, 6 December 2010 (UTC) The admin did the right thing by asking some opinions first, which is what good admins should do in cases that might be debatable. Fat Man / BErD is only blocked, not banned, so he's free to make a reasonable argument as to why he should get unblocked, if he cares to. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:40, 6 December 2010 (UTC) The only opinions one is likely to get in 22 minutes are those who have this page watchlisted. This may be a cross-section of you, but not of the community. And how would the community have been damaged by a full discussion before the block, given the age of the incidents complained of? Kablammo (talk) 23:46, 6 December 2010 (UTC) Maybe every user in wikipedia should be notified of every possible decision under discussion, so that we can actually get full input from "the community". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:53, 6 December 2010 (UTC) 22 minutes from notice to the editor until indefblock is hardly adequate. Do you really contend that it is?Kablammo (talk) 23:58, 6 December 2010 (UTC) Maybe if some real admins had weighed in, instead of the usual denizens of this dungeon. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:59, 6 December 2010 (UTC) My guess is that he's "mates" with certain 'respected' and 'influencial' editors. This would not otherwise normally be tolerated. Wikipedia is (meant to be) a serious project. Jokers are for the schoolyard. AD 23:47, 6 December 2010 (UTC) I'm lost. Who are we talking about? Eagles 24/7 (C) 23:50, 6 December 2010 (UTC) Erm, The Fat Man... AD 23:51, 6 December 2010 (UTC) How you might quietly unblock with a note in the log, "no consensus yet"? Gwen Gale (talk) 23:52, 6 December 2010 (UTC) Focus, boys, focus. We're talking about 1) what brought you (Eagles247) to this matter and why didn't you read TFM's talk page, and 2) why isn't Pedro blocked for calling The Fat Man a "clever prick"? And in general, we're talking about why a small subset of people who hang out at ANI make decisions to indef a user in 22 minutes with little discussion, no homework, and no knowledge of the situation or the editor in question. Or, as Gwen Gale says, how long it's going to take Eagles247 to figure out how to undo the bad block. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:54, 6 December 2010 (UTC) 1) I was part of the BErD blocking discussion, and I saw TFM's post on WR about how fun it was to mess with Wikipedia. I was a little frustrated, but an admin assured everyone prior that there was a legitimate reason for the alt. account. I have Tele... 's talk page on my watchlist, and I noticed TFM's "u r dumb" comment to his page. I investigated into TFM's return, but failed to notice his recent block. 2) Dunno, probably not that severe of a personal attack 3) I did my homework on TFM, thank you 4) Gwen never said whether she was for or against the block, but rather she didn't agree with the process (like many others, including you, here). I'm not going to unblock unless consensus can be reached here. There's no need for TFM to troll here when he is perfectly able to request unblock on his talk page. Eagles 24/7 (C) 00:01, 7 December 2010 (UTC) Guilty until proven innocent, eh? Kablammo (talk) 00:04, 7 December 2010 (UTC) It was a good block, and if Fat/BErD really cares about it, he can post a reasonable unblock request. What Pedro said is more a comment on behavior. Calling people "dumb" is a personal attack, a hundred times worse than metaphorical comments about body parts. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:02, 7 December 2010 (UTC) Wow. Kablammo (talk) 00:04, 7 December 2010 (UTC) Glad we're clear that it's ok to call people pricks on Wiki; Baseball, if I call you a prick, will I be blocked? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:07, 7 December 2010 (UTC) Nah, I'd recognize that you're just needling me. :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:09, 7 December 2010 (UTC) (edit conflict) Sandy, can't say I'm surprised to see you defending this editor here. If you're so concerned about the lack of discussion here and the supposedly early block without properly understanding the situation. I fail to understand how you could have supported Gimmetrow's unblock (after countless unblock requests being declined by a number of admins, and without any discussion at all. I suggest anyone who does want to do homework on this read User_talk:Gimmetrow#What_do_you_think_you.27re_doing.3F. As to Pedro's behaviour, while highly improper, it's not relevant to this, you're making that mistake again, of thinking that the actions of certain users (specifically admins) justify trolling by others. As to what brought Eagles to this matter, I again fail to see the relevance. Also, saying the edits are stale is a poor excuse, and that the fat man had been unblock after some of them even more so, considering the circumstances of the unblock. It seems like most users here support a block. - Kingpin13 (talk) 00:05, 7 December 2010 (UTC) I am not surprised that you again fail to see any relevance, or that you still haven't understood that Gimme's unblock was proper. Hang in there, though. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:09, 7 December 2010 (UTC) Can we just take this down a couple of notches please? Signed by Barts1a Suggestions/compliments? Complaints and constructive criticism? 00:11, 7 December 2010 (UTC) Would that be from "prick" to just "dick", or just how would we go down a notch from the typical discourse acceptable at ANI? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:16, 7 December 2010 (UTC) Indeed. The fact that Fat/BErD called someone "dumb" just today is the answer to the question, "What has he done lately?", never mind the socking he got away with (for awhile). ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:15, 7 December 2010 (UTC) I am surprised to see SG here, as she is usually a voice of reason. However, this editor has clearly stated their intention to troll Wikipedia and disrupt our project. Instead of being given clear reasoning for unblock, we've been rudely ordered to "do our homework" and "stop asking dumb questions". I did my homework, and I see an editor who has been trolling our project, quite plainly and deliberately. Insulting the admins/editors that comment here isn't going to help anything, rather the opposite. AD 00:13, 7 December 2010 (UTC) Eagles, the next time you bring thoughts of a block to ANI, wait a little longer for the consensus you seek. As for Pedro, I think he's a bright shining, helium-spewing star of wiki-love :D Gwen Gale (talk) 00:08, 7 December 2010 (UTC) Brilliant, well thats fine so. Wiki love for the admin. Eagle getts 'a little frustrated' reading off site, comes back to wiki, goes through the contribs, plucks out a few from a while back, calls for a lynching, blocks, closes discussion. Job done. Hmm. Could I log in tomorrow or next week and find myself blocked for a combination of things scattered, days, weeks, whatever ago? Ceoil (talk) 00:14, 7 December 2010 (UTC) Thanks for misunderstanding the timeline, Ceoil. Appreciate it. Eagles 24/7 (C) 00:18, 7 December 2010 (UTC) Actually, Ceoil got the timeline exactly right. Just what are you trying to prove here, Eagles? You read some very stale diffs, an offsite old post, and indeffed an editor based on that and one current and already resolved misunderstanding, after 22 minutes of discussion. If you'd like to make a name for yourself as a new admin, this isn't the best way to go about doing so. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:24, 7 December 2010 (UTC) I'll keep saying this until maybe you read it: Fat/BErD called someone "dumb" just today, and only retracted it after the lightbulb went on and he realized he might not escape his own self-constructed noose this time. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:30, 7 December 2010 (UTC) You're so right, Sandy. You're always right. New admins are different than older ones. His four previous indef blocks were mistakes. In fact, TFM isn't a troll, but a constructive user who has never joked on Wikipedia. </sarcasm> What you are missing in all this is the fact that the BErD incident happened months ago, not yesterday. I've told you all of my "motives" for the block, and yet you choose to ignore them and judge me based on your ignorance to any opposing side. Eagles 24/7 (C) 00:27, 7 December 2010 (UTC) Eagles, that is a response fit for a child. Wasn't one of Fat Man's blocks for using the word "douchebaggery"? How is that worse than "prick"? Thank you for confessing that you merely blocked him because he had been previously blocked; great adminning there. In fact, you reblocked him for stale diffs already discussed. You're impressing me more by the minute. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:30, 7 December 2010 (UTC) Is sarcasm anymore helpful than what is no more an irritated response to self-righteous insults? AD 00:33, 7 December 2010 (UTC) The timeline is a simplified and biased hyperbole. "Calls for lynching", really. This is a website, not 17th century New England. AD 00:28, 7 December 2010 (UTC) @Gwen: Got it, thanks. Eagles 24/7 (C) 00:18, 7 December 2010 (UTC) Support block. Enough is enough, this user has wasted too much community time. --Elonka 00:11, 7 December 2010 (UTC) What a perfectly strange thing to say; I don't see TFM wasting anyone's time here-- looks like this is the Eagles247/Baseball Bugs show. Did you perchance review any of the history? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:16, 7 December 2010 (UTC) The guy had a chance to come here and explain himself, and instead he hanged himself. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:18, 7 December 2010 (UTC) (edit conflict) Accusing everyone who disagrees with you (most of the users in this discussion) of not properly reviewing the situation (when they have) isn't very helpful. Those looking at the history may also want to look at your history with this user. I understand you get a laugh out of following The Fat Man's trolling on various sites? - Kingpin13 (talk) 00:20, 7 December 2010 (UTC) I spent some time looking through the user's entire history: His block log, his contribs over the last month, and other edits going back years. Is he 100% a drag on the project? No. Has he done anything particularly helpful lately? Not that I can see. Is he disruptive? Definitely. Mostly his edits over the last month have involved leaving insults on talkpages, and posting numerous bizarre questions at various Reference Desk pages, like, "What would happen if scientists blew up the moon?", "Do Filipinos worship chicken bones," "Why do American football coaches dress so sloppily," and "What are the worst American accents in movies?" These kinds of things are not helpful to the project. TFM may have done some good work on Wikipedia in the past, but more recently his actions seem designed to disrupt, and "for the lulz". That is why I am supporting the idea of a permanent ban. Enough is enough. Let's get rid of him and get back to work. --Elonka 04:04, 7 December 2010 (UTC) Support block If we're voting... I've yet to see a single argument that shows TFM is a net positive to our project - only insulting, sarcastic and unpleasant remarks to those who are supporting a block. And yet, I've seen, through diffs here and my own research, that he is unfortunately a net negative currently. So with regret, this is my position. AD 00:19, 7 December 2010 (UTC) Support unblock: You shouldn't block someone for something said on WR, nor should you block someone for comments made nearly one month ago. This whole episode was a spontaneous reaction (perhaps to what was read on WR) by Eagles247. There was no need for this discussion or block.--William S. Saturn (talk) 00:20, 7 December 2010 (UTC) You're way off the mark. He called someone "dumb" just today, which demonstrates he's learned nothing from having escaped from previous blocks. And he wasn't blocked for WR, just that WR alerted the admin to the user bragging about having escaped 4 blocks, which merited further review of Fat/BErD's situation. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:24, 7 December 2010 (UTC) You've seen it. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:13, 8 December 2010 (UTC) I'll wait and see what Fat Man's reaction on this block in his talk page before voting whether to support blocking or unblock Secret account 00:23, 7 December 2010 (UTC) Support block of Pedro for calling The Fat Man a prick. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:25, 7 December 2010 (UTC) I second this. Also, check out today's featured article. How appropriate.--William S. Saturn (talk) 00:26, 7 December 2010 (UTC) Maybe there should be a vote on how many editors agree with Pedro's assessment of Fat/BErD's behavior? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:27, 7 December 2010 (UTC) Bugs, now you're trolling, and boring at that. Do you read arb cases? Consensus doesn't overrule wiki pillars, and civility is supposed to be a pillar, and is supposed to be upheld by admins. If a gazillion editors agree with Pedro (they don't), that doesn't make it OK for him to call TFM a prick. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:32, 7 December 2010 (UTC) You're funny. OK, how about if we recommend to block Pedro for an appropriate length, like maybe 5 minutes? Or maybe 10, in order to appease the poor, innocent, aggrieved indefee. Never mind, I see they already took action. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:48, 7 December 2010 (UTC) Blocking Pedro will just cause unneeded drama, yes his behavior should have been better, but the last thing we need is OMG Drama and lose valuable contributers. We already lost several in the past month, including our FA leader. I left a message on Fat Man's talk page in language he understand. Secret account 00:34, 7 December 2010 (UTC) Maybe we should all just calm down and have a civil chat over a nice cup of tea Signed by Barts1a Suggestions/compliments? Complaints and constructive criticism? 00:34, 7 December 2010 (UTC) No, let's have kiddie kool-ade, while an editor is unjustly blocked and called a prick by an admin. And goodness, let's not cause any drama, for heavens sake, this is ANI !!! Aren't we here because of Eagle247's drama and isn't that the purpose of his thread to begin with? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:40, 7 December 2010 (UTC) If Pedro does it over and over, and creates a sock to do it also, then your argument will have some merit. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:44, 7 December 2010 (UTC) Support block, per TFM's trolling in this very discussion. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 00:36, 7 December 2010 (UTC) Support unblock. I can't see anything in his recent history to justify a block, not even a short one, unless I'm overlooking something. I think the dumb comment was meant as a joke. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 00:37, 7 December 2010 (UTC) What makes it okay if it's a joke? And what exactly is funny about his edits? You're aware that The Fat Man's humour has included the mocking of mentally disabled people in the past? As to the recent behaviour comment, it is clear from the older behaviour that this is an ongoing problem, it is clear from the (albeit minimal) recent behaviour that this is still ongoing. It's logical to conclude this isn't going to stop (TFM has made at least two promises in the past to stop his trolling. Also making a comment saying he would stop his disruption at ANI, and then making comments like this) see here, a comment from the last admin who unblocked (this comment was prior to comments like this. - Kingpin13 (talk) 00:43, 7 December 2010 (UTC) Kingpin, your dislike of The Fat Man is well known, but you really shouldn't make up stories about him mocking mentally disabled people in the past. That's not nice. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:45, 7 December 2010 (UTC) I have no dislike of TFM as a person, it's his edits I have issue with. Such as this mocking of mentally disabled people. I fail to see how that is not mocking mentally disabled people, maybe you could explain? - Kingpin13 (talk) 00:51, 7 December 2010 (UTC) These are jokes, Kingpin. I honestly don't see that comment as harmful, and the "U R dumb" thing was nothing. He has a particular sense of humour that maybe you either love or hate, but he doesn't mean any harm. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 02:00, 7 December 2010 (UTC) Nobody has explained to me how this is funny, or this for that matter, and I fail to see how anybody could find them funny, or how attempts at humour justify attacking other editors. As to him not meaning any harm, he's clearly aware that he is trolling, and clearly wants to continue doing so (as evidenced by asking for a "trolling allowance", and making sarcastic promises to stop) - Kingpin13 (talk) 07:03, 7 December 2010 (UTC) I agree with Kingpin: these comments are insulting to people who have intellectual disabilities, and offensive to people of good will. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:43, 7 December 2010 (UTC) Support unblock per SlimVirgin. Kablammo (talk) 00:39, 7 December 2010 (UTC) Support unblock, Slim has it right, we don't block users based on stale diffs and reading something old offsite we don't like. This was admin drama, nothing more. SandyGeorgia 00:40, 7 December 2010 (UTC) Support block I'll agree that nothing recent is in and of itself worthy of a block, but there has been various amounts of trolling from this account for too long. AniMate 00:42, 7 December 2010 (UTC) Support unblock I think the comments made (in bad taste) were over and done, things said in the past are sometimes best left in the past...Modernist (talk) 00:43, 7 December 2010 (UTC) And what makes you think these comments will not be re-made by TFM in the future (e.g. not leaving them in the past)? Considering one of these comments were from yesterday (just over 24 hours). - Kingpin13 (talk) 00:46, 7 December 2010 (UTC) Because our fundamental principle is WP:AGF...Modernist (talk) 01:06, 7 December 2010 (UTC) But this is a user who has been trolling for years. And seems to be incapable of stopping. One year ago he promised to stop, and continued, one month ago he promised to stop and continued. Of course, he later claims that both of those promises were sarcastic. So what exactly makes you think it will stop this time? what is different? AGF only stretches so far. A user who has been trolling this site for years? No, I think it's fair to say they will keep trolling it for years if we let them. - Kingpin13 (talk) 01:12, 7 December 2010 (UTC) Support block - issues about his behavior clearly needs some more discussion, perhaps on a more personal level on his talkpage, allowing input and understanding from the blockee. Off2riorob (talk) 00:44, 7 December 2010 (UTC) Question: I ask this in good faith because I don't see the answer above in this wall of text, but how is an editor who has admitted to being another indef blocked trolling editor still allowed to edit here in the first place? Blocks are for editors, not accounts. Am I missing something? Dayewalker (talk) 00:47, 7 December 2010 (UTC) Support block - for unrepentant attacks on everyone's integrity, and especially for having socked and been allowed to get away with it. He should have been indef'd and banned at that time. The community's generosity towards Fat/BErD was met by a metaphorical "F.U." ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:51, 7 December 2010 (UTC) Should never have been unblocked in the first place. T. Canens (talk) 00:53, 7 December 2010 (UTC) Support unblock of the Portly One. Honestly the drama that surrounds his Wideness is a product of over-reactions to his rather innocuous funning. People who are offended by him would do well to simply ignore his harmless carry-on rather than initiating major dramafests here at ANI. Crafty (talk) 01:03, 7 December 2010 (UTC) Support block, he's had plenty of chances to contribute usefully and he apparently still doesn't get it. Nakon 01:06, 7 December 2010 (UTC) Unblock the Fat Man, per the FAC Lady and the Slim one. Ferrylodge concurs.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:30, 7 December 2010 (UTC) Comment: it takes a special kind of talent (or perhaps a special kind of talent) to make such a complete and utter mess of indeffing a user who so blatantly deserves it. The mess is clear enough (ANI / 22 minutes / no clear consensus / indef block by person bringing the matter to ANI / ?????), but so is the fact that the user is clearly not a net benefit to the project. Between the abusive sock account and the general manner he continues to communicate, quite apart from whatever lies further in the past, enough is enough. Site ban, and refer to WP:STANDARDOFFER. Rd232 talk 01:31, 7 December 2010 (UTC) I couldn't agree more. This block was handled horribly, but the outcome is probably right. AniMate 01:46, 7 December 2010 (UTC) Support block The Fat Man is a troll. We block trolls. I don't know why some users are leaping to the defense of such an obvious troll. I'm all for a little genuine levity and humor once in a while, that is not what I see here, I see blatant, deliberate trolling. I'm sure he is loving all the noise generated here by those who insist on defending his trolling. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:48, 7 December 2010 (UTC) Reality check: As long as I've been aware of TFM here, it has been clear to me that he is a capable editor, for example, making the Ima Hogg article not only a Featured Article, but also working hard to make it so on the WP:Main Page as an April Fool article. That is creative talent that should not be thrown away unnecessarily. Having said that, however, that isn't a reason for unnecessary disposal of an worthy, although I would welcome comments from him, on the basis that "you may be good, but unless others agree with you, you are on your own". I live in hope. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rodhullandemu (talk • contribs) 02:05, December 7, 2010 Support Per above. Unfortunately. -FASTILY (TALK) 02:36, 7 December 2010 (UTC) Support unblock What has gotten up with ANI lately? Geez, it's like a swarm of hornets landed and made everyone into ban-hammers. Let's go through this in order. First off, the original reason given for the creation of this discussion was a comment made by the user on Wikipedia Review, which is clearly not relevant to actions on Wikipedia and makes me doubt Eagles' understanding of how policy works here. Then, the edits that were mentioned. This is a rather silly comment, but when did dumb become a curse word? Besides, the fact that the user's actions seem to often be rather sarcastic to me. This question was made in reference to the user reading Religion in the Philippines and not seeing anything about chicken bones written in there. Maybe a silly question, true, but nothing bad. Calling someone silly is bannable now? And this is the most ridiculous one of all. This edit was made in response to this section being created. Either the two of them have a joking relationship, which is what it looks like, or Mike R's comment was completely out of line. It's one or the other. The other ones are about the previous block, which doesn't apply to this one. So, what are we left with? Oh, right, nothing. This is ridiculous. SilverserenC 03:06, 7 December 2010 (UTC) Support indef; shoulda-coulda stuck last time... but *no* we had to endure moar shite. Jack Merridew 03:29, 7 December 2010 (UTC) Support indef block His edit history speaks for itself. Each separate action could doubtless be justified by a skilled wikilawyer, although so far noone has managed to do this very convincingly. The combined effect and intent, however, seems clear enough. Mathsci (talk) 04:38, 7 December 2010 (UTC) Support block per Baseball Bugs. --John (talk) 05:06, 7 December 2010 (UTC) Comment What I don't understand is why any admins would spend so much time trying to find a reason to ban an editor with a contrary sense of humor but who is otherwise harmless as opposed to helping out here, where there is evidence presented of editors who serially violate WP's more serious policies like NPOV and NPA. Before editors like the Fat Man get blocked, the more serious violators of WP's policies need to be dealt with. Cla68 (talk) 05:53, 7 December 2010 (UTC) Disclosure request. Could users commenting here to support an unblock please state if they are Wikipedia Review contributors. (We'll assume block supporters aren't, but if any are, please state as well.) Rd232 talk 08:49, 7 December 2010 (UTC) Support unblock He hasn't done anything recently even remotely warranting an indefinite block. Sure, he's done crap in the past, but he should have been blocked then if it was such a big deal. If he's really the horrible troll you all think he is, he'll do something in the future warranting an indef block and you can block him then. He should be kept on a relatively tight leash due to past incidents, but this is really ridiculous. Activities on WR are irrelevant to this discussion. I do not comment there, and I do not care about what the people there do. This thread is by far the most disruption he's managed to cause recently, and that's far more the responsibility of the admin than of him.--Dycedarg ж 09:00, 7 December 2010 (UTC) Support block There seems to be a school of thought around here, espoused by those I call the Incivility League, that it is OK to cleverly impugn people's integrity, writing, etc. so long as you don't use a slightly-expanded Carlineque list of specific words. I can't agree with that. If it was meant to be insulting, and it had the effect of being insulting, than what difference does it make if it used a vulgarity or not? Form over substance is a bad idea. TFM should stay blocked until he promises to cut it out, and if he breaches that promise, should quickly and non controversially be blocked again.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:22, 7 December 2010 (UTC) Support block until he starts acting like an adult human being again. --Conti|✉ 11:56, 7 December 2010 (UTC) Support unblock per Silverseren and per "you need to get a sense of humor and stop taking yourself so serious". --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:04, 7 December 2010 (UTC) Support block This user cannot even communicate in this very discussion properly, let alone the frequent disruption he causes elsewhere. Yes, he's made some good contributions in the past. But he is simply not worth the time and effort taken to deal with his utterly unnecessary nonsense. He doesn't want to take Wikipedia seriously, so I see no reason why he should continue editing here until and unless he does. As an aside, I wholly disagree with the absurd notion that he has to start swearing and cursing before it should be constitued as "real disruption", so to speak. --Dorsal Axe 13:10, 7 December 2010 (UTC) Support block Making some good contributions much of the time doesn't entitle you to troll the rest of the time. Everyone makes mistakes and everyone is new at some point, but this editor is neither new nor making mistakes. His responses in the thread up above indicate to me that he thinks the project is a joke and that we don't deserve his respect. The impression I get is that he doesn't care if he's blocked or not. And on top of that, it appears he has created at least TWO sockpuppets for purposes of disruptive trolling in the recent past. One of them is Bad edits r dumb (talk · contribs) and the other is WatchingWales (talk · contribs), as he himself states [12]. He shows no indication he will stop this behavior, even taunting the community with more "jokes" in the thread above. This is behavior detrimental to building an encyclopedia and is well into WP:DISRUPT territory. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 13:33, 7 December 2010 (UTC) Support unblock Per Stephan Schulz and Silverseren and per the fact that humour should not automatically be equated with trolling. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 14:17, 7 December 2010 (UTC) Support block: Having a particular sense of humor is not a get-out-of-jail-free card to disrupt the project in various ways over a long period of time. Kansan (talk) 17:22, 7 December 2010 (UTC) [13] and [14]. Can we agree now that he is just here for the lulz now? I don't care how good of an editor he was two years ago, he doesn't want to be here anymore. Eagles 24/7 (C) 23:44, 7 December 2010 (UTC) Support block He's just taking the piss at this point. HalfShadow 23:46, 7 December 2010 (UTC) Obviously support block: a block-evading troll is indeffed, and instead of collapsing and not feeding the trolls, we waste everyone's time? Way to give trolls what they want, guys. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 09:54, 8 December 2010 (UTC) Pedro blocked and unblocked Pedro unblocked Now Geni blocked Pedro for three hours for his language, while this block won't affect him, as he's in England I believe it's still puntative. Unblock Secret account 00:45, 7 December 2010 (UTC) I'm in the UK. And having seen the damage late night admining can do you would have a hard time arguing it is not preventative.©Geni 00:47, 7 December 2010 (UTC) Agreed Signed by Barts1a Suggestions/compliments? Complaints and constructive criticism? 00:49, 7 December 2010 (UTC) No more punitive than the block of TFM. Sometimes I think the "preventive not punitive" mantra is overrated here. Disruption over a long period, as in the case of TFM, is difficult to deal with because people will always say it has to happened right here, right now, otherwise nothing can be done. So the trick is, to troll in small enough doses that aren't really that bad on their own, but altogether present a big problem. Now that Pedro's once clean log has now been marked, maybe he'll be more careful to keep the atmosphere a little less crass. AD 00:50, 7 December 2010 (UTC) According to Pedro's contribs he's surely in bed now. The block was to "set an example". Not sure of the utility of that as cause for a block, but it would be good to just let this one lie and not go drahma-crazy over a three hour block during sleepy time. --Mkativerata (talk) 00:51, 7 December 2010 (UTC) Agreed, let this block stay. Should hopefully encourage Pedro to stay a bit more calm in future, and not attack other editors like that (regardless of how disruptive they are). Blocking wouldn't have been my choice of action here, but equally, unblocking wouldn't be, if another admin decides a block is necessary. - Kingpin13 (talk) 00:54, 7 December 2010 (UTC) Wrong, wrong, wrong. Blocks "to set examples" are not directed to a general audience unlikely to take cognisance of them, so must surely be irrelevant. "Pour encourager les autres" does not necessarily work as a lesson here, and never has in historical terms. Meanwhile, the block of Pedro was poorly-argued, especially on the blockee's Talk page. Call me cynical, but if I am being sanctioned, surely I have a right to know the chapter and verse that authorises that, and the particulars supporting the block under those provisions. We do not operate as a legal system here, but some things are both above and beyond that. Rodhullandemu 01:31, 7 December 2010 (UTC) Rodhullandemu has now unblocked. Oh well. AD 00:58, 7 December 2010 (UTC) Yea lets not wheel war over this Secret account 00:58, 7 December 2010 (UTC) I had said 5 to 10 minutes would fit the crime, and it turned out to be 14. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:01, 7 December 2010 (UTC) Indef for you are dumb, 14 minutes for 'prick'. Lovely. Ceoil (talk) 01:08, 7 December 2010 (UTC) If Fat/BErD had only said it once, maybe he wouldn't have been blocked. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:23, 7 December 2010 (UTC) The Fat Man Who Never Came Back was blocked for rather more than that.©Geni 01:21, 7 December 2010 (UTC) Didn't you know Ceoil, block lengths decrease exponentially with the seriousness of the comment made :) Seddon talk|WikimediaUK 01:52, 7 December 2010 (UTC) There is zero point in blocking any editor for three hours, unless it's a rapidly-redistributed IP address. To do so for an established editor, in the absence of a course of conduct that requires immediate action tends to become beyond preventative, and tends towards punitive. Pedro is a long-time editor here, and is due some respect for that. The best of us occasionally err. However, calling someone a "prick" isn't necessarily that different from referring them to WP:DICK, although it might have been better worded. But that's no reason for blocking, and certainly not without appropriate warnings such as are the entitlement of any editor here. That's why I unblocked, and if you think I'm wrong so to do, your remedy is thisaway. Rodhullandemu 01:19, 7 December 2010 (UTC) My comment above continues to apply: lets not go drahma-crazy of an unblock of a three hour block while the editor concerned is fast asleep. --Mkativerata (talk) 01:23, 7 December 2010 (UTC) I agree. None of this is worth your bits, or an RfC, or an ArbCom asking questions about wheel warring.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:56, 7 December 2010 (UTC) Motion to close This discussion is done, people have said what they wanted to say, fights broke out and were resolved; It's time to close this. Signed by Barts1a Suggestions/compliments? Complaints and constructive criticism? 04:08, 7 December 2010 (UTC) Yeah, if this doesn't stop soon people are going to start hugging and that just gets creepy. HalfShadow 04:13, 7 December 2010 (UTC) There is a motion to close the Pedro thread, but there isn't any consensus on Fat Man block or unblock for that matter so I oppose a full closing of the thread for now. Secret account 04:15, 7 December 2010 (UTC) No. There was no consensus to block to begin with, and therefore there does not need to be consensus to unblock. And despite what one editor says above, The Fat Man has made valuable contributions to Wikipedia in the past month, including work on BLPs. He should be unblocked immediately. Kablammo (talk) 04:25, 7 December 2010 (UTC) This is ridiculous. This section was opened less 8 hours ago, and the block has been in place even shorter. Keep it open until it is actually decided. AniMate 04:37, 7 December 2010 (UTC) I closed the section about Pedro. Ban discussions run at least 24 hours. So will this discussion.--Chaser (talk) 04:55, 7 December 2010 (UTC) This is a block review, not a ban discussion. But yes, there's no reason to close the discussion...other than to restart it in a way where all of the noise, personal attacks, etc. are stamped out. Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:25, 7 December 2010 (UTC) By the banning policy, if the community decides not to overturn the indefinite block he will be considered "banned by the Wikipedia community". Ergo, this is a ban discussion.--Dycedarg ж 08:50, 7 December 2010 (UTC) No. The discussion should continue. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 13:39, 7 December 2010 (UTC) - I disagree with user Dycedarg's comment - this discussion is not to confirm the indef and ergo a ban discussion - this is a discussion to see if there is support or not for the user to be presently indefinitely blocked (this does not mean forever} whilst he considers his recent contributions and the community opines the best way to progress so that he can edit more constructively or at least so as issues like this do not continue to arise. Off2riorob (talk) 16:12, 7 December 2010 (UTC) General observation As a general matter (not at all limited to this block and in fact I've raised it before, but very relevant here), there is a lack of clarity to some basic issues concerning blocking and unblocking policy that is surprising, given that the issues have arisen many times in the now 10 years of the project. One of these may be very relevant here: Suppose Administrator A blocks User:X, and there is about an even split of opinion on ANI about whether X should be unblocked (so, no consensus either way). Does this mean that X should remain blocked (because there is no consensus to overturn A's block) or that X should be unblocked (because unblocked is the default and there is no consensus to keep the block in place)? Newyorkbrad (talk) 12:04, 7 December 2010 (UTC) My own take is that, given this was brought here for review, if there is no consensus for that block, then there should be no block (getting there by unblocking if need be). Doesn't seem to matter if the block has already been made or not. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:17, 7 December 2010 (UTC) I feel the opposite way. The administrative action has already been taken, and admins are entitled to some deference in how they use their tools. The discussion is regarding a proposed unblock, and needs consensus to succeed.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:24, 7 December 2010 (UTC) I agree with what the person immediately above me (As at 12:27 on the 7th of December 2010 UTC) said. Signed by Barts1a Suggestions/compliments? Complaints and constructive criticism? 12:28, 7 December 2010 (UTC) Would it be unreasonable for a sock and a disruptive troll to stay blocked unless and until he makes an unblock request, and then that request can be considered on its merits? - David Biddulph (talk) 12:29, 7 December 2010 (UTC) "Disruptive trolling" is in the eye of the beholder in many cases. Malleus Fatuorum 12:32, 7 December 2010 (UTC) What an absurd position Wehwalt. Admins are not entitled to any special "deference", and it's distasteful even to suggest that they are. Malleus Fatuorum 12:30, 7 December 2010 (UTC) There should be consensus for a block, or to uphold a block. The result should not depend on who took action first, who got here first, or how the issue was framed. And deference to "discretion" gives the personal judgments or whims of administrators the force of law. Admins serve a ministerial role, to apply standards, not create them. And those standards should be consistently applied. Kablammo (talk) 12:48, 7 December 2010 (UTC) An example of the point: The first post in this multi-part section is by an admin looking for consensus to block. The admin did not wait until consensus developed, but imposed a block soon after the thread started. The issue here is whether there is consensus to block. There is not. Kablammo (talk) 12:57, 7 December 2010 (UTC) I'm not like some contributors to one of the previous headings; I will not insult people's understanding, or their intelligence, however cleverly fashioned. The people who have just posted their views are all intelligent, thoughtful, experienced editors. And yet they profoundly disagree. Regardless of who is right, shouldn't this be resolved? I will add that NYB is in a much better position (hint, hint) to aid in the resolution than I.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:00, 7 December 2010 (UTC) @Wehwalt: If I review a situation, and decide a block is not appropriate, can I post that opinion somewhere (the editor's talk page maybe), and then other admins must show deference to my opinion, and gain consensus on ANI before they can override my opinion and block? If so, then I disagree (as it then becomes a race to dispense with fact finding and lock in one's opinion first), but at least it would be consistent. If not, why not? An admin should only be blocking people if they think they will have consensus to do so, and the default in the case of a lack of consensus should be an unblock (or, better yet, compromise and negotiation that can lead to a consensus). --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:32, 7 December 2010 (UTC) Floquenbeam's last sentence seems to sum the answer to the query quite well. I would add that if this seems to lack clarity in the eyes of some, then I'd suggest that this is a good time to get up to speed...this is a piece of cake compared to the disputes and queries that are going to arise in the future, both near and distant. In those cases, I don't think even the most experienced users are going to have any easy answers to assist. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:44, 7 December 2010 (UTC) In response to Newyorkbrad's question: a sufficiently substantive "no consensus" discussion should override any individual admin decision. This is a community-edited encyclopedia, and if an admin can't persuade the community about what they did/wish to do, then it shouldn't be done. Private information which cannot/should not be discussed onwiki may complicate things, but that's what Arbcom's for. Rd232 talk 14:34, 7 December 2010 (UTC) A complicating factor here, is if a disruptive editor has the support of other disruptive editors, does that count towards community "consensus". Sheer number of voices either way isn't necessarily an accurate indicator of community consensus, especially when some are stating obvious untruths or have long block logs themselves. I think most of the people participating in this discussion are acting in good faith, but there do seem to be a few who are jumping in for no other reason than that they enjoy giving the pot a good stir. --Elonka 15:05, 7 December 2010 (UTC) God knows there's cliquism on the wiki, but who decides if votes should be discounted because of it? --Wehwalt (talk) 15:11, 7 December 2010 (UTC) You can't just discount input because of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Even in the above discussion, an admin seems to be causing a rift by wanting another website to shape what happens on this website; unless you have good evidence to show for a breach of our site policies, there's nothing to justify the need for this. Users should disclose their involvement (if any) in a dispute - that certainly plays some role - and that might extend to another website. But that's as far as it goes. Categorically stating that anyone who edits on Wikipedia should disclose if they've edited Wikipedia Review is a bit silly. It wouldn't be much of a project if every single thing was simple, easy and exactly how you wanted it. Ncmvocalist (talk) Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:34, 7 December 2010 (UTC) Cliquism, where there is good reason to suspect it may cause discussion not to represent the wider community's view, needs to be identified as far as possible. Only with the benefit of that disclosure can the weight of argument (WP:NOTAVOTE) be determined by a neutral observer. As to the argument about external websites: we shouldn't police activity on external websites, but nor we should ignore information relevant to policing our own merely because it originates externally. Rd232 talk 15:49, 7 December 2010 (UTC) Well either you have some reason to have a suspicion, or you don't; you are not here to be police, prosecution, judge and jury. Allowing strong unsubstantiated personal opinions/assumptions to prejudice the way administration occurs on Wikipedia is precisely what impedes genuine resolution on Wikipedia. Unless you can provide some genuine reason why being a Wikipedia Review participant is relevant to this discussion, it really is not appropriate to require any editor to disclose that information, nor is it relevant to what is happening here. And in saying this, I note that I am not a participant on WR and I don't believe I have ever interacted with the editor in question - I might have possibly in 2008, when I was asking many ArbCom candidates some questions, but I honestly don't recall. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:03, 7 December 2010 (UTC) ? Fat Man is a participant in WikipediaReview, as are some of the editors commenting here (as you would expect in the circumstances). That is sufficient grounds for asking for disclosure, in order to properly evaluate how representative this discussion is of the community's view. Rd232 talk 16:09, 7 December 2010 (UTC) No, that's not sufficient grounds; your understanding is fundamentally flawed. Wikipedia Community is diverse, and each member will have memberships to or participation in many other websites, organisations, and so on, or might not have any at all; listing which of these may "potentially" have any effect on the project is limitless and outside of our scope, capacity, and resources, and it poses a far more significant rift within our own Wikipedia community as we start defining Wikipedia based on individuals who are exclusively signed up here and here only. What each editor would need to disclose is their level of involvement, if any, and it's up to them to state if it's not total involvement and why. Merely being a participant is insufficient; it's being a participant and the extent of interaction or activity with the user in question, and in some circumstances, how they became aware of this discussion. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:51, 7 December 2010 (UTC) Yes, I can disclose I'm a (somewhat inactive) member of Amnesty International. So what? Am I likely to meet people there who are likely to have a very particular view of FatMan's indeffing, and are they likely to turn up here and comment? The point is fundamentally that discussions must reflect the community's view; but since the entire community cannot participate in any given discussion, we have to make sure that the sample of users participating isn't biased. This shouldn't really be a tricky concept. it's the same concept as that behind WP:MEAT and WP:CANVAS (neither of which policies seems to apply here, but the reasoning for the policies' existence does). Rd232 talk 17:26, 7 December 2010 (UTC) It seems you have difficulty understanding simple messages, so I'll try to be clearer one more time. The policies exist to say that MEAT and CANVASS behavior is prohibited; they do not say that anyone who is registered on another website can be excluded from the Community on your unsubstantiated say-so. So, unless you can provide an actual basis for bias from members of that website, this information is not relevant or required at this time and there is no reason for those users to be excluded from the Community. As you have not produced any actual basis for requiring this info, no one needs to comply with your disclosure requests; in line with policy, all they might need to do is state their level of involvement (if any) and that will address relevant issues of bias. Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:12, 7 December 2010 (UTC) ROFL. "difficulty understanding simple messages" - yes indeed, considering that you're agreeing with me - state their level of involvement includes involvement offsite. You would (I presume) hardly object to a disclosure request if WR was a private mail server like EEML, so why should it be different because it's a website? Rd232 talk 18:28, 7 December 2010 (UTC) If an editor is registered on Wikipedia Review and has not had any involvement with the editor in question, they do not need to disclose all of that exhaustively - your request for disclosure seems to expect all of that, but that info isn't actually necessary: such an editor could say they are uninvolved. This incident has been complicated enough; requiring disclosure about whether or not each editor is registered to another particular website (that doesn't have a CANVASS/MEAT issues that you are actually aware of) is just adding more unnecessary complication. Aka, the undue focus you're putting on Wikipedia Review (or EEML, or any other specific website/mailing list/organisation/etc) is not helpful. So in the future, a more helpful disclosure request would be neutral and broad (eg; "Please state your level of involvement (if any).") instead of unduly focussed on a single website. Do you understand yet? Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:53, 7 December 2010 (UTC) The request was aimed at "Wikipedia Review contributors". Implicitly (we'd hope for common sense, but...) that was meant for active contributors who've engaged with Fat Man at WR, or who otherwise have engaged enough at WR to feel some kind of tribal affinity (a phenomenon which isn't overly hard to observe from reading it). The point is of course, as I keep saying, to clarify what you might call "involvement", though I preferred to phrase it in terms of commenting editors not reflecting the wider community view, because "involvement" suggests their views are invalid, irrelevant, or ignorable, and I neither said nor implied any such thing. Rd232 talk 21:30, 7 December 2010 (UTC) I don't think it's necessary to force users to declare their interest in WR. For example, I have an account at WR (only posted once or twice a year ago), and I haven't read anything since. Does this discount my opinion on my own block? Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:12, 7 December 2010 (UTC) Floquenbeam: The second move advantage is something which we haven't been able to solve. I'll grant your "no block" proposal, if by the same token, my refusal to unblock then becomes an admin decision that it's wheel warring to reverse.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:07, 7 December 2010 (UTC) I don't consider the "second move advantage" something that needs to be solved. Second move advantage means it's in the blocking admin's interest to make sure they're doing the right thing, and make sure they're going to have consensus. First move advantage means it's in their best interest to act quickly. Wheel warring refers to repeating an action you know another admin disagrees with. Like BRD for admins. I can only assume it was defined the way it is in recognition of the advantages of having a second mover advantage over a first mover advantage. Unblocking someone that has been refused a previous unblock request isn't a repetition of an action. (That said, I can think of very few instances where I would unilaterally unblock after a previous unblock request was declined.) But a deal I will make is for us to discourage making controversial second move unblocks without consensus, if we also strongly discourage making controversial first move blocks without prior consensus. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:39, 7 December 2010 (UTC) Hear hear. But this is getting increasingly out of scope for ANI. Rd232 talk 16:44, 7 December 2010 (UTC) If the damage is done because of a block which is not having consensus, Wikipedia hasn't designed its processes so as to maximise that damage. Sometimes an abrupt unblock becomes the means to address the harm caused by an abrupt block. An abrupt unblock doesn't become necessary where a block has gained the actual required consensus...so it's a bit of a non-issue. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:58, 7 December 2010 (UTC) I've read that 5 times and I still don't get it. Rd232 talk 17:28, 7 December 2010 (UTC) I had some bad news today. I came home and stared at the wall for a couple of hours feeling like shit. Then I picked up the laptop and stumbled into this, and have spent the last couple of hours chuckling and laughing out loud at his insight and wit. Some people have trouble with irony, so don't get what's going on here. There is no consensus. Unblock him. Anthony (talk) 18:15, 7 December 2010 (UTC) I am sorry, Anthony. I hope you feel more cheerful soon. Yes, there is value in the way humor boosts morale and reduces stress. Lacking a consensus for the block, how about reducing it to time served and remind the blockee not to carry a good thing too far. Jehochman Talk 19:00, 7 December 2010 (UTC) :) Anthony (talk) 19:52, 7 December 2010 (UTC) So, I just read through the above discussion - and my first thought is that That's a good 30 minutes of my life that I'm never getting back. If Fat Man agrees not to troll anymore, he should be unblocked with all speed. But not until then. And trouts for the lot of you for carrying on like this. There may be some sort of encyclopedia that needs work, if memory serves... UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 19:41, 7 December 2010 (UTC) There is clearly no consensus for or against this block. Newyorkbrad's question needs answering: in this situation do we default to block or unblock? Defaulting to block smells a bit off to me. Anthony (talk) 19:49, 7 December 2010 (UTC) I could go either way. The manner of the block is off-putting, but the conduct probably justified the block. I note also that TFM has not edited since being blocked - I'm hesitant to unblock until we have a request, all things being equal. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 19:58, 7 December 2010 (UTC) I agree with you, Ultraexactzz, but TFM has promised not to troll twice already in the past (see Kingpin's diffs somewhere in here), and has never made good on his promises. Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:12, 7 December 2010 (UTC) I wasn't so much interested in more discussion about the merits of the block. It's pretty clear there's no consensus on that. The question that began this thread was what do we default to when there is no clear consensus? Anthony (talk) 20:16, 7 December 2010 (UTC) The default position is the one existing immediately before the matter was raised; TFMWNCB being not blocked in this instance. Blocking is a function exercised by an admin on behalf of the community, by means either of a directly expressed consensus or that by which the community entrusted them with the tools. As Brad pondered, once it is evident that no consensus exists for the new status then the old one must be resumed. Oh, and whilst I am pontificating - to Wehwalt: It is the other way round - the admin defers to the community. Every. Single. Time. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:46, 7 December 2010 (UTC) (edit conflict)It seems pretty clear that the answer to Newyorkbrad's question is that we default to unblock, because our default position is that "anybody can edit"; if we default the other way, surely we're modifying that tagline (and the rest of our attitude/positioning) to something other than that. It's similar, i reckon, to the default in an AfD being "keep", because with the lack of consensus the opinion of notability outweighs that of non-notability; here, with no consensus the ability to edit outweighs the other. Cheers, LindsayHi 20:51, 7 December 2010 (UTC) In the NFL, when an official rules a play a certain way (i.e. an incomplete pass), the head coaches have the option to challenge the play if they deem it incorrect. The official goes in for a instant replay review, and there has to be indisputable evidence that the call should be reversed. Just a thought, though I doubt Wikipedia is for this. Eagles 24/7 (C) 21:03, 7 December 2010 (UTC) The ones who are so keen on unblocking Fat/BErD should be compelled to assume responsibility for constantly monitoring its activities. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:09, 7 December 2010 (UTC) I volunteer :) Anthony (talk) 21:13, 7 December 2010 (UTC) Dontcha think that's a bit petty, Bugs? We all monitor; even if he is unblocked, as i think he ought to be, with his record, and assuming and giving benefit of doubt, it won't be long till he trolls again, and is blocked *with* process. Then we'll spend a minute or two picking up the pieces, and moving on. Meantime, i'll help, Anthony. Cheers, LindsayHi I should clarify that instead of "ones" I should have said "admins". Is it petty? Well, he's got two indef'd socks. How petty is that? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:20, 7 December 2010 (UTC) My apologies, Bugs; i posted, noticed the time, realised that i was late for an appointment, and left. I also apologise twofold, for perhaps not being clear, and for probably misinterpreting you. I read your post as a sort of sour grapes thing ~ "Well, go ahead and unblock, but i'm not helping" ~ which i'm sure was not your intent. All i meant was that while i agree taht socks and trolling are not petty, because of the circumstances of the block, the large gentleman should be unblocked (according to default, as i see it), until he unambiguously trolls or socks; then Pow! Cheers, LindsayHi 05:46, 8 December 2010 (UTC) I recommend taking a look at his recent comments on his talkpage.[15] Seems pretty unambiguous to me, that he is not taking things seriously. --Elonka 07:26, 8 December 2010 (UTC) I am glad you can all agree that any appearances of trolling or "bad behaviour" shall be a blockable offense. Beware what you ask for. There are more than a couple editors in this thread who could be blocked for trolling, and I don't just mean Pedro. If you allow no tolerance for others' personality quirks, then you should expect none for your own. Personally, I find it highly distasteful to see admins using blocks to force editors to agree with the admin's interpretation of policy, when that interpretation is disputed. Again, beware what you ask for, because if that's the culture you promote, someday, someone will do it to you. (I, for instance, often notice editors repeating misinformation on ANI. I find such behaviour substantially contrary to civil discourse, and I think it should be subject to sanctions.) Finally, let me remind you all that after TFM was unblocked the last time (by me), his edits have been watched (by me), and he has behaved within the constraints of the unblock as far as I have observed. So TFM should not be blocked anew for old behaviour. The recent edit that people seem upset about happened while I was away, unfortunately. Nevertheless, it was the result of a wrong edit by User:TeleComNasSprVen, and TFM refactored prior to the block, so if that's the basis for the block, then it's a pretty thin reason. Gimmetoo (talk) 00:26, 8 December 2010 (UTC) Yes, but editors get banned when there is a community view that they are a net detriment to the project. Sometimes a trivial incident might cause the community to re-examine the situation, and determine that a previous decision to give an editor another chance was simply wrong. Any given discussion always has an element of randomness. We have to be careful not to keep having the same discussion over and over until by random chance the editor is booted out, but it isn't illegitimate per se to revisit a prior decision when it wasn't clear cut. Rd232 talk 12:05, 8 December 2010 (UTC) Part of the problem is that behavior and reputation is cumulative. If every incident was taken in pure isolation, its likely that no one would think that any one of the hundreds of disruptive events done by TFM would be, of its own accord, grounds for blocking. In situations where we must judge a user on the totality of his contributions, positive and negative, there is going to be a difference of opinion as to how much is "enough". There is no bright line limit of the number of trollish, disruptive events are required before a user is blocked, and there is no bright line of the ratio of positive contributions to disruptions that the community believes "forgives" a person of their problems. Instead, there are going to be differing opinions, which is fine. Reasonable people may analyze the same situation and reach differing conclusions. That's why, in cases like this (see my comments below) where a user is being blocked for a pattern of small behaviors rather than a single, grossly disruptive event like vandalism or edit warring or abject racist screed or something like that, the discussion must be allowed to run its natural course before a decision is reached. Since this is one where reasonable people may possibly disagree, it is appropriate to see if enough do before proceeding, rather than shooting from the hip and seeing after the fact what people thought of it. --Jayron32 15:04, 8 December 2010 (UTC) At the time of the last block a month ago, I repeatedly encouraged people to start a discussion to review TFM's behaviour then and decide what was appropriate. People chose not to do that. Now that rehabilitation is in process, it seems rather counter-productive to now review TFM's past behavior, as if nothing had changed. But that's fine; precedent is now firmly established for future reviews of difficult editors. Gimmetoo (talk) 21:25, 8 December 2010 (UTC) This suggests that the Fat Man troll of yore is the same as the Fat Man troll of just yesterday. It's not like he's drawn some line in the sand and put his nonsense behind him, it continues. Maybe you see rehabilitation, but I don't have any patience for a troll like this; it's not like he needs to learn anything, he needs to make a simple and straightforward decision to stop being an arse, which he clearly hasn't. Enough already. Rd232 talk 21:58, 8 December 2010 (UTC) Oh hey, Gimmetoo; didn't see you there. I note you only warned me and not Baseball Bugs as well. Must be swell to be able to cherry-pick targets like that. HalfShadow 21:51, 8 December 2010 (UTC) BB's edits there ([16] [17] [18] [19] [20]) don't seem to me to be disruptive, but if you think they are, you might want to rethink your own edits. Gimmetoo (talk) 21:59, 8 December 2010 (UTC) And yet you look right past this while at the same time giving me hell for the post he's replying to. Nice one. How's that bucket holding up? HalfShadow 00:59, 9 December 2010 (UTC) I think that in general, in situations where a very recent block is being discussed, or a new block is being proposed, the result of anything less than clear support for the block (whether that be no-consensus or consensus in opposition) the user in question should be unblocked. However, this singular situation is muddied by the fact that some admins have jumped the gun on the block. There may have developed a consensus to block, indeed given the general trend of the situation BEFORE the gun was jumped, it looked to be heading that way. However, once the discussion process was short-circuited, it generated instant sympathy for the blocked user and resulted in a muddying of the waters. Now, it may have arisen, had the discussion been let run for a day or so, that consensus would have led him to not be blocked, or it may have not. But the action of short-circuiting the discussion has led to a muddying of the waters regarding the block. It is unclear which objections are to a) blocking TFM at all b) blocking TFM before the discussion was done c) General anti-admin sentiment. In the future, regardless of how this turns out, this should be a lesson to let the community discussion take its course. If no iminent harm is currently coming to article text (such as edit warring or vandalism), block and ban discussions can afford the proper time for users to deliberate. This did not happen in this case, and we now have megabytes of bullshit because of that. --Jayron32 07:46, 8 December 2010 (UTC) Breakdown of opinions Based just on the comments made in the introduction and "Re-open discussion, The Fat Man indef" section, here a quick summary of each editors opinion (based on quick skimming by me, please please re-check and update (template at User:Kingpin13/TFM)), some users who commented here are not included, as their opinion was not made clear, or they were apparently neutral: Extended content Please note this may not be 100% accurate, instead of relying on it, please read through the discussion yourself. Cheers, - Kingpin13 (talk) Those in support of blocking (first 9 prior to block) Eagles247 Kingpin13 John Baseball Bugs Jayron Conti Netalarm HalfShadow Sandstein Smith Jones Secret Pedro Mkativerata Aiken drum Elonka SarekOfVulcan AniMate Off2riorob Timotheus Canens Nakon Beeblebrox Fastily Jack Merridew Mathsci Wehwalt Dorsal Axe Burpelson AFB Kansan Rd232 Those opposed to blocking (first 1 prior to block) William S. Saturn SandyGeorgia Gwen Gale Ceoil SlimVirgin Kablammo Modernist Craftyminion Anythingyouwant Silver seren Dycedarg Stephan Schulz Dr.K. This is mainly because of the claims that there is a very clear case of no consensus, which I don't believe there is necessarily. Of course, strength of arguments should also be considered. Personally I feel the arguments presented for blocking are stronger, but since I myself support a block, I may be bias. - Kingpin13 (talk) 23:20, 7 December 2010 (UTC) It wouldn't really be possible to feel that the arguments favoring a block are stronger than those against one without personally supporting that conclusion (and vice versa of course). If reaching a conclusion makes you biased then the only unbiased people are the ones who don't know which side has the better arguments - and they're not much help either. 87.254.87.2 (talk) 00:14, 8 December 2010 (UTC) By the way, while y'all are talking, someone might want to check out User:Cowl head. No edits, no contributions, yet the account exists and User:Bad edits r dumb (as I understand it a sock of The Fat Man) has taken the time to place a welcome template on its talk page. Possible set up for use as our suspect's next sock? - DustFormsWords (talk) 05:53, 8 December 2010 (UTC) User:Cowl head was created at 8.56 on 28 Sep, and welcomed by Fat Man's User:Bad edits r dumb account at 8.57 (with edit summary "HI COWL HEAD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"), despite having no contributions or deleted contributions. If someone can explain to me how that's kosher, I'd like to hear it. PS Bear in mind this ANI thread of 28 Sep. Rd232 talk 11:59, 8 December 2010 (UTC) Based on all of the above discussion, this is my breakdown of the declared positions. Please feel free to correct this summary. There seems to be no consensus. If that is the case, the above discussion leans strongly towards default to unblock. Anthony (talk) 08:34, 8 December 2010 (UTC) Extended content Those in support of blocking AniMate Baseball Bugs Beeblebrox Burpelson AFB Conti Dorsal Axe Eagles Elonka FASTILY HalfShadow Jack Merridew John jpgordon Kansan Kingpin Mkativerata Mathsci Netalarm Nakon Off2riorob Pedro Rd232 Sandstein SarekOfVulcan T. Canens UltraExactZZ Those opposed to blocking Anthony Anythingyouwant Ceoil Cla68 Crafty Dr.K Dycedarg Gimmetoo Gwen Gale Kablammo Modernist Rocksanddirt SandyGeorgia Silverseren SlimVirgin Stephan Schulz The Fat Man Who Never Came Back William S. Saturn I have removed Timotheus Canens and Aiken drum from the "block" column because I couldn't find their comments, and Secret, because their last position seems to be: "I'll wait and see what Fat Man's reaction on this block in his talk page before voting whether to support blocking or unblock." Anthony (talk) 08:34, 8 December 2010 (UTC) (Note, "T. Canens" and "Timotheus Canens" are the same person, and Aiken drum's sig appears as "AD", if I remember correctly; search the wikitext for Aiken drum. I'll compare ours and my summary in more depth in a second) - Kingpin13 (talk) 09:08, 8 December 2010 (UTC) See User:Kingpin13/TFM/Comparison - Kingpin13 (talk) 09:41, 8 December 2010 (UTC) Just one question: since when did we need consensus to block a block-evading sockpuppet? That's policy, not a matter requiring additional consensus. Guy (Help!) 23:29, 8 December 2010 (UTC) Perhaps you could clarify precisely what the block-evading sockpuppet you are referring to? Gimmetoo (talk) 03:17, 9 December 2010 (UTC) Cowlhead is now blocked as an obvious sock , and it is alleged that the user Big Brother of the Party is also a sock, and is likewise now indef'd; and on this page, he evaded his block with an IP address, which could be an impostor, of course, but I think that's a wrap, folks. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:11, 9 December 2010 (UTC) Big Brother of The Party is a sock of Baseball Fanatic, not TFMWNBC. Eagles 24/7 (C) 00:18, 9 December 2010 (UTC) Holy Headlights, Batman! That's at least my second major gaffe of the day. Time for a short break. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:26, 9 December 2010 (UTC) Based on our discussions at User talk:Kingpin13#The fat man, Kingpin 13 will be posting our agreed summary of declared positions from this discussion shortly. If we've misrepresented your view, please just correct it. Anthony (talk) 04:19, 9 December 2010 (UTC) Here's what appears to be the tally (a combination of the two posted above): - Kingpin13 (talk) 08:48, 9 December 2010 (UTC) Combination Those in support of blocking Eagles247 Kingpin13 John Baseball Bugs Conti Netalarm HalfShadow Sandstein Pedro Mkativerata Elonka SarekOfVulcan AniMate Off2riorob Timotheus Canens Nakon Beeblebrox Fastily Jack Merridew Mathsci Dorsal Axe Burpelson AFB Kansan Rd232 UltraExactZZ Jayron Smith Jones Aiken drum Wehwalt Giftiger wunsch Gwen Gale Those opposed to blocking William S. Saturn SandyGeorgia Ceoil SlimVirgin Kablammo Modernist Craftyminion Anythingyouwant Silver seren Dycedarg Stephan Schulz Dr.K. Anthony Gimmetoo Cla68 update Owing to his ongoing behaviour in the latest thread on his talk page, I've declined his unblock request, after which User:Jayron32 locked him out of the talk page. My earlier worries about the block had to do with the short time given to review here. Lots of time has gone by now and I believe the block is sound. Gwen Gale (talk) 10:16, 9 December 2010 (UTC) nb: 113kb, 25% of an/i. Are we there, yet? Srsly, Jack Merridew 11:46, 9 December 2010 (UTC) ...I seem to be in an alternate reality where sarcasm doesn't exist and everyone is absolutely serious all the time. Everyone is very strange here, since they don't understand what a joke is. Definitely need to get out of here fast. SilverserenC 11:51, 9 December 2010 (UTC) There is a difference between sarcasm and trolling, isn't there? --Conti|✉ 12:24, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

The talk page

Should it be blanked because of the trolling?— Dædαlus^{+ Contribs} 07:23, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

See separate thread at #Requesting review of my removal of talk page access of TFM. - David Biddulph (talk) 08:52, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

User:Kailashgupta180

Could I get an admin to look at User:Kailashgupta180. Since joining Wikipedia in July, user has done one useful thing: creating an article on a Khiddirpur, a village in India. This is a great addition to the encyclopedia. Unfortunately, at the same time, the editor has been highly disruptive, essentially trying a large variety of methods to create an article about himself and his website under a variety of names (Kailash gupta, Www.kailashgupta182.wikia.com, and Kailashgupta182). Furthermore, the editor has added personal information to the Khiddirpur article numerous times--either a link to his user page, as here, or an email address, as here. This additions were done both with his accoutn and with an IP address (e.g., [21]). The rest of the user's time has been spent polishing his user page, which is somewhere between myspacey and resume-like. I have tried numerous times to inform the user of policies, but I've never gotten a response. The user was given a final warning by User:Eeekster on creating pages about himself back on 23 July ([22]), and that held, until today when he created the two newest ones (both tagged for speedy deletion). I don't see how spending any more time trying to teach or channel this user is going to help, because we're not getting any indication that the user understands, is listening, or is willing to follow our policies. I invite an admin to consider a block of some type; given the lack of useful edits after the initial article creation, I'm tempted to recommend an indefinite block, to last until such time as the user is demonstrates that xe understands our policies and purpose. I'm off to notify subject and Eeekster nowQwyrxian (talk) 06:42, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Seems to me like the user just doesn't get it. He doesn't understand wikipedia policy, nor do I think he is ever going to try to. All, or most of his edits are vanity edits, including the article he created, which, I think he made solely because he was born there, and wanted to put himself in that article at some point.

I regret not AGF'ing on this user, but he seems to be well beyond the stage of gentle rebuking - Amog | ^{Talk • contribs} 06:56, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't think the editor is maliciously inclined or even intending to be disruptive, they are simply incapable of understanding the purpose of WP (and I am not suggesting they are mentally incapable either, but more culturally differentiated). Should it be found necessary to remove them from the project I think it would be courteous of us not to label them as disruptive or a vandal. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:21, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

I also don't think he's maliciously inclined, just persistent, and very likely not reading the comments we're making on his talk page (or possibly not understanding them). The only time anyone used the word "vandal" has when I reported xym to AIV; I only chose that route because I knew it was a fast, easy way to get a very short block, that I was hoping might actually catch the user's attention. I was hoping that such an action could prevent the need to bring this to ANI. Unfortunately, it didn't. However, I do think the edits definitely meet the definition of "disruptive"; see WP:Disruptive editing. Unlike WP:VANDAL, which focuses on the intention of the user (to hurt the encyclopedia), disruptive editing only cares about the effect of the person's actions. In my opinion, Kailash's edits are "disrupting progress toward the fundamental project of building an encyclopedia," because they must be regularly reverted and no amount of discussion seems to be having any effect. Thus, we need the behavior to stop. I would really prefer that the user come to understand how WP works, because the Khiddirpur article is actually decent by the typical standards of India location stubs. Thus, this user has (or, at least, had) something useful to contribute; that doesn't make up for having to revert his vanity edits every few days. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:31, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Qwyrxian, I notice you've been reverting his attempts at adding infoboxes to his userpage. Are these against guidelines? If they are, you might want to take a look at this guy. Whew - Amog | ^{Talk • contribs} 08:01, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, I thought that those types of infoboxes are only for article pages; worse, though, was that he was porting over templates like the BLP notability template that definitely don't go on user pages. I could be wrong on the infobox, though. Qwyrxian (talk) 08:07, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I notice he's at it again. While I support an indefinite block for this user, I'm concerned he's only going to come back with another account and keep trying to get himself an article - Amog | ^{Talk • contribs} 09:03, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Note: I suspect he does not have the English skills needed to understand the notices on his page, so I have left a note on his page in Hindi offering him help. Maybe that might help - Amog | ^{Talk • contribs} 10:12, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Email notifications

Recently I got an email saying that I had requested a new password from Wikipedia. I hadn't. Possibly phishing? --Perseus (t • c) 18:01, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Or, someone requested a new password to annoy you or attempt to access your account. Apparantly that happens fairly frequently. They can't get it without access to your email address, though, so it can probably be ignored.--Korruski^Talk 18:06, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

If you get one of those emails and you didn't ask for it, it's a vandal trying to get your password. Just killfile it and continue using your old password - it will still work, and the email will be irrelevant after a few hours. —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Hyper Combo K.O.!)} 18:50, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Is there a place to put things like this somewhere where new users can see it so they know whats going on? Maybe in a FAQ format or something? Wolfstorm000 (talk) 04:34, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Forward the IP to an admin as well; might as well teach him not to bugger around. HalfShadow 04:53, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

LemonMonday again

LemonMonday (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log)

LemonMonday is currently blocked for editwarring with User:Fmph at Belgium. This is very interesting because he had just reverted Fmph on Climate of Ireland to an unsourced position in the last 2 days.

Both of these editors have worked the British Isles naming dispute area. LemonMonday has been a single purpose account whose main space edits from 2008 - Winter 2010 were made up of reverts of User:HighKing at articles they (LM) have never edited before. [23][24][25][26][27][28][29] He was also recently blocked for violating WP:BATTLE twice (October 30th and October 8th by Jehochman)[30]. Jehochman was convinced to unblock following this promise by LemonMonday. Subsequently LemonMonday raised two malformed article RFCs [31][32] - he was advised, by me, on how to fix the RFC at WP:BISE[33] but do date he has not. These RFCs discussed the subject of British Isles rather than how to improve the articles. The RFC on Talk:British Isles borders on falling under WP:NOT as it asks a question beyond the remit of Wikipedia to consider at all.

The above issues with this account fall under disruptive editing generally, but more specifically, WP:POINT, WP:HOUND and WP:BATTLE. LemonMonday was warned only a week ago that single purpose accounts are “expected to contribute neutrally instead of following their own agenda” (per the ArbCom ruling at the Race and Intelligence RfAr[34]). This recent spurt of reverts is alarming because LemonMonday has never edited either of these articles before. LemonMonday is now following another editor around reverting them.[35][36][37][38][39][40] LemonMonday has been the subject of a series of ANI threads in 2010[41][42][43], there are also issues with this account going all the way back to 2008[44]. Each one coming to the conclusion that LemonMonday was making pointy edits incompatible with Wikipedia.

Proposed remedy

I’ve been enforcing the British Isles probation for the last few months, but I now believe that LM’s issues with Wikipedia policy are beyond the scope of just that probation. It is time that this editor learned either to abide by policy or is simply prevented from disrupting others. Hence I put forward to the community that LemonMonday should be either:

• Community banned from Wikipedia, per WP:BAN.
• Or given a full topic ban from all British Isles, Britain and Ireland topics widely construed and banned from interacting with volunteers who are editing in that topic area, per WP:GS/BI and WP:BAN.

--Cailil ^talk 15:43, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

discussion part one

Though I'm no longer involved with BISE, I'd recommend waiting until the LM account's 72hr block expires, before continuing further on disciplinary action. It was annoying enough having the LB account's continous protests over it's civility sanctions being passed during its own block. GoodDay (talk) 17:46, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate your point GD but if the community wants to look at a full site ban I'll unblock LM on the condition that he only posts here. If the community wants to take the other road it's unnecessary. This isn't a court proceeding it's moderation of an internet project - our contrib history speaks for us--Cailil ^talk 21:53, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Okie Dokie. GoodDay (talk) 22:14, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Just looking at your first diff there in your list Calil - if you look at the 12 diffs from 3rd October to 8th October - there is a budding little edit war (8 edits) there about tags involving several recognisable names from BISE. On your second diff, HighKing reverts a different editor, TharkunColl, twice, on an article he has never edited before, in order to exclude the word british isles. LemonMonday then reverts him once. I haven't yet looked through all the diffs but I remember noting in the previous ANI thread on this subject that certain editors were being pilloried for reverting edits on articles they'd never edited before when in fact the editors making the original change or original revert had never edited them before either. I shall look through the other diffs too. Fainites ^barleyscribs 22:02, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Number 3 - another little two reverts each edit war between User:HighKing and user:TharkunColl on British Isles versus British Islands (!?!) then one revert from Lemon Monday. Nobody having edited it before.

Number 4 same again. Looks like a series of little articles on fauna, translated from nl.

Number 5 same again.

Number 6 is a little different. It dates to October 2008. However, again it is an edit war between TharkunColl and HighKing started by this peculiar edit by HighKing. Lemon Monday comes in for the last edit.

Number 7 is his contribs.Fainites ^barleyscribs 22:11, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I take your point Fainites. HK's edits then, 2008, were extremely problematic but HK's edit pattern changed. That does not excuse LM's wikihounding then, nor does it now of Fmph. LM should not be involving himself in revert warring at all anywhere - he fact that he has chosen to follow users he is in disagreement with elsewhere just makes that worse. He has been doing this since '08 to present.
If there is a problem LM should report it - as he has been invited to do for months. Rather than do so he has breached 3RR and the British Isles topic probation. And he has done so after blocks, warnings and community input (ANi threads etc). Therefore he knows he should be doing this and is choosing to anyway.
On the matter of the usage of WP:BISE (which is/was part of the problem) that is being reformed to come in line with site standards and if I find anyone from either side editing in a manner incompatible with WP:5 they'll be brought here. W.hat makes this especially serious from my perspective is that LM's edits have the appearence of hounding a user he's in disagreement with in an Ireland topic area to another topic area - in other words the BI dispute is being spilt over onto unrelated pages.
I included teh contribs deliberately so people can have quick access to LM's main space edits to see how many are and are not reverts--Cailil ^talk 22:31, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not waving a flag for LemonMonday! It just seems to me that if HighKing changes British Isles where he can and then revert wars to keep it that way, I don't see why the last reverter in line is the only one criticised when none of them have edited any of these articles other than to edit war over British Isles. I don't see how HK's editing pattern has changed that much except that he very carefully keeps under 3 reverts. It also seems to me that if an editor spends his time hunting down and removing a legitimate term he has taken a particular dislike to then it seems odd to complain if other editors hunt down his changes and revert them. Technically the latter could be called hounding or stalking - but then what is HKs activity called? (By the way "British Islands" is not a term I have ever heard in all my puff). Fainites ^barleyscribs 22:36, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the later set of diffs - these aren't BISE punch ups. The argument is over adding northern european climate as the norm. Fmph and LemonMonday each reported each other for 3RR/edit-warring.lemonMonday reported and Fmph for 3RR/edit-warring and another editor reported lemonMonday. LemonMonday was 3RR and got 72 hours. Fmph wasn't. I agree they are BISE spin-offs though. Fainites ^barleyscribs 23:03, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Fmph wasn't what? And please strike your comment that I reported LM. I didn't. Fmph (talk) 09:16, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Wasn't 3RR. And sorry - it wasn't you that reported LemonMonday.Fainites ^barleyscribs 09:20, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Fmph (talk) 09:42, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Just to remind anybody who's eyes haven't glazed over at the mention of the word BISE, the terms of the probation are Any editor who systematically adds or removes the term "British Isles" from multiple articles without clear sourcing and justification, or who edit-wars over such addition or removal, may be added to the list of topic-banned editors. By that definition, HighKing and TharkunColl's behaviour should be looked at as well. British Islands appears in some translated stubs. TharkunColl changes British Islands to British Isles. HK reverts. TharkunColl reverts it back and HighKing reverts again. Then LemonMonday reverts HighKing. Just looking at number 3, none of them could have looked at the reference which clearly gives a map of Europe. Fainites ^barleyscribs 10:17, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I see this is turning into the usual. Let's put up a HK smokescreen and TOTALLY forget the issue at hand. Bjmullan (talk) 10:34, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

That is a somewhat bad faith way of looking at it Bjmullan. I have not been "involved" in BISE until I looked into it quite recently simply because of it's frequent appearance here and I find a lot of it frankly absurd. I call it like I see it. If you have any detailed challenge to what I say the diffs show - by all means expound it here. I am not - as I said - waving a flag for LemonMonday. I am indicating that examination of the diffs so far appears to indicate that all 3 may well not be abiding by either the spirit or letter of the probation. Obviously diffs will need to be examined further.Fainites ^barleyscribs 10:42, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

No. It's not. Why exactly am I being dragged into this for edits since 2008 that are nearly 3 years old? Before BISE was started? Before BISE sanctions were even talked about and created? Now *that's* bad faith. --HighKing (talk) 10:47, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Actually the first diff is 2010 and most of the others are late 2009. The probation may be more recent but the same arguments and problems have been going for years. I raised this point because the diffs regarding LemonMonday were provided although I take your point that TharkinColl was not involved in 2010. Fainites ^barleyscribs 11:01, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

And here's the nub of the problem, and the nub of *your* biased view. Since 2008, my behaviour has changed. I learned, I discussed, I am civil. I work with the community. I follow policy. What is being highlighted here is LemonMonday's behaviour and failure to meaningfully contribute, and *your* failure to objectively look at his behaviour and instead try to turn this into (yet another) "Close Down BISE" or "HighKing is evil" rant. Your own opinion on the merits or otherwise of BISE (which are pretty well known) should not be confused with objectively examining Cailil's opening statement and LM's behaviour. --HighKing (talk) 11:57, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

And is anyone going to tell the editors in question that their motives and behaviour is being questioned at ANI? Fmph (talk) 11:18, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Fainites while as I said above I see your point about the edits in 2008 by HK but the reason I bring up LMs edits from 2008 is because his pattern of main space edits is the same as it was then and becuase LM has a very limited number of article contribs - most of them reverts of HighKing and now a new more serious pattern of hounding is starting.
This thread is about a pattern of abuse by LemonMonday from 2008 to present. The reformed BISE should deal with any further 'first mover issues'. LM has a pattern of about 60 hounding reverts from his last 100 cntribs regardless of the topic probation that stretch from September 2008 to present, that is the issue here not whether HK and TharkinColl were sanctioned (btw TharkinColl was sanctioned by BlackKite in the period you discuss). As I have stated many times if HK was continuing in the vein he had been in 2008 his edits would be an issue for me. But he's not. This thread is going back on topic - to deal with the issue of LemonMonday's behaviour at present and his choice to ignore 1 and half years worth of advice and warnings to change--Cailil ^talk 14:23, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

OK. Perhaps I haven't expressed myself clearly. My concern was that the list of edits you raised showed BISE behaviour from a number of editors rather than a pattern of LemonMonday hounding one editor, mostly in late 2009 and one in 2010. It seems to me that if there is a campaign to remove the use of a particular phrase from wikipedia, there will inevitably be a counter campaign in the other direction with most if not all of those involved following each other's edits. The recent diff in 2010 involved several BISE editors. I take my hat off to you for trying to police this situation and keep it within bounds. I have not really commented substantially on the situation with Fmph except to say LM 3RRd and Fmph didn't. I agree this thread should get back on topic. Fainites ^barleyscribs 16:23, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

No probs Fainites. I just want to deal with what's in front of me first. I do sincerly think that the problem you mention (the firt mover in these revert wars) should be resolved by BISE's review. I see a problem with any campaign to remove any term anywhere on WP and I hope and trust that the preponderance of good editors (those who put WP:V, WP:NPOV and WP:NOR firt) at BISE will keep things in order if editing atmosheres can be normalized--Cailil ^talk 20:51, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Here is the bottomline. I am not accusing anyone but am stating clearly for non-involved editors the context and what has been going on in this area.

This is the third time Cailil has initiated a banning discussion against someone who was blocked from defending themselves in the British Isles area; myself, Triton Rocker and now LemonMonday. More than "annoying" doing so seem plainly unethical to me. In all three cases, despite the same group of editors being involved in similar behaviour, the proposed sanctions have always been one-sided. "The Community" applying such sanctions rarely goes outside of the same involved characters.

It takes two or three to tango. At the very least, to appear fair, the ban/sanction should be two way. This issue has been raised before by others [45] and myself recently on his talk page. Fmph is a British Isles renaming dispute regular, not estranged from and edit wars in this area. SarekOfVulcan has also involved himself in editing warring in this area. LemonMonday just fell for a simple "gotcha". I have not looked closely at the timestamps but if he is editing from the UK, he may well have done so overnight and thought himself to be clear of any possible 3RR. He did the responsible thing but reporting an edit-war first. [{WP:AGF]]

Looking at the edit it would seem an exceptionally petty issue of no great importance or damage to the Wikipedia. Never before has Belgium been so exciting. Reading the source Fmph gave, there is no mention of Belgium in it nor specific geographic definition of it and so surely it was correct to remove it?

Reading what Fainites writes about the validity of all the references, once we remove their apparently impressive barrage and all the policy talk, do we really have anything of substance here? Are there really any terrible abuses going on? No, not at all. HighKing is again dragged back into the discussion as progenitor of the problems. Bjmullan comes in again to support on one side. [46] Snowded will soon appear to propose a case by case approach. It is the same old British Isles renaming dispute, business as usual.

If there is something to be done regarding the British Isles renaming dispute, it should be done fairly and en masse rather than the same admins taking sniper shots at individual editors in order to take them out of the game. It goes without saying that doing so changes the balance of the discussion on British Isles related issues. Coincidentally it is always to advantage one side's while other abuses are ignored.

I have recently suggested that what is really needed is to take the British Isles renaming dispute issue to Arbcom and was accused sorely for doing so by Cailil but, for everyone's sake, we need somewhere where the events will be looked at fairly by uninvolved third parties and moderated. This attempted sanction is just part of a bigger play and should not be allowed on its own. --LevenBoy (talk) 09:41, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I would advise reading this and this also to get a flavour of these absurd disputes - absurd on all sides. Fainites ^barleyscribs 12:38, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps just call the place Lizland (l'island) and be done with it?--Wehwalt (talk) 12:44, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Wot, Belgium? Fainites ^barleyscribs 12:46, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

No, I'd call Belgium other names.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:55, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Of course, LB fails to mention anything about LM following me first to Climate of Ireland, and later to Belgium, articles he had never previously edited. Neither does he explain why any edit to the Belgium article has anything to do with the British Isles (Hint: the correct answer is that it doesn't so it's pretty safe to assume that LMs actions were against me, and not against what I was editing). And the bad faith allegations and emotive language against Cailil (talk · contribs) "taking sniper shots at individual editors in order to take them out of the game" is pretty typical of his/her ad hominem attack style. Unreal! Fmph (talk) 13:28, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Fmph ignore this please I have asked LB to strike his ad hominem remarks--Cailil ^talk 13:44, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I see we have the usual name calling. The fact is that over the last year High King has played by the rules and has proposed changes on the task force page and accepted community decisions. I sometimes think it might be a good idea for the community to appoint someone to go through the edit histories of the main players and establish some facts so that we could avoid these smoke screens in the future. In contrast to HighKing Lemon and Levin have just been nay sayers, arguing for the insertion of BI whenever they can and objecting to its removal with few if any exceptions. They are both SPAs. And yes, I will continue to say that we have to resolve this issue on a case by case basis using references. The behaviour of both SPAs is not helpful to that, but LemonMonday is constantly breaking WP:AGF and edit wars at the drop of a hat. A topic ban at least I think. --Snowded ^TALK 20:22, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Sanction discussion

What is being proposed is that LemonMonday is either site banned or topic banned from all Britain and Ireland topics and banned from interacting with all editors involved at the British Isles naming dispute anywhere on wikipedia. The reasons are given in full in the first post along with diffs, but in short LemonMonday has a pattern of hounding reverts of editors from the British Isles topic. That is now extending beyond the topic into other areas thus creating a battleground and revert warring thus disrupting the project to make a point--Cailil ^talk 14:33, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

• topic ban and interaction ban for 3 months, and see if the editor can do better after a break from the topic. This is a measure I think we should use more frequently, before things come to an indefinite topic ban or site ban. (Part of me is tempted to topic ban/interaction ban the entire BISE crowd for 3 months - Wikipedia won't collapse in their absence, and they might return to the topic later on a bit wiser.) Rd232 ^talk 17:59, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
• Support for block/ban applied to entire BISE crowd. If it takes two to tango, HighKing's British Isle renaming dispute WP:BISE is a Buenos Aires ballroom (and Buenos Aires is neither in the British Isles nor Britain and Ireland, although they have just opened up a Grill in Dublin [47] which I suppose makes Ireland the largest geographic area ... zzzz).

If there is need for any sanctioning or banning, and this case look very petty and one sided, it should involve both parties equally. --LevenBoy (talk) 03:30, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Which 'both' parties? The reason that it's 'one-sided' (in your narrow POV), is that only one side is behaving badly. The preferred response would be for 'both' sides to behave properly and then the balance would be restored. So you chivy up 'your' lot to behave properly and I'll talk to 'my' lot. This response smacks of desperation as it looks like you may lose your tag team partner, so your repsonse is to ban everyone on the other side of the argument, who have been behaving themselves. Fmph (talk) 07:35, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

You and LemonMonday. The dispute in itself if not worth a fig but using it as an excuse to take out a player in the British Isle renaming dispute is. --LevenBoy (talk) 09:45, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

And what have I done wrong to warrant being banned? Don't you get it? LM broke the rules. I didn't. That's why the proposal is to topic-ban LM. Good grief. WP:IDONTLIKEIT is right! Fmph (talk) 13:15, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

LevenBOy you have had FULL and fair warning to abide by your editing restriction and stop using wikipedia as a battleground either strike your commentry calling my actions unethical/involved, and your opiniosn about other users or you will be blocked for breaching that restriction (full warning given here)--Cailil ^talk 13:22, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

• topic ban and interaction ban for 3 months and to be applied just as stringently (and perhaps more swiftly) to other editors who cannot abide by community policies. Enough is enough, it's time to get tough. --HighKing (talk) 16:52, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

resolution?

• Given that there seems to be a consensus here for a topic ban with interaction ban and that the same consensus exists for the same action from a previous ANi thread only a water of days ago[48] - I will impose this sanction within 24 hours. It should also be noted that this ban is within the remit of topic's probation and is a discretionary sanction. I am happy to review it after 3 months and 6 months. If I am unavailable or unwilling to do so at those times I am open for the community to do so here or at another appropriate forum or for the ArbCom to do so.
  However, I'm leaving a window open here in case LemonMonday wants to say anything constructive, and indeed in case LevenBoy wishes to retract the remarks he has been directed to redact as violations of his civility parole.
  If nothing happens within the next 24 hours both accounts will be notified of the actions pertaining to their accounts, LemonMonday topic banned from all British Isles naming topics widely construed (see TB02 listed at WP:GS/BI - that is a ban from both editing and discussing in any way whatever) and is banned from interacting with users from that area of dispute. Furthermore if LevenBoy does not remove his disruptive remarks in breach of behavioural restriction as notified, he will be blocked for violating his civility parole.
  Any outside opinions on this are vey welcome--Cailil ^talk 19:10, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Yeah I would have no problem with that. Mo ainm~Talk 19:26, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Fully support your handling of this difficult situation and also your proposed actions. Bjmullan (talk) 21:41, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure three editors - one of them heavily involved - one tempted to ban the whole BISE crowd, for, with one other heavily involved against counts as consensus for a topic ban. The complete lack of outside opinion on this may be a clue here. One could speculate forever as to why the usual bunch of commentators here do not comment either way but the fact is they don't. Fainites ^barleyscribs 22:07, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

That's why I entitled this "resolution?". And just so you know as listed above every thread about LM comes to the same point if he continues disrupting the project its time to topic ban. That was the resolution in November and August. I am however trying to open this to floor for discussion. I'm notaware that Rd232 is involved in this and I was including the consensus from the last discussion as well.
It should be noted though I've brought this here to discuss either a full site ban or a topic ban. There was no support for the site ban. The topic ban is within the remit of the probation and can be administered if an uninvolved sysop deems it appropriate - hence my mention of the sanction as discretionary. I am happy to leave this open for more input and if none is forth coming I'll ask a few uninolved sysops to review before acting. Personally the first thing I'd like to see is a constructive response from LM and LB, that if it came would help them both--Cailil ^talk 01:12, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

I was talking of 3 on one side and one on the other. One on either side is involved. One calls for banning everyone. Rd323 is uninvolved as far as I know. Fainites ^barleyscribs 23:03, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Ah ok - no problem. I misunderstood--Cailil ^talk 00:38, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I've asked 3 uninvolved sysops to comment - hopefully that will bring some further outside input as well--Cailil ^talk 22:18, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Support. I've reached the point where just hearing the phrase 'British Isles' gives me hives. But I've looked at the diffs that User:Cailil posted, and it's clear that there's a serious problem with User:LemonMonday's editing. I've read the discussion, and it seems that there are people who think that there are troubles with other users' edits, too, but since User:LemonMonday is the one under discussion, I say, yes to a topic ban. This whole 'British Isles' naming business has been a source of serious disruption to the encyclopedia, and those who exacerbate the problem should be made to stop. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 11:59, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Edit War on Cousin marriage

User:Anyuse200/User:Anyuse110, who had Anyuse200 blocked for socking (see WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Anyuse110/Archive), is continuing the edit war on Cousin marriage to make changes without consensus (eg repeatedly moving the image away from the head of the article). It's not strictly a 3RR, so I've brought it here instead. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:36, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

(PS: When I reverted, I hit the wrong Twinkle link - I meant to comment it as "Revert edit warring" rather than vandalism, sorry -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:41, 10 December 2010 (UTC))

(ec) See also [49] Mathsci (talk) 11:42, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I was distracted by RL there, but I've now informed Anyuse110 of this report at User talk:Anyuse110 -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:57, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Owing to the sockpuppetry and other blocks over this, I've blocked them for a week. Some of the edits do look a bit odd, I guess they're most likely GF PoV pushing. If they say they'll stop, I'll unblock. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:00, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Pashto language

This issue involves a dispute with user Lagoo Sab. It was about style as well as content of the official language section of above lemma. I have asked for a 3O on 06-12-2010 which was given by user Ironholds. Lagoo Sab had nevertheless re-edited saying both of us are biased resulting in a dispute as well as what I consider personal attacks as well as hypothesizing about my identity. I have encorporated suggested changes into the section, restructured it to account the undue weight notice entered by Lagoo Sab. And am simply frustrated as of now. I will provide diff links in the process but would appreciate assistance. Chartinael (talk) 22:23, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

• To give further context as to the user behaviour - personal attack, personal attack and assumption of bad faith, discrediting of a source based on the writer's ethnicity and religious beliefs, personal attack and assumption of bad faith. Ironholds (talk) 22:31, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Sorry, I dealt with it before I saw your report here, but I came to the same conclusions you did after seeing his report at WP:ANEW. He's blocked 24h. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 22:45, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Actually that's discrediting a source on the grounds that not all sources are reliable. Which they aren't. I, too, have seen books where paragraphs or even chapters have been copied from the WWW. I've also seen books that aren't academic works. I own several. ☺ And the correct response is, as you did, to point out that the author is a credentialed expert writing in xyr field of expertise.

    The response that you missed out on was noticing the possible conflation of official language with language with the largest number of L1 speakers. It's not necessary to take a census to determine the former. Uncle G (talk) 01:06, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

    • "That claim is made by Rizwan Hussein, a Shia book writer" is fairly clearly aimed at impugning the writer and therefore the source :P. Ironholds (talk) 03:41, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
      • Only if one regards "shia" as an insult. Why are you regarding it as an insult? Uncle G (talk) 07:41, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
        • Without looking further into this, I am well aware that if someone who identifies as a Sunni were to comment that a source was produced by a Shia that this might be an attempt to deprecate the source - much like a Protestant noting a source was written by a Catholic in regards to some matters. In some cultures such commentary would not be considered extraordinary, but it is inappropriate within Wikipedia. Part of WP:NPA notes the use of "affiliation" to diminish another editors contribution as being a violation of policy. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:41, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
          • You're confusing "another editor" with "person who authored the source under discussion". Uncle G (talk) 22:42, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
            • According to all sources Shi'as are around 15% and Sunnis up to 90%. So whenever someone says such book writer being used as a source is a Shia, it's basically saying that the view of the book writer is a minority view. This is especially important when the book writer is discussing information relating to Sunnis. In this case, the Shia book writer Rizwan Hussien is writing about Pashtuns who are about 99% Sunnis.--Lagoo sab (talk) 22:58, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
              • Please, ascertain and source your knowledge about Hussain's religious views. Furthermore, be so kind and explain to us why you believe his religious views if he holds any affect his academic reasoning and research. Whatever his religion may or may not be, Hussain does not hold a minority view on the languages of Afghanistan nor the Pashto-Persian language conflict there, as many other sources support his findings. Chartinael (talk) 09:26, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Timeline of Conflict

This is regarding the conflict I have with user Lagoo Sab since the lemma first came to my attention in October 2010.

The lemma came to my attention in October of 2010 when user: timbaland made changes on the -de version regarding size of native speakers from 33 mio to 50 mio referencing the -en lemma. After looking into the speaker population issue I referenced the numbers according to safe, but agreed on academic estimates and introduced an official language section. Another attempt to up numbers without reference was made by an IP a few days later. The German lemma stayed at that.

At the same time I looked into the -en lemma, trying to figure out how the high numbers were sourced. The source was the ethnologue differentiating between speaker population and ethnic population. Since the Pashto lemma is about the language, the speaker size should be the figure stuck to and in the lemma on ethnicity the higher number ought to be found. However, there seems to have been an ongoing dispute as the higher numbers replacing lower although unreferenced numbers as well were entered by Lagoo Sab [50] This issue caused Lagoo Sab to call me a POV-Warrior as he found the ethnic population and corrected outrageously wrong numbers entered by another editor [51] which I replaced with speaker population referenced by several academic sources [52] as the ethnologue gives an estimate on ethnic population suggesting speaker population is higher than given. Backing figures up with Encyclopaedia Iranica, UCLA Language Project and Ethnolgue

My version of the story goes like this:

• My first edits on Pashto language in July 2010: [53]
• User:Tajik from Germany lowers percentage of Pashto-speakers: [54]
• IP 94.219.198.90 from Germany [55] insulting and attacking Pashtuns lowers percentage of Pashto-speakers: [56]
• IP 94.219.198.90 from Germany again with his OR and POVs: [57]
• I reverted his unsourced OR and POVs [58] which was quickly reverted on the same day by User:Cabolitae [59]. These users and the German IP stopped editing the article and User:Chartinael who claims to be from Germany began editing the article in October 2010 by lowering the percentage of Pashto-speakers from 50 to 20 million.[60] I am cerain that User:Chartinael, who described himself to me as a German by nationality and citizenship, is a Persian (Iranian-Afghan) living in Germany. I don't care about this, I'm only against lies and putting false information. If I sound weird, it's probably because I don't drink alcohol and I'm a devouted Muslim who is forced to tell the truth. I believe that all my deeds will be revealed, from tiny ones to major ones, on the Day when I have to face God to be judged. So therefore, it serves me no such good to make even a tiny lie anywhere. If you don't believe in God, I also understand that and I have no problem with you. Just ask yourself when you do good or bad deeds very secretly that nobody but only you saw them, then how come when you do the good deeds something good always happens to you and when you do bad deed something always bad happens to you. That's proof that somebody is always watching over us even when we think we are all alone.--Lagoo sab (talk) 23:40, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Regarding your initiation on the Pashto Lemma:

You removed with your initial edit [61]] the graphic image of language distribution without comment.

Regarding the Tajik [62]-edit you somehow forgot to mention that you added the 42 Mio without giving a source where as on his revert he actually explained his reasoning.

How can a bad edit [63] be an insult. Revert was absolutely appropriate. More than that, what does this have to do with your dispute with me?

You reverted a correct ranking change once and twice and re-reverted yourself - what exactly constitutes OR and POV? yours or the other editors? And again, what does this have to do - this is clearly before I ever came into the lemma.

Regarding your certainty about my person and identity. I don't care what you think about my identity or my ethnicity as long as you don't go around making false accusation. Let me tell you though, that I tell the truth although not being forced by anyone - I just think it is the right thing to do. I don't care what religion you adhere to, I don't care where you are from but I care about keeping a lemma academically sound. The only one I have watching over my action on WP are Wikipedians.

Again, do not judge another editor nor a source based on religious or ethnic grounds. Stick to the academic view point. Although academics are always subjective and influenced by who they are at least they are taught to not let that affect their research and findings and to be as objective as possible when drawing conclusions. Chartinael (talk) 09:26, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

The Official language Section and the Issue of Speaker and Ethnic Population

Lagoo Sab has been keeping an eye on the official language section, reverting edits [64] that were unwarranted (32%) with other good edits (comparison of pashto and persion on socio-economic level) or regarding Persian being the lingua franca [65]

After an edit by Bejnar in the official language section [66] replacing unsourced stuff with more unsourced although slightly more correct stuff, I rewrote part of that parallel in [67] and -en when Lagoo Sab made changes removing and replacing sources [68] especially adding a rather full quote from a public domain paper not published by an academic publisher which I contested [69] and Lagoo Sab reverted [70]. After reverting back and forth with no sign of Lagoo Sab understanding the difference between speaker and ethnic population, he took the issue to the talk page although he even quotes his source correctly [71]. He backs his POV claim against me with UCLA, which has an even lower estimate of speaker population cherry picking the percentages and doing OR applying them to figures from other sources while realizing that the speaker population is only an estimate. User Ketabtoon supports Lagoo Sab, while mixing and mingeling with sources, applying percentages taken from source a at year x to raw figures of source b from year y saying primary census data is to be used instead of secondary academic data - which I contest but was willing to use the higher number backed by an academic paper as well. At no avail, WP:OR continues with Ketabtoon which I contest again pointing out again that speaker and ethnic population are not identical while Lagoo Sab says estimates are fine if they are generally accepted and my safe and academically backed numbers are OR [72] I leave it at that. Especially after the 3RR rule has been called on me by user Kaddoo who also hypothesizes about my identity but thinks better of it.

I checked back about a month later starting right of with reverting nonsense edit by Kaki joe and restructuring section which was inconsistent. Revert from Lagoo Sab without comment. On December 1st, I checked back and saw that he had gone back to the official language version which I consider bad in style and consistency. So I restructured once more asking him for explanation through the comment which Lagoo Sab rvv on the 6th calling me an anti-Pashtun POV-pusher and a Tajik ethnocentric without discussing it as requested on the talk page on December 1st . Instead he called me a POV-Warrior writing persian ethnocentric bullshit being obsessed with hate. At that time I explain to him again that I have no pro- nor anti-Pashto POV and that I realize that discussion is futile as I am dealing with a fanatic. Lagoo Sab differs and says I am user:Sommerkom or user: Phoenix2 with whom it seems he has issues. He disregards reputable academic sources as an unverifiableTajik biased demonstrating my low? level of intelligence continuing on to comparing implicitely me to Hitler because I am German. Which again leads to wild hypothesizing regarding my identity here as well.

Third Opinion

I then refute to asking for a 3O regarding the disagreement regarding Phrasing / Structuring of Official Status Section in Pashto Language article here and informing lemma-editors in talk-section after restructuring to make both versions easily comparable. User Ironholds responds to the 3O request and user ReporterMan removes 3O thereafter.

Sources

Lagoo Sab dismisses sources as Tajik and Shi'a thus on the basis of ethnicity and religion of author while the CAL source is claimed to be neutral despite the fact the the authors Farid Younos and Mariam Mehdi may or may not be biased thus dismissing academic publishers like Routledge, Ashgate and others. He has issues with Rizwan Hussain a source and dismisses his research methods although Hussain used in several other lemmata as stated by me in response.

Lagoo Sab enters a new source into the discussion (Tariq Rahman) which he also entered into the lemma as an external link. After reviewing article, which btw is published in the academic journal which gave excellent reviews to the Hussain source Lagoo Sab dismisses, I make a statement to the effect, that not all ethnic pasthun speak pashto - which was backed by this new source and contested by Sab himself [73], saying that I have issues [74]. Ironhold, however, finds this notion "ludicrous".

Ironhold asked me if all the Pashtuns speak Pashto language and I said yes, but as a first language only. He calls that "ludicrous". I said he has issues if he doesn't believe my facts. If he wants to know he should read the Pashtun people article instead of asking me questions in tlak pages.--Lagoo sab (talk) 23:25, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Ending Conflict?

At that time I had taken the issue to the administrative notice board asking for intervention while at the same time Lagoo Sab took the fact I reverted his adding a royal title to the rulers as a way to call a 3RR on me. And this is where we stand. I would like to be able to edit without being assaulted immediately as a non-intelligent tajik shia ethnocentric with a bunch of sockpuppets and would like somebody to explain to Lagoo Sab that academic publications are preferable to tertiary internet sources. Basically, I would just like to not be in the focus of his persian-pashto tunnel view. Chartinael (talk) 12:21, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Talk about excessive investigation, it is unnessary to make such a long report when the issue is very minor. And the issue is that Chartinael's edits try to draw a conclusion that Pashtuns (42-60% of Afghanistan population), who are the founders of Afghanistan in the early 18th century, forced Pashto language on the population of Afghanistan. This kind of sensitive information should be explained to readers in a very unbiased and neutral way. In the early 20th century, Afghanistan was witnessing modernization for the first time, with western-built universities and schools being established. The majority of Afghanistan's population were Pashtuns (speakers of Pashto language) so it was the only thing to do for the government by making Pashto and Persian both the official languages, which is because about half the population speak Pashto and the other half Persian. But the article isn't explaining this properly, it is trying to say that the leaders of Afghanistan were Persian-speakers and they decided to make Pashto the official language. The article has irrelevant information but missing very important things like what I'm focusing on. Who cares if Amanullah Khan (just one individual) was able to speak Pashto or not? One source provided says he couldn't but the other one states that he made speaches in Pashto, so which one are we suppose to believe? I suggest we start a "History" section and explain the history of Pashto language.--Lagoo sab (talk) 23:17, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I consider excessive investigation into issue a core element of research - even it is on minor issues like wikipedia. To me it is evident that you cannot distance yourself from your history. Pashto was used in the 20th century as a means to establish national identity. It is a symbol to unify. It happened and happens all over the world. It is a mechanism. There is no sensitivity involved. It is a fact. Persian as a language could not be used as it was not associated with the natural borders of the Afghan Empire. It was also the language of the previous rulers. This is the reason why Pastho was not established until the 20th century when it became necessary in order to obtain independence and assert a national identity. See, the leaders of Afghanistan were Persian speakers. Persian was the language of the ruling class. But they are politicians. Politicians lie. Muslim or not. They want to further their interest and that interest is to stay in power. In order to achieve that they come up with all sort of ruses, like: hey, we need a national symbol, what could we use? Language is always good. That is the reason why Amanullah had to make speeches in Pastho although he didn't speak Pashto. Emphasizing on the differences to other People another ... This is the reason why Dari is called Dari and not Persian and Urdu not Hindi. And speakers of Serbian insist they speak an other language than Croatian. And with the fall of the wall czechs and slovaks started to emphasize on local orthographies to make two languages out of one. It is about drawing borders, securing power. Blame the colonial powers for messing with your regions as badly as they have done. They drew borders as they saw fit and created alliances so the the asian people allienated themselves.

All this is too much for a section on the status of Pashto as an Official Language. It suffices to say when it became an official language where and why. The detail about its use and abuse as a symbol could be dealt with in a lemma the Language conflict in Afghanistan kinda like the Urdu-Hindi conflict or whatever.

I continue to see that you feel you need to protect pashto. To you this is about numbers and portrayal. I understand that this must be hard for someone involved as deeply as you as an Afghan national - and I mean Afghan national to only refer to citizenship, no more. This is why people who are emotionally involved ought to step back and try to assume a neutral perspective. The lemma and the section in question is merely descriptive and not judgemental. See, I would have not taken the CAL source because I think this entire quote is judgemental and not throwing a good light on the Pasthun teachers. It also makes it sound as if the pashtuns don't give a damn about the other people forcing a language onto them although all were happy with using persian as the lingua franca. To me, this is too short as it leaves out the historical context which btw is very well described by Tariq Rahman whom you added as an external link. However, you insist to keep that full quote in - so fine. However, you read the same papers I do, but you draw different conclusions ... you say, the rulers didn't use Persian and complain about that. At the same time you include a statment like "Persian was the language of the court" not realizing that the court is the royal court ... thus the ruling elite. All I am asking is that you step back and think about things. I like a lot of your edits. Except for the "King" part which is against WP:NCROY - thing is, you felt by taking away the title, I was insulting the pashtun royals [75] - which I wasn't. Nor was I expressing hatred by not capitalizing pashto in one of my edits [76]. You add interwikilinks, tidy up wording, find new sources. You even take CAL with blatantly Persian authors as a source. But some edits are crap, Pashtuns do not become any better when upping numbers and rankings and adding every location where there are communities all over the world. You are a proud people and there is no need to start being nitpicky about shit like that. If the numbers are old and newer census numbers are needed, you people need to start getting those, letting academics into your country, cooperating on a scientific level with academics worldwide, getting your people educated, pressuring the ruling class to make sure every one can get schooling. But people all over the world have a variety of religious beliefs and a variety of ethnic backgrounds. To dismiss interaction with them on those grounds will not ascertain that pashto cultural heritage, history and language are well studied. I - for one - would love to make field studies about Pashto. And to be honest, if your behavior is representative of the general cultural attidude to others, I cannot risk that. Chartinael (talk) 09:26, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

• You're jumping from one topic to another in every sentence and I can't follow your argument. I'm not going to reply to everything you have mentioned but here are a few points.
• WP:NCROY doesn't relate to Afghanistan or Asia, it also doesn't speak about King being used next to someone's name inside another article.
• Barbara Robson and Juliene Lipson (with Farid Younos and Mariam Mehdi) are Persian authors? Who say they are? To me they are Americans (under a cooperative agreement with the Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration of the U.S. Department of State [77]) and the information presented by them on Afghans is very neatly written and it's the same as what all other sources say.
• I'm protecting things in Wikipedia from those who's interests are to bash Pashtuns or Pashto language, that's all. Wikipedia is not a place for this and I'm sure you know this by now.
• I'm not here for politics talk, my hobby is just to make Wikipedia articles look nice and neat so that readers thank me for presenting information to them in a very realistic and un-biased way. As I've said before, I'm a religious man who believes that doing good deeds come with rewards.--Lagoo sab (talk) 00:15, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Ah thank you for admitting that you have a pro-Pashtun-POV. Which apparently is the reason, why you are unable to read and comprehend the sources as you filter on a pro-Pashtun agenda. Chartinael (talk) 11:20, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

WP:NCROY clearly states the following:

• The conventions on this page are also recommended ... for Muslim monarchs ...
• ... contemporary monarchs with Arabic names are often treated much as this guideline would suggest

it also refers to WP:Manual of Style (biographies)#Honorific_prefixes, which again states the following:

• Styles and honorifics ... should not be included in the text inline

So, using titles in text is really not needed. It doesn't add any wheight to an argument. When talking about Pashtun rulers and naming a few within the same section, there is not need to put King in front of their names. Reading, comprehending and not feeling insulted by another editor's edits is the key to using WP. Don't be so paranoid as to think that everyone is out to get a good go on the Pashtun. Chartinael (talk) 11:36, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Just because I edit articles of specific race or people it doesn't mean I'm one of them or I'm showing off my race of ethnicity. I can tell you this, if I were to be spotted anywhere in the Pashtun territory I may be shot by them or kidnapped, etc. I just found interest in studying as much as I can about this race of people, and Wikipedia didn't have a clear detailed history article on them. I decided to contribute my knowledge on Pashto/Pashtuns to the world. I may study other people soon, I like to study many things not just people. I'm not paranoid, and the reason I add "King" somestimes to a person's name so readers better understand the person. Face it, to most non-Afghans (6 billion people) these Muslim names are usually strange so they need to at least be able to tell if he is King, Governor, Chief, or other. You're wrong on the WP:NCROY but I'm not going to waste my time presenting words out of context to your words out of context. I rather do that in court when I'm suing someone for $50 million dollars. As for the pro-Pashtun POV, you're wrong, I personally view Persians and Pashtuns (especially the Afghan Urban Pashtuns) as a very related group, only their language separates them and since most in Afghanistan are bilingual, they are both one race but are rivals like how two brothers are usually rivals. Tribal Pashtuns who live outside cities don't change much since they live isolated lives. The Pakistani Pashtuns are more close to the Urdu-speakers. This is the result of the 100 years Durand Line affect. This is why most Pashtuns don't even accept the Pakistani Pashtuns as Pashtuns, and vice versa.--Lagoo sab (talk) 18:16, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Kühntopf

This relisted AfD is degenerating into a battleground between the (mostly IP) supporters and detractors of the article subject, which generates WP:BLP problems. I recommend that it be closed and courtesy-blanked, or at least semiprotected. I can't do this because I'm the nominator.  Sandstein  22:02, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Very Important Business

Click this button.

Reference this BLP.

Click this button.

Reference this BLP.

NW (Talk) 15:43, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

• • You need to make those buttons a little larger, as my eyesight ain't what it used to be. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:45, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
• Not really an incident, though, is it? ╟─TreasuryTag►draftsman─╢ 15:51, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

While I appreciate the buttons, "um"? Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 16:33, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

• One down. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 16:57, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

This button leads not to specific articles, but to random articles tagged unreferenced BLP, which is not a bad idea. Of the first two I checked, one had been referenced since Feb 20, 2009, with links to published reviews,and should never have been marked unreferenced. (Whether the reviews offer sufficient extensive and reliable coverage to support notability might be another matter); The second can be referenced easily from GNews (though whether they actually support sufficient notability is another matter also)--perhaps the note was placed here to indicate the excessiveness of the fuss over these articles. DGG ( talk ) 17:55, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Would it be a good idea to add a "Source a BLP" link to the sidebar, perhaps just under "Random article"? Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:27, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

BMK, I like that idea. And I'm pleased to say that Halid Muslimović is also removed from that category. Drmies (talk) 20:04, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Or can this be made into a templated button, for interested user to transclude on their pages? Jclemens (talk) 20:09, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Hmm. It's also defaulting me back to the nonsecure interface to do this, which results in my other username being used... Jclemens (talk) 20:30, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Can somebody shrink those, please? That's kind of obnoxiously large. HalfShadow 20:33, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

It could be a great motivational tool: let's have the size of the buttons directionally proportional to the number of tagged unreferenced BLPs ;) GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 21:10, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

=D Nolelover ^{It's football season!} 21:17, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm ... could you change the title of the button to "Read a piece of unmonitored potential slander"? Works just as well for either description.—Kww(talk) 21:14, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

• instead of editing the button, source a BLP. that's what i did!--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 21:51, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Random idea; could we have this as a watchlist notice for maybe a week? Nothing heavy, just a short intro with a link to this tool --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 23:33, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Template created at {{uBLP refbutton}}. Access Denied 03:40, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

• This is exactly the sort of being on the wrong page and two steps behind that I'm talking about. If you had been reading the noticeboard page where the discussion is actually happening, you would have noticed the existence of Template:Big Red Button, substituted above but transcluded on the proper discussion page, which was created a month ago. Uncle G (talk) 09:26, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
  • I am forced to Facepalm on behalf of us all. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 10:16, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Flobot222

Flobot222 (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log)

This editor seems to rack up warnings on an almost daily basis. They are only editing India/Pakistan/Persia related articles, specifically concerning ethnicity, and obviously making lot of contentious edits, seemingly based on the manifest that the user insists on having on his/hers talk page. Yet the user has never used an article talk page, but has instead preferred edit warring, both the quick and the slow version.

I am not terribly familiar with the subject matter at hand, but it seems to me we have an SPI that are unable to keep their neutrality as well as unwilling to engage in discussion about their edits either on article talk pages or their own. As such I have my doubts that this editor is an asset to the project, although with some friendly but stern advice they might become one. --Saddhiyama (talk) 09:05, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

I've just noticed this after warning them (different edit) and posting at the Edit warring board (4 removals at Jemima Khan). Very recent editor and pretty much every edit gets reverted or flagged for the same race-related POV push? Andy Dingley (talk) 11:06, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Hello both of you, Can you present diff links to contested edits? So far I haven't seen much that I'd feel too much out of place. I consider the Jemima Khan edits fine. There is no reason to emphasize on religion or converting to another in the lead. Reviewing some edits:

• Edit taking out unsourced section describing a people (Kaul) through physcial attributions. [78]
• This edit is bad, but it appears he may not know what a cognate is. [79]
• This edit is good [80] as is this [81] another good one [82]

I would like to understand which POV you are referring to, especially what race-related POV he is pushing? Again, please provide diff links. I found a few crappy edits, like the one Saddhiyama complained about [83]. Chartinael (talk) 12:01, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Is the username not against our username policy at it has bot in it? Mo ainm~Talk 11:46, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

He got blocked for the username, although I don't see how his user name violates that policy. Chartinael (talk) 12:01, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

...unless your account is an approved bot, your name should not end with "bot". Mo ainm~Talk 12:12, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, I have inquired with blocking admin: The user name does not END with -bot, it contains -bot- I do not see, how this is a violation. Also, he is new why not point the potentially misleading fact out to him and suggest a change. Chartinael (talk) 12:15, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

If the account is only blocked for username violations then they are welcome to request a name change. Mo ainm~Talk 12:23, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

It's not a username vio, I don't think... —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Hyper Combo K.O.!)} 19:04, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

The username policy is not well written on this point. I understand why any name with "bot" in it isn't banned, but it should specify that any name which could be 'easily misunderstood to be a bot's name should be verboten, as is the case here. The username block of Flobot222 may not have been within the current written letter of the policy, but it clearly fits its intent. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:32, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Agree, first thing I saw was what looked like a bot name ... wondered why it was still unblocked ... didn't look further because I was not at a secure computer. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:35, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

• Returned as User:Uwo222. Same edits re-appearing already. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:13, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi guys, I apologize for any causing any concerns, but I'm only making the introduction of Jemima Khan more concise. It regurgitates everything written the article, which is short to begin with. Also, it has arbitrary details included such as which years her relationships lasted and her conversion upon marriage? This stuff is detailed in the article sections. The formatting of the introduction is very odd and not consistent with other articles. This is why I'm editing out details in the introduction that are already stated later in the article. Sorry again for any problems caused. Thanks guys!Uwo222 (talk) 03:40, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

User:Last1234

This user is basically using Wikipedia as a blog and apparently nothing else. As they're Spanish, I'm not sure warnings would accomplish much. Could someone fluent inform him/her that we're not here so they can talk about their day? HalfShadow 22:23, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Can you give some diffs? I mean this and this is not a whole lot of material, which is the page prior to you blanking it. That much of a blog he can have, no? And blanking someone's user page is not very nice. But he hasn't done anything else at WP, either. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 22:31, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, but that's my point: that's literally all they're doing; check any edit from his contribution list. We're essentially being used as a blog by this guy. HalfShadow 22:35, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

All edits seem to be to their user page - gotta agree. Ravensfire (talk) 22:41, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

"these i love? let me know when you go to go I'm here to eat if you send a msg that I thought I was gonna eat it avias ia seen, because I ate one evening I had wings and white soup .. ok no alcanse not see ke ke and ate good antojaton I love wings and gave me time almorse ambre grabs a single with potato Takita esque love my mother that we ate only echo my brother is not, so I expect more tanito Later, he went to Aeon teran about the other guy turns .-- and I took a bottle of water, but it passed the vdd .. ambre ke kiero ok but not bad going t kiero ke estes bn eat many tortillas t eat? I ate 2 love stoy I'm mal-paso qe NADM cmiendo well in the morning my mom gave us tangerines to my bro and i ami I ate like 3 for that and in the morning, breakfast biscuits Coko. if tragooo of more: S I'm a pig. ambre I have much love bb and t extranio HOW can you do you're going to borrow money from dany or wave I miss you t remember tmabien ke avia he paid 20 pesos to a senior to go to truck ke returned it to me and dani me peresto 50 cones and the ntp ago sii love is good, with that the aces is good to have the lunch at 4:30 so you do not forget, if you c love leave at half past four I will not eat love ke oki then i eat afueraaa ... or algooo cometee ai ke tacos sold out or a cake. aurita love me if I buy something if you open aver puestesito outside where they sell cakes Jaaj oki is good if you can not talk much we talk right now .. NTPP for these seating ke t going to take oke? NADM not you say well, if they are your bosses ai. aseleres ok i do not no no t worry if it takes me is ke I can not answer but left the vato aki ke estava aaOK this Abii I love deciia.aa Ndama I have a lot flojeraa: S and T, and love simple salts and lack pokito This is the ultimate long extranio t ce and bb if I'm missing some, please Czech times when Tengs time, I feel weird and dicindote this will porqe all day I was angry. but hey tmb xs I miss you hope to see you soon that was what i feel strange desirme ke tambn me extranias and I hope you love me and see me soon? No longer is neither qe said. the schedules. qe checks do not want you to stay next week nurse at night. I'm tired tmb: (morning show?"

Yeah, fine. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 23:09, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

I've warned the user about this problem. If it continues, a block is required.  Sandstein  23:25, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Recently there was another Spanish-speaking blogger, user Ryute, although there's no other apparent connection that I'm seeing offhand. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:02, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

The porn chatter? That was fun. I don't see any connection either. Drmies (talk) 05:54, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Userpage nonsense + inappropriate personal info = RevisionDeletion candidate. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 05:08, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Ongoing disruptive editing by IP user 81.168.20.115

Over the past year, IP user 81.168.20.115 has been continuously adding unsourced details to the Bonnie Tyler article, despite several warnings by other editors not to do so (both in the article's edit summaries and three warnings on the IP user's talk page). The issue, concerning worldwide sales, has been discussed at great length on the article's talk page in the past and consensus is that such a detail should not be added to the article without definitive sources. User 81.168.20.115 (obviously an overzealous fan) has refused to enter into any discussion and has failed to respond to any warnings given, adding unsourced details back to the article regardless. I think perhaps a block would be beneficial. Diffs:-

• 16 Dec 2009
• 08 Jan 2010
• 21 Sep 2010
• 02 Dec 2010
• 03 Dec 2010
• 08 Dec 2010
• 08 Dec 2010 #2
• 09 Dec 2010

Kookoo Star (talk) 00:52, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not inclined to block when there's been no real attempts (ie attempts that are not templated warnings) to engage this editor who may be acting in good faith. And it seems there might be some sources on the IP's side: [84], [85] The editor may have seen these news articles recently and added the content accordingly. If the sources are questionable, that is a discussion that needs to be had on the article's talk page. --Mkativerata (talk) 04:10, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

i sent him a plate of cookies help him cool off. maybe that might be enough to chill his mizzerole and either way maybe it might alow for more collegial editing admonostrophere. User:Smith Jones 04:23, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

With regards to the source mentioned by Mkativerata, a couple of articles from a site promoting Wales-online is hardly a definitive source for global record sales. They are neither an authority on the matter nor are they impartial (Bonnie Tyler is welsh, and they promote all things welsh). That source would fail WP:RS in a second. And given the dates of those articles (both within the past couple of weeks), you can see that they came after the IP user began adding their inaccurate details to the Bonnie Tyler article. If anything, it is likely the Wales-online website saw that incorrect information on Wikipedia, placed on here by the IP user, and used it. It is more than obvious that the IP user is not acting in good faith as s/he has had repeated warnings, there is already a lengthy discussion about this subject in particular on the article's talk page (which the IP user has failed to take part in), and the edit summaries of other people who have reverted his edits in the past year have clearly stated that the sales claim is unsourced and wildly inaccurate. One of Wikipedia's biggest problems is over-zealous fans who add all manner of excessive claims to articles of their idols. It undermines Wikipedia and is the kind of thing that gives it a bad reputation. As contributors, we should all be doing more to tackle this kind of blatant vandalism rather than allowing it to continue, especially when problematic editors have already been given the benefit of the doubt again and again. Kookoo Star (talk) 05:09, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

The diffs don't bear that out. This article was published on 23 November; the IP only started throwing in the 100 million figure on 2 December (before that the IP was pushing 80 million). I see no reason but to assume good faith here. It looks to me like a content dispute, not a case of vandalism. --Mkativerata (talk) 06:08, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

The IP user has been adding exaggerated sales claims into this article for a year now - the diffs above prove it. What started out as content dispute then becomes vandalism when anonymous editors do not engage in discussion, do not gain consensus, do not add reliable sources, and refuse to heed warnings about edit warring. There is not a shred of evidence to assume good faith here. Perhaps a year ago, but certainly not now. It's probably only a matter of hours before they resume their edit warring. Kookoo Star (talk) 07:38, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, be careful, because there are two sides to every edit war. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:42, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I've just had a look at this. Mkativerata, it is not edit warring when editors remove unsourced material. In fact, it is Wikipedia policy to do so, therefore warning user:Kookoo Star over this matter is inappropriate. Furthermore, looking through the article history shows that the sales claim of 100 million was first added by another IP user on 15th October 2010, which is before the Wales-online source you provided was written, so it is highly likely that source obtained such information from Wikipedia - regardless of who put it there in the first place. And Kookoo Star is correct, it wouldn't pass WP:RS anyway. However, whether you see this matter as vandalism or merely a content dispute, the fact remains that 81.168.20.115 has been continually re-adding this unsourced detail into the article despite existing consensus, numerous warnings and a refusal to engage with other editors. As an admin, you are entrusted to uphold Wikipedia's policies and should not be taking this so lightly - but it seems like you don't see this as a problem. I'm not trying to be rude, but if you aren't prepared to step in and at least take some form of action on this matter, then you are failing to do the job you have been entrusted with and perhaps you need to step aside from dealing with ANI reports so that they will be dealt with by more pro-active admins. GoldCoaster (talk) 03:51, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Malfunctioning bot

Resolved

 – bot repaired

How do I stop a malfunctioning bot that has no "emergency shutoff" button in its user or user talk pages? --Redrose64 (talk) 21:18, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Which bot is it? --Kumioko (talk) 21:24, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

(ec) Those shut-off buttons often just lead to the "block the user" administrative page, which is a pretty generic type of hammer. Is it severe enough to need immediate halt?--file WP:AIV. DMacks (talk) 21:25, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

At a guess, it would be ImageTaggingBot (talk · contribs · logs). Mr Stephen (talk) 21:33, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, yes: that is indeed the bot. It's replacing certain special characters with other special characters - that diff is a good example, but see also my recent contributions in User talk: namespace to see the reverts I've done.
Should I serve a {{subst:ANI-notice}}? --Redrose64 (talk) 21:40, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I...DIDN'T...DO...IT. IT'S...A...BUM...RAP. *BEEPBOOP* (quote from ITB) HalfShadow 21:43, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I blocked the bot. I hope the operator can fix the issue soon, so that the bot can resume its useful work. Ucucha 22:24, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks... but is a {{subst:ANI-notice}} required or not? --Redrose64 (talk) 22:29, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

not really. just tell the botop about hte problem so that she can fix it. theres no need to create a disciplianry action regarding it since it is probably not deliberate vandliam. User:Smith Jones 23:58, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Tit for tat deletion nominations

• Mohammad Reza Taheri (AfD discussion)
• Bahram Soroush (AfD discussion)
• DrPhosphorus (talk · contribs · checkuser · block user · block log · edit count)

After Mani Nouri (AfD discussion) was nominated for deletion with the rationale "Fails WP:ENT", DrPhosphorus, an account seemingly created to argue for keeping in that AFD discussion, has been going around nominating other Iran-related biographies for deletion as "Fails WP:ENT". These are all incomplete nominations, and I spotted them first as such. I was going to roll the nominations forward, adding the missing step, until I noticed the pattern. This seems like simple tit-for-tat disruption. Uncle G (talk) 00:34, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

• In regards to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mohammad Reza Taheri, what to do? One editor has already commented, and the article looks very deletable. Drmies (talk) 04:53, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
• Just recently, I have decided to be provide constructive help in wiki. It is a bold assumption that the existence of my account and my activities only serve to save an article. My deletion nominations for Mohammad Reza Taheri (AfD discussion) and Bahram Soroush (AfD discussion) are in neither arbitrary nor emotional. Both persons as far as I know, are unrelated to each other and also unrelated to Mani Nouri. Thus, the term "tit for tat" is really inappropriate for this case. Back to reality, both nominated articles lack references and the persons are not notable enough. There exist not even one international reliable reference for them. No books, no newspaper articles... The tv shows etc are just like a self-made webpage and in my opinion as reference of no value. The article on Mohammad Reza Taheri (AfD discussion) provide vague information on a person with no significant achievements. He is just a "researcher" in one of the least accredited universities in Iran. Why does he deserve a biographical article in wiki? Uncle G made some strong allegations against me and my activities based on no real facts. If I was him, I would wait a few days, observe the activities, recognize a pattern and then go public. Currently, he just made wrong accusations and I think either he proves that my intention was to disrupt or he apologizes. DrPhosphorus (talk) 07:58, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Given your behavior, it is a very reasonable assumption that you're a sockpuppet with the purpose of disruption; whether or not your nominations are correct is irrelevant. What is relevant is that if you're a sockpuppet, you're disrupting wikipedia to make a point, and doing such under an alternate name is clear avoidance of scrutiny. In your first edit, you find AfD, show understanding of wiki markup, and know how to sign your name. This is not behavior of a new user.— Dædαlus^{+ Contribs} 00:05, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

You even know how to use templates.. you're clearly not a new user.— Dædαlus^{+ Contribs} 00:06, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

This is the most stupid comment that I have read recently. Sometimes, I get the feeling that the only reason people like you talk, is bad digestion. Cirt taught me how to sign my comments (you can see that on my discussion page), and learning how to use templates is not a matter of years. You can always learn from how others do that. Maybe you (Daedalus969) are too dumb for it, however, this is no reason for generalizations. However, the funniest thing is that you apparently have no idea what disruption means. Then if my nominations are correct, how am I disrupting???? DrPhosphorus (talk) 13:20, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I have just read the page on disrupting wikipedia to make a point and actually my behavior doesn't show any of the mentioned cornerstones. In contrary, I did exactly what is said to do "Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass" (in case of Mani Nouri as well as bahram Soroush). I don't know whether there exists an instance in wiki to burden because of these libels against me, but if there is one, please let me know so that I can do so. DrPhosphorus (talk) 13:44, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I take back what I said about the signing, now that I can see the datestamps regarding the relevant posts.. however, that does not excuse your insult; insults are not allowed at wikipedia, so I suggest you strike your 'dumb' remark; go have a read of WP:NPA.— Dædαlus^{+ Contribs} 22:21, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Dear Daedalus969, I didn't meant to insult you and take back my remark. However, it is not right to accuse me with something without doing extensive research before. This is exactly my point the whole time. In this discussion, everybody accuses me of unprofessional behavior, however I haven't heard of any substantial proof. DrPhosphorus (talk) 09:03, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

visually impaired user with Asperger's syndrome has sought assistance with ongoing issue

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.

---

Resolved

 – Ww111 now understands what happened, acknowledges that good faith was behind what other editors were doing/saying, is willing to abide within the policies and wants to "move on." Further talk about this can carry forward at the editor's talk page, if needed or wanted. Gwen Gale (talk) 10:37, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi,

A visually impaired user with Asperger's symdrom has sort assistance via a form on the wrongplannet.net website: http://www.wrongplanet.net/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&p=3234813#3234813

As he feels he has been a victim of cyberbullying and has suffered a meltdown.

He says he has been unable to resolve the dispute, or identify how to as he has great difficulty navigating the wikipedia site, undoubtedly due to his visual imparement, but Asperger's is a type of none veral learning disability, which affects people differently, but can mean that some people have near insurmountable difficulty in none verbal communication or forms of social communication.

People with the Syndrom can also have quite extreams of emotion or sensory perception, resulting in what's called a meltdown, which can be quite traumatic, even though to a more typical person the event may seem quite minor. (for instance, some people can have a melt down when it's raining because of their sensitivity to touch)

Due to this rather odd circumstance I felt it better to raise the issue of the Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents as the person may well need quite significant assistance and guidance beyond a more normal or more draw out approach.

he says the pages involved are: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2PR_FM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/2PR_FM#2PR_FM

and that his user-name/login has been blocked as he's undone the changes a number of times.

I realise that the normal approach would probably be page protection, asking for a ban on the other use [possibly] and getting his account re-instanted, but he couldn't even find out how to reach the admin sections and asked on wrongplannet if anyone was a wikipedia admin.

I'm passing a link to this onto him, I've put a link to the discussion on wrong planet above and below.

http://www.wrongplanet.net/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&p=3234813#3234813 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.197.127.230 (talk) 23:05, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Actually, none of that will be happening. While it may be difficult for him to grasp, by Wikipedia policies and guidelines, Whitewater11 was in the wrong and the people he is asking to have things done to were in the right.—Kww(talk) 23:13, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Both of those pages have been deleted. You should communicate to him that that he can't have whatever he wants on Wikipedia. Wikipedia doesn't have a mechanism for special treatment of users with handicaps in terms of what content it accepts. Also, users are treated the same socially regardless of their handicaps. That is because the goal is to write an encyclopedia. Although anyone is allowed to edit, their edits must meet Wikipedia policies or they will be deleted. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 23:19, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Becritical, but comments like "users are treated the same socially regardless of their handicaps" are completely unacceptable. You seem to be saying that Wikipedia has a policy of excluding people with handicaps. I hope that this is not what you intended. Wikipedia's policies are byzantine and obscure enough even for those of us without visual or social handicaps, to suggest that we should not attempt to support editors with such disabilities is just crass. DuncanHill (talk) 23:29, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't want to speak for Becritical, but it may be better to say that Wikipedia does whatever it can to be accomodating to people's disabilities, but that in this case asking that Wikipedia's core policies be set aside does not amount to an accomodation. That is, there is nothing inherently discriminatory about equal application of WP:5P. Policies like this are relevent to content, not to persons. Nothing has been done here that represents a lack of accomodation for the user's disability. I don't really see how having disabilities necessarily trumps the requirement to follow core Wikipedia policies. This is my stance on the issue; I am fully willing to see that users are able to work within Wikipedia as fully as possible, including working to include people who, for whatever reason, need to access and work with Wikipedia in nontraditional ways, perhaps because of a disability. However, content must be judged on its own merit. --Jayron32 00:15, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I think it was just a rather poor choice of words on his part. I'm sure he did not imply that we should exclude people based on handicap in the slightest. Yes. we do need to be accommodating to those with special needs, but at the same time they cannot use said handicap as a disruptive battering ram; we already saw this happen with User:Sven70 a while back. –MuZemike 00:23, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, it would have been unacceptable if it were untrue. Can you tell me of an instance in which users are treated differently in the social milieu of Wikipedia because of their handicaps? Of course I understand that individual editors may make allowances -I certainly have in the past-, but I'm not aware of anything beyond our general environment of collaboration; and that of course is extended to all users. I'm not aware of any policy or any general guideline or other way in which Wikipedia recommends handicapped users be treated differently, but if I'm wrong but please enlighten me. However, calling what I said "crass" seems very uncalled for. It was completely factual so far as I know, and it was also in no way inconsiderate. The user was asking for special treatment of some kind or else the meltdown wouldn't have been relevant and wouldn't have been included. We can feel sorry all we want, but I just don't know how we would treat a handicapped user differently here. I came in after Kww, who I thought was rather brusque, and tried to explain things in a more thorough way. He says "none of that will be happening...While it may be difficult for him to grasp..." and then you get after me for poor choice of words? BE——Critical_{__Talk} 04:08, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

But to return to our sheep, it is possible that someone at WP:WPACCESS may be able to offer assistance or advice. DuncanHill (talk) 23:33, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

If anyone from the off-wiki site wants to point the user towards my talkpage, I work with Asperger's children and young people on a daily basis, and may be able to assist. Black Kite (t) (c) 00:17, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I am the one with asperger's and am not in a position to touch any of the articles, as they are both about me and my station, thus if I do any edits, this would be a Conflict of interest on my behalf. However I find this material about Wikipedia rather contradictive, as for example, the 2PR FM article had a number of third party sources, and so did my article. I found it bizarre how the article on WSFM 101.7 does not get challenged as all it's references are from the station's website, without any third party references. Can you tell me why they seems to be one standard for one, and another stand for another with this issue. Stating what Wikipedia is and what it is not, is beside the issue if their is no consistancy of conduct. MBoerebach (talk) 00:29, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I should note that Wikipedia has 6,827,636 articles in it, it takes a long time to go through every one. The fact that someone, who is dedicated to finding it, can easily discover an article or two which does not meet the current Wikipedia policy is unsurpirisng. Wikipedia articles are judged against established guidelines, not against each other, largely for this reason. Thank you for working hard to find articles which are not appropriate to Wikipedia. However, the existance of other articles is really irrelevent towards discussing the merits of the article you created. --Jayron32 00:35, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

OK, it appears someone from Wikipedia (going by the name "TheAnthropologist") seen this here on ANI and is there to help on WrongPlanet. I recommend Whitewater111/MBoerebach stop making new accounts and work with this user. I would also recommend that another, neutral admin go to WrongPlanet and help out as well. Once that takes place and the user understands the processes of Wikipedia, I would recommend giving them the option to request an unblock (which I hope they would) and work with the adminship if they wish to resubmit their article about their radio station. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 00:37, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, technically we do have consistency, but clearly with 3,000,000+ articles there will inevitably be some that dip below or rise above those markers. I'd agree that WSFM 101.7 is a shockingly badly sourced article, though it looks probably notable. Meanwhile, the sources in the 2PR FM article I would suggest are more suited to back up the notability of your article (which I note is up for deletion at the moment) because they mainly talk about you - I would suggest you add them to your own article and mention 2PR there. Black Kite (t) (c) 00:41, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Without getting into a tit for tat battle, the accusation of noting thatI've created several accounts is offensive. As I noted above, I'm not editing any of the articles, because I indeed have a conflict of interest. I find that three of my articles withing the space of a week being targeted for deletion rather threatening. For all we know Kww and AussieLegend be the same person? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MBoerebach (talk • contribs) 00:54, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

First of all, Kww and AussieLegend are not the same person. They are clearly two different people. However, looking at Whitewater111 (talk · contribs)'s contributions, the only thing they have solely done after creation is try to get your article kept at the AfD. It's reasonable to assume they're your sock, and we don't take kindly to votestacking here.

In their very first edits, they seem to automatically know how to use wikipedia markup and sign their posts.. not typical behavior of 'new' users. Secondly, looking through their contributions, you both also share some similarities. For instance, in the post above this one, you use the word 'noting' in reference to Homer accusing you of abusing multiple accounts, and here, the sock uses roughly the same language; you use variants of 'noted' quite often. Another diff.

Given the above information regarding this case, I'm going to request a CU. If they are your sock, I suggest you admit it now, unless you want to risk a block on your main account.— Dædαlus^{+ Contribs} 01:27, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Please link to the CU when you create it. I recommend an uninvoled admin block the MBoerebach sock and leave the main account, Whitewater111, unblocked....if it is shown to by the CU to have only the one sock. I recommend this because the user is (I believe) new and does have Aspergers with limited eyesight. This should be taken into account when deciding what to do. I know this won't be the most popular recommendation and I am probably stepping on some rules, but I feel leeway is needed. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:49, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Checkuser is at: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Whitewater111. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:58, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I guess I came a bit late, but I don't think a block is necessary right here right now. We know it's him and he knows we know it's him and as long as he only uses one account from now on, there's no abuse going on. However I would take this opportunity to warn him that any further use of additional accounts, even just one, will be taken as evidence of attempting to evade scrutiny and could lead to a block of all of them. —Soap— 02:02, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

There are three confirmed accounts. I would very much like to know why MB decided to lie to us.— Dædαlus^{+ Contribs} 02:37, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Both about the alternate accounts and editing the article, as that is what the alternate accounts did.— Dædαlus^{+ Contribs} 02:38, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

There may be some misunderstanding here. I don't read anything that MB said above, as trying to say that he did not have multiple accounts (although I can see it is very easy to read it that way). He could see that we've already been given the link to where he admits off-wiki to getting banned at least twice, so it seems there would be little point in such a deception. I also read "I'm not editing any of the articles" as meaning that he is not doing so at present and won't in the future (presumably after the idea of COI was pointed out to him), not that none of his accounts had ever done so in the past. (Whether any of his accounts edited any of the articles after he said "I'm not editing any of the articles", I haven't checked.) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 02:49, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

MB, after reading the various things said and done by your accounts and the IP you used, and the polite warnings given by AussieLegend and others, I would also suggest you should apologise to AussieLegend, JayJg and Kww. Cyber-bullying is a major problem that should be taken seriously, and it is very unpleasant for people to be accused of it just because of how you reacted to them not agreeing with content you wanted to put on Wikipedia. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 03:48, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Using the main account, the user has declared the three accounts and an IP. Though late, this is a good faith effort by the user. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 03:49, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I think this is utter bullshit. While WP:NOTTHERAPY is only an essay, those who cry "Asperbergers!" or "Rage Disorder!" when behaving badly are playing the "discrimination game". I was diagnosed with PTSD after getting a knife stuck in my throat many years ago: it's true, but how do you all know I'm not lying about it? And even if it was a lie, does it really matter when it comes to editing this encyclopedia? WP doesn't discriminate against editors with handicaps based on their handicaps, but it shouldn't even be an issue unless its wielded by editors that are already in "trouble" who then cry "Foul!" Asperbergers sufferers, ADHDers, bipolars: edit away, please! You are most welcome to! If you use it as an excuse for problems you encounter editing here, it's not the community's fault. Seriously... Doc talk 08:15, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

As of good faith I did declaire my situation, but may I explain what triggered off this whole scenario. AussieLegend made a statement that setting up an internet station takes no effort. I attempted to explain that setting up such an operation does take much effort and time. After this, within the space of five minutes, not only did I get a ban, but message that I was disrupting activity on wikipedia. This was not a difference of opinion, this was a straight personal attack, insinuating that I was a lazy person that does nothing. I then had to set up a second account to explain this. I still have the entire log as proof. I then came back to another discussion today, where another user described my website having blank pages, I didn't appreciate that either, and I also don't like how admins can just take the high moral ground, because they simply don't agree with something. And as for apologies, why should I? I'm quite sure if I came into a shop, which you spent many years setting up, and I said, "that took no effort", I think you would feel just as insulted. Maybe some of these admins might want to learn a little tact and decorum, before making such ignorant comments. This is how you avoid messes like this in the first place. Whitewater111 (talk) 08:11, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

There are a great many things which are difficult to do which are not notable (in the Wikipedia sense) and shouldn't have articles about them. Conversely, some things that are notable (in the Wikipedia sense) are probably easier to do than falling off a log. Notability and ease of doing don't really have anything to do with each other. The article on your station was deleted because there wasn't sufficient evidence of its notability, not because it's either easy or difficult to set up an internet radio station -- for you or for anybody else. And while there may be notability in someone overcoming handicaps to be successful, that notabilty would be for the person and not necessarily for their project, the notability of which must be established separately.

All that said, I can see nothing that could be construed as a personal attack on you. Critical evaluation of articles is a core part of the way things work around here. It can be annoying, it can feel personal at times (and at times it's probably meant that way), but it's the nature of the beast. If you're planning to stick around, better get used to it, or develop strategies for dealing with it (sometimes easier said than done), 'cause it's not likely to go away any time soon. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:09, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, there is one thing that we can easily settle. Whitewater 111 should restrict himself to the one account. Whether it is that one, or another. Once he has decided which account he wants to use, then the others should be indeffed.

With respect to COI issues, any proposed edits should be raised at the talk page of the article in question first. If an editor is open about COI, then it is less likely that they are going to be pushing a particular POV. If an edit is reverted, it should be discussed on the talk page, rather than being re-reverted and getting into an edit war. Mjroots (talk) 09:17, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I really don't want to make things worse, but there is a deletion debate about the proprietor of 2PR FM at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark Boerebach which I've recently commented on. Maybe my notability standards are a bit uptight, but I don't think that local newspapers/magazines really count when assessing notability. With all due respect, Mark, I don't think that either you or your radio station are quite notable enough for Wikipedia ... yet! Nor do I think that disability has much to do with this thread, as a blind Person with AS. Graham87 09:28, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Graham, I agree that 2PR FM may not of been notable in the sense of some wikipedians in relation to it's policies, but this whole issue would of been avoided if AussieLegend showed some interest on the talk page, independent of whether 2PR FM was to be deleted or not. What got my back up was that he was rather annoyed that I had an official call sign for my station, though I was only an internet station. It seemed he had his gloves off wanting a confrontation. He repeatedly noted that "starting an internet station was like switching on a webcam" which really riled my feathers. I've hated this whole scenario, and wish to god that it never happened, but when someone deliberately stirs the pot, then some unexpedted consequences can happen. Though I may of not said it enough, I feel rather awful about this whole mess, but cannot emphasise how intimidating some of the stuff has been. My initial efforts of starting new accounts was to just try to avoid the fire, but it seemed the fire was just following me where ever I was going. To confirm, I'm using the account Whitewater111, and am not using any of the other accounts, I think two of them have been banned anyway, hense this whole mess. Maybe admins can hold off a ban threat, even if another user has a differing opinion, which was the trigger to this complete scenario Whitewater111 (talk) 09:58, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Where exactly did you get this "official" callsign from? As I explained at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2PR FM,[86] in Australia callsigns are allocated by the Australian Communications and Media Authority and a check of the publicly accessible registers don't show you as a client, or a registration for 2PR. The "FM" component of the callsign is grossly misleading as "FM" is reserved for radio stations that transmit in the FM broadcast band using frequency modulation, which is certainly not the case with 2PR FM, which web-casts over the internet using digitised audio. You would never be issued 2PR FM by the ACMA.

I think you should read the discussion at Talk:Sydney again. You immediately went on the defensiveoffensive when I suggested that the reason Bidgee reverted your edit was that 2PR FM is not notable, suggesting that he was from an opposing media group[87] and complaining about "stroppy deletionists that want to assert their authority".[88] In response to your claim that newspaper articles established notability I said "It's not hard to get newspaper article coverage, significant coverage is a different issue. AM/FM radio stations are real radio stations; anyone can start an internet radio station. It's really no different to setting up a webcam. We don't call people using webcams TV stations." You did not receive harrassing messages on your talk page, as you claimed at the sockpuppet investigation.[89] The messages were as a result of you failing to assume good faith and for the personal attacks that you made, calling other editors ignorant[90] and fools.[91] And then there was deleting the entire discussion.[92] After you created Whitewater111 you started making some WP:POINTy edits to 101.7 WSFM,[93] including copying and pasting the AfD notice from 2PR FM into that article, not once, but three times,[94][95][96] despite edit summaries making it clear that the notice was not applicable to that article and a post on your talk page.[97] (Should I mention that your response to that request was to make a false AIV complaint?[98]) Eventually I had to bring the matter here.[99] After disappearing for a few days your first and only edit before today was to delete the AfD notice from 2PR FM. So, we have an SPA editor making COI edits, failing to assume good faith, making personal attacks, WP:POINTy edits, edit warring, false AIV reports, vandalism and sockpuppetry, and recreating a deleted article. If you weren't visually impaired with Asperger's syndrome, I suspect you wouldn't even be able to contribute to this discussion. --AussieLegend (talk) 10:32, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, if you delete my replies, of course I'm going to take offence, but again, you just keep hammering this, "starting an internet station is no different from starting a webcam" which is the whole point of this confrontation. I referred to people looking like fools, when they note something takes no effort at all, when knowing nothing about what is involved. Everytime you come after me, you look like a monster desparetly wanting it's pray. Do us all a favour and let go of it, I'm really sorry that I did give my station a real name, and am sorry that it really got up your nose. I'm a person with disabilities, and just trying to make a go of it like everybody else. Can somebody please end and delete this discussion now, as this guy is just wanting to keep stirring the pot. Whitewater111 (talk) 10:58, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I didn't delete your replies. However, you deleted an entire thread at Talk:Sydney, and a post here.[100] Don't you think the people whose posts you deleted have the right to take offence? If anyone is hammering the difference between a radio station and a webcast, that's you too. You did it at the AfD, the SPI discussion and you've done it here. At the SPI and here it was done as justification for what you've done. As for letting go, may I remind you, it was you who has been disruptive, you who deleted AfD notices, you who added invalid AfD notices, you who complained at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#2PR FM and you who started whining at wrongplanet. You really need to start taking responsibility and stop blaming others. I'm very sorry that you have disabilities but that's not justification for doing wrong by others and being disruptive. --AussieLegend (talk) 11:46, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

(EC) @Whitewater111: We can delete your reply if they are personal attacks and using the talk page as a forum. You may have put some effort into setting up and running the station but it doesn't make it notable. Radio stations which broadcast on AM/FM/DAB+ are automatically deemed as notable due to the fact most are owned by big networks (which are owned by big companies) and the fact that they need a license from ACMA, internet radio stations can be set-up by anyone nor doe they need a license from ACMA so notability needs to be very good and proven with reliable and verifiable sources. Your the one who took this issue here, you can't tell them to stop discussing the facts. Bidgee (talk) 11:49, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't characterise the original post at wrongplanet by Whitewater111 as whining. In the circumstances, I would characterise it as a particularly nasty form of off-wiki stealth canvassing - asking if anyone is a Wikipedia admin so that they can ban another editor with whom he had a dispute. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 11:55, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

To be honest, I hadn't actually read everything, just the main points, so I was assuming good faith but having read your post I decided to take a closer look. "Attempts to discuss any problems with him result in flaming responses. I've also received personal attacks in my PMs folder, and has threatened to block me with his administrator standing. I would idealy like to get him banned." Excuse me Whitewater111? Lies, Lies, Lies, Lies and WTF? I call on Whitewater11 to immediately provide proof of all of the above. --AussieLegend (talk) 12:13, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

That may not be the falsehood you naturally perceive it as, just more exaggeration coupled with some misunderstanding. Some of the things he's said have suggested he could be thinking of his talk page as his "PMs folder", and I'm sure at least one of the many warnings he has received would've said "you may be blocked". --Demiurge1000 (talk) 12:38, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

What concerns me is that he has admitted that he has used Wikipedia to improve his rankings "During January, I got some press coverage, which led to my station being listed on wikipedia, which had greatly improved my google ranking and visitor flow to my site.[101]" which is where the WP:SPAM (See: WP:ARTSPAM) comes into play. Bidgee (talk) 12:28, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I accidently deleted the entire discussion by mistake, but if you look closely at the log times, you'll see that it was a matter of seconds before I realised what I did, and tried correcting it. Remember I have Asperger Syndrome and a visual impairement. There is a lot of things which are being totally blown out of preportion. As I originally said, check the discussion for Sydney. I commented on that internet radio does take effort to set up, as per AussieLegends line, "setting up a internet station is like turning on a webcam". This is were all this stuff started. I feel this discussion is just going around in a flame war, with nothing further to be obtained out of it. What more can I say, I rest my case. Whitewater111 (talk) 13:09, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but your "I accidently deleted the entire discussion by mistake" claim doesn't seem genuine because you made your intentions clear when you wrote "I've decided to delete the descussion".[102] Or was that by accident too? You seem to be blaming a lot on your Asperger's. Don't you have a little brother? --AussieLegend (talk) 13:22, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm with AussieLegend, your behaviour has nothing to do with Aspergers or the visual impairment. I have seen those with Aspergers live a normal life and not use "it wasn't my fault, my finger did it" excuses. It is almost as bad as someone drink driving and blaming someone else because they had a drink too many. You and only you, is responsible for your own actions. No this discussion isn't turning in to a "flame war" (personal attacking) it is about your behaviour on Wikipedia. Bidgee (talk) 14:03, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

OK, I feel really bad about this, and I'm genuinely sorry for the stress and harm that I have caused. Analysing what I have done, I think I took AussieLegends comments as literally, (a problem with asperger's), and because of that, I took offense and paniced. Because I paniced, I had done much irrational moves, and in the end made a mess of things. I guess the hard lesson I've got to learn from this is I would have to really think through what someone has said, and whether they do mean any harm, which is why I did the things that I've done. Can I turn back time and repair the damage? No. Can I make right the damage that I've done here on wikipedia? I don't know, and most probably not. I guess wikipedians are not mind readers, and in the end, I have to learn to deal with this. The more I realised I was doing something wrong, I didn't know what to do, and carried on, not realising the damage I was doing. So in the end, my genuine apologies, and please believe me, I don't use this asperger's as an excuse, it messes up ones mind, and I'd do anything to jump out of it. I wish the last three days of my life didn't happen, but now that it is done, I have to deal with it, and move on. I think for the benefit of all, and as good will, I think it be wise if I close my accounts. Whitewater111 (talk) 14:58, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Two questions for Whitewater111

Do you feel that it is beneficial to you, for you to use Wikipedia, even though ordinary talk page notices as widely used by most editors are constantly intimidating to you and cause you significant upset? And when regular content disputes have a similar effect?

Do you plan to edit Wikipedia in any topic areas unrelated to promotion of your radio station business?

--Demiurge1000 (talk) 11:55, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

It was a combination of things which I found upsetting, first the articles all being deleted at once, and being threatened when making a statement. Whitewater111 (talk) 13:06, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I think AussieLegend was drawing attention to the fact that setting up an internet radio station is relatively trivial compared to an FM broadcast radio station (dramatically so). I don't think the intention was to belittle your efforts. --Errant ^(chat!) 13:11, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

So, I messed up and misunderstood a comment at the start, so how can I correct the damage? Should I withdraw any complaints that i've made? Whitewater111 (talk) 13:13, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I can't speak for everyone here but generally speaking, incidents like this tend to be quickly forgotten. Apologize and move on and everything should be OK. —Soap— 13:37, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Hopefully this thread can then be closed and it will get archived off all the sooner (there is no need to delete anything, although you can optionally use strikethrough on any comments of your own that you choose to withdraw.) The SPI is a further problem but I guess a related one. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 13:44, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

OK, I feel really bad about this, and I'm genuinely sorry for the stress and harm that I have caused. Analysing what I have done, I think I took AussieLegends comments as literally, (a problem with asperger's), and because of that, I took offense and paniced. Because I paniced, I had done much irrational moves, and in the end made a mess of things. I guess the hard lesson I've got to learn from this is I would have to really think through what someone has said, and whether they do mean any harm, which is why I did the things that I've done. Can I turn back time and repair the damage? No. Can I make right the damage that I've done here on wikipedia? I don't know, and most probably not. I guess wikipedians are not mind readers, and in the end, I have to learn to deal with this. The more I realised I was doing something wrong, I didn't know what to do, and carried on, not realising the damage I was doing. So in the end, my genuine apologies, and please believe me, I don't use this asperger's as an excuse, it messes up ones mind, and I'd do anything to jump out of it. I wish the last three days of my life didn't happen, but now that it is done, I have to deal with it, and move on. I think for the benefit of all, and as good will, I think it be wise if I close my accounts. Whitewater111 (talk) 14:14, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Hello User:Whitewater111, I've been following this for a while now, and while you might have caused a bit of a stir, please don't feel that you've caused any damage to the project. I don't think it's wise to close your account (main one, I mean). You have much to learn, and everyone starts somewhere. Perhaps an apology to AussieLegend is in order, though - Amog | ^{Talk • contribs} 15:02, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

An apology to just AussieLegend? Whitewater111 (under an IP) unfairly accused me of being in/part of a opposing media group not once but twice (which is not correct as I infact do not work for ANY media groups, whether it would be TV, Radio or Newspapers) and also attack both of us. Bidgee (talk) 15:16, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, to you as well. I keep forgetting to type things out. Sorry mate - Amog | ^{Talk • contribs} 17:49, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Again I would like to Apologise to AussieLegend and Bidgee, who unfortunately copped some of my misdirected behaviour. I actually thought Bidgee was AussieLegend, until I looked again later on, realising it was Bidgee. Again, I have made a big mistake, and assumed that if it was okay for WSFM to appear on wikipedia, that it would be the same for my station. As I said, I can't correct what I've done in the past, I can only learn from it, and move on, this has been a rather sharp and confronting learning curve for me. Whitewater111 (talk) 15:28, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Whitewater111, something that stood out for me in what you said was: I guess the hard lesson I've got to learn from this is I would have to really think through what someone has said. If I understand AS correctly, one of the signature behaviours is over-analysis, so I would advise you not to tie yourself in knots trying to figure out what's going on. Presumably the panic is caused by being unsure how to interpret what people are saying and therefore how to react (weak central coherence in action)? Perhaps a good way out of that is to ask people to clarify and to tell you how they would like you to respond? I suspect there must be a higher than normal proportion of Aspies / Aspergians round Wikipedia, so you're in good company. Maybe a few of the editors over at the AS article would be up for creating an AS community project for mutual support?     ←   ZScarpia   15:40, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

ZScarpia, the hard part is realising that I've made a genuine mistake, and that some still take it as a mask or cop out of my behaviour. I guess I wouldn't know half the people on the internet for who they are, as we are all sitting behind a keyboard, not knowing if we are dealing with someone in Canada, Africa, or America. What I do know is my condition. I guess the alarm bells finally rang, when AussieLegend pointed out the things I did. I honestly thought I blanked the discussion on one of the other forums by mistake, but now remember deleting it, because it was going around in a flame war, which I did not know how to deal with. As I noted in my original apology, I panicked, and found myself having a meltdown, which resulted in me doing what I did. All this was from the three articles that were about me, all being proposed for deletion within a week. I'm sorry if some users find it extraordinarily difficult to believe that I have aspergers, but I guess all this wouldn't of happened, if I wasn't taking certain things literally.. Whitewater111 (talk) 16:05, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Another option, from an outsider reader, would be a short note on your userpage requesting whatever kind of assistance you find most helpful. It could be something like, "I would greatly appreciate people letting me know if they think I have made a mistake. I don't always realize it. Also, sometimes I overreact in tense situations; if you think I have done so, please accept my apology and let me know." Whether you mention your condition on your userpage is up to you, but as long as you don't go overboard with it, most users would probably be happy to help you edit successfully here. Ocaasi (talk) 18:07, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I've been thinking along the same lines. Whitewater111, I was going to recommend placing a section at the top of your talk page explaining how Asperger's affects you and outlining ways in which other editors can act in order to help prevent mutual misunderstandings. You could place a link to the section from within your signature to draw attention to it. You say that it seems as if some users are having difficulties believing that you have Asperger's. If it's any comfort, I think that it's clear that you do and that you're not mentioning it as an excuse rather than as an explanation.     ←   ZScarpia   20:21, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I guess this is where I need help, this was the part I found very difficult to understand, and I guess where I really messed up. The statement, "Internet radio takes no effort, it's just like turning on a webcam". I guess the best thing I can do is invite someone around for a cup of tea, so I can educate them on how much effort is involved in setting up such an operation. Whitewater111 (talk) 21:56, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I think all what needs to be said has been done, and just wondering if I could politely ask if this and the above discussions refering to me can be closed. Thanks Whitewater111 (talk) 00:47, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Whitewater111, I think that you need some more time around Wikipedia to really understand what may be confusing, or what you don't understand. Which briefly is as follows: IT'S ALL ABOUT THE ARTICLES. For example the questions that seem to bother you are not questioning you, or your internet radio station, or whether or not it is real work, they are questioning whether or not the ARTICLE meets the Wikipedia criteria for existence. So, don't take any of this personally. Second, I don't think that you would want us to patronize you because you have a disability. Folks are treating you like the rest of us, like one of us. Stick around here like the rest of us, take a little heat (on occasion) like the rest of us, learn how Wikipedia works like the rest of us, move on like the rest of us, and have some fun here like the rest of us. I hope you have a good time here. Sincerely, North8000 01:19, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

I know, I've made a mountain out of a mole heal. I realise I've handled this thing very poorly. One thing I've been upfront about, even on the wrong planet forum, is that I had a meltdown, and didn't know how to deal with the situation. The best I can do for the future is, if a similar situation arises, is to just walk away, and let it work it self out. When all three of my articles were proposed for deletion, I genuinely thought someone had an agenda, which scared the hell out of me. Now that the articles are not notable, I'm pretty much over it and want to move on, I just had a genuine fear, but handled it badly. Whitewater111 (talk) 09:21, 11 December 2010 (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.

Legal threat

Hi,

after reverting twice an edit of Drjdemornay (talk · contribs) on the article Rebecca de Mornay, the user threatened me of legal actions: [103]. As per WP:NLT, I report these here. Badzil (talk) 01:18, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

There is no "Wikimedia fraud department" - unless it is a secret one for perpetuating frauds. Seriously, this isn't a legal threat it is just a troll.--Scott Mac 01:21, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Someone calling his lawyers? Call that as you want but this is legal threat to me and therefore I'm reporting it. Badzil (talk) 01:23, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

The account should probably be blocked for probable impersonation - unless he can verify his identity to OTRS.--Scott Mac 01:24, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

No "Wikimedia fraud department" but that is definitely a legal threat. RBI. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:25, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

We do not ignore legal threats. We check to see if the user has reason for complaint (e.g. we really are libelling them). Then we block pending settlement of any outstanding legal dispute through the proper legal channels. Legal threats are not something we treat as vandalism - they may be entirely justified. It's just that people who wish to pursue legal avenues can't also edit wikipedia.--Scott Mac 01:38, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

You do have a point there. In your block notice, do direct them to the OTRS email address in case this is a justified legal issue. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:43, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Actually, it helps to look at what's upset them and ask "is the complaint legitimate, and can I put it right?". Sometimes we end up jumping on people for perceived legal threats, while refusing to investigate the genuine libel they are legitimately complaining about. (see WP:DOLT.)--Scott Mac 01:52, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

User was blocked by Scott MacDonald; I added on to the block reason for making legal threats. Malinaccier (talk) 01:32, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response. Badzil (talk) 01:33, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

In future, please don't change my blocking reason without discussion. The blocking reason is now incomprehensible to any new editor and does not match the note I left for the user. Don't change an admin action without discussion - that was totally unnecessary.--Scott Mac 01:40, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Four points and three questions:

• I can find no evidence that Rebecca de Mornay actually has a brother by that name. A billionaire would likely be mentioned somewhere, I think. So who, precisely, is being impersonated?
• This is the second account to make the "I'm her brother." claim. The first was Monaco1112 (talk · contribs).
• This brother information was first introduced to the article by a third single-purpose account, Fidelio11 (talk · contribs).
• Fidelio10 (talk · contribs) is an obvious sockpuppet of Fidelio11, and reintroduced that same information.
• Has no-one yet noticed that this "from the family" information has de Mornay being the stepdaughter of her own stepbrother? And an "Angela" as her mother rather than the Julia George in de Mornay's printed biographies?
  • "The Key To Rebecca". Saturday Review. Vol. 12, no. 1. January–February 1986. pp. 30–34.
  • Tykus, Michael J. (2000). "Rebecca de Mornay". Contemporary theatre, film, and television. Vol. 29. Gale Research Co. p. 135. ISBN 9780787631888.
• Has no-one noticed that if this were a family member correcting stuff, the first thing that xe'd probably correct is the birth name, which is Rebecca George in all printed biographies (that I've read) that mention it and also is as listed in Room's Dictionary of Pseudonyms?
  • Room, Adrian (2010). "Rebecca De Mornay". Dictionary of Pseudonyms: 13,000 Assumed Names and Their Origins (5th ed.). McFarland. p. 141. ISBN 9780786443734.
  • Segrave, Kerry; Martin, Linda (1990). "Rebecca de Mornay". The post-feminist Hollywood actress: biographies and filmographies of stars born after 1939. McFarland & Co. pp. 265–269. ISBN 9780899503875.
  • Aylesworth, Thomas G.; Bowman, John S.; Fairbanks, Douglas (1992). "De Mornay, Rebecca". World guide to film stars. Great Pond. p. 69. ISBN 9781566570077.
  • Sleeman, Elizabeth (2001). "De Mornay, Rebecca". The International Who's Who of Women 2002 (3rd ed.). Routledge. p. 131. ISBN 9781857431223.
  • Riggs, Thomas, ed. (2005). "De MORNAY, Rebecca". Contemporary Theatre, Film and Television: A Biographical Guide. Vol. 64. Gale / Cengage Learning. ISBN 9780787690373.

Quite why we're not thinking "sockpuppetting BLP vandal" at this point is a mystery.

Oh and the article is in need of some serious correction after all of this back and forth, too. There are some sources. Have at it. Uncle G (talk) 03:39, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

• "She has an elder brother of one year who is now a Billionaire - Jonathan De Mornay". Um, yeah. Corvus cornix_talk 05:04, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
  • This looks like a clumsy scam (with a hollow legal threat) to me. By the way, her father was Wally George, the southern California TV personality. He shuffled his birth name to get his stage name (George Walter Pearch > Wally George). de Mornay's birth name is also Pearch. Gwen Gale (talk) 10:37, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
    • Not in the biographies and dictionary it isn't. The only biography that states that is, in fact, ours. And we do so on the basis of something that is a dead external hyperlink, whose date doesn't agree with any of the actual biographies of de Mornay, and that itself provides no linkage to de Mornay. Uncle G (talk) 11:04, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
      • She's using her father's stage name (which was his legal first name) as her birth/family name. Things like that often happen with the Hollywood bios, acting resumés and publicity handouts of celebrity offspring, makes things easier. I'd think Pearch is quite verifiable and can be sourced one way or another but in the meantime, if editors are worried about this, I'd see nothing untowards at all about going for now with what can be sourced (George). Gwen Gale (talk) 11:34, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
      • imdb also uses the Pearch name, but of course, that isn't a reliable source. Corvus cornix_talk 19:19, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
        • It's not, but nevertheless a strong hint the name can be verified elsewhere. As I've said, her father's name was indeed Pearch. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:23, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
      • This NYT bio lists Rebecca George as an alternate name (but not as birth name). I'm bringing this up only because if editors do want to cite the name Rebecca George, it's unlikely there's reliable support for calling that her birth name as such. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:37, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
        • There's this nonRS [104] which mentions the alleged billionare brother which appears to be from before any info was added to our article which suggests whatever is going on here it began outside wikipedia. Depending on the source, there are like 30-60 UK billionares so it would be extremely strange that there are no RS about this alleged billionare brother. Nil Einne (talk) 13:38, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
• - Imo this is not the sort of external link that we should be using to cite a different birthname and date http://www.familytreelegends.com/records/39461 for a start it is investigative reporting, you are not reporting a report you are looking around and attempting find it and asserting what you found is correct. IMO we have no reliable citation for either her dob or a birth name different from what she calls herself now. It sometimes seems that people are desperate to add details that are not widely reported, if the name is not widely reported then why report it? Same with her dob, there are three different dob's so keep it out of lead like that. Mirrors report what we have added and perpetuate the weakly claimed date and birth name. Off2riorob (talk) 11:48, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
  • I see this much the same way. Keep in mind, de Mornay is reliably reported by the NYT as her childhood name (not birth name), taken from her stepfather. DoB and other sourcing glitches are often found in citing the early lives of entertainers, since the sources do get muddled through publicity and promotion and should be handled with care as to wording. Genealogical websites may be handy for some research, but since they can bring forth meaningful reliability and interpretation worries, editors should be very wary about citing raw genealogical content in BLPs. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:22, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
• You do have sources for not 1959, and do have sources that explicitly say "born":
  • Tykus 2000, pp. 135 says "Born Rebecca George, August 29, 1961, in Santa Rosa, CA";
  • Room 2010, pp. 141 says "Rebecca George (1961–)"; and
  • Riggs 2005, pp. 121 says "De MORNAY, Rebecca 1961(?)– (Rebecca DeMornay) Original name, Rebecca George; born August 29, 1961 (some sources say 1962)".
• You also have the all-caps first six words of the Saturday Review article (presumably written some time in 1985, given the issue of the magazine that it is published in):
  • "REBECCA DE MORNAY IS TWENTY-THREE"
• As I said, "sockpuppetting BLP vandal" is a thought that should be coming to mind. And all of the concomitant back-and-forth has rather obliterated the facts that can actually be found written down and published about this person, in biographies and interviews. Uncle G (talk) 13:37, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Vancouver Southsiders

There has been a little bit of drama at Vancouver Southsiders. This report is primarily due to edit warring but since we were both uncivil and reverting too much it belongs here. To make it worse, I am also requesting that User:Walter Görlitz no longer be allowed to use Twinkle since he twice removed edits as vandalism when it was a content dispute.

Edit warring:

• [105] Revert by Walter Görlitz of 96.48.241.69 (might be OK reasoning)
• [106] Revert by Walter Görlitz of Cptnono w/ personal attack in the edit summary
• [107] Revert by Walter Görlitz of Ckatz
• [108] (Misuse of Twinkle) Revert by Walter Görlitz of Cptnono
• [109](Misuse of Twinkle) Revert by Walter Görlitz of Cptnono

I did call him a "fuck" in response to being called a "dolt" and also reverted so I am also in the wrong. Cptnono (talk) 07:54, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

I reverted it] not you. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 08:06, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Also you told me "And also please don;t start making personal attacks if swearing hurts your feelings.". --Walter Görlitz (talk) 08:09, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

NotifiedCptnono (talk) 07:57, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

The latter two were vandalism since you refused to discuss and you were not reading what was written on talk page. You are attempting to bring another debate into this article. Not realizing why the articles were not the same is why you and the other editor were being dolts. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 08:06, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

That would not make it vandalism. Anyways, I did respond on your talk page and at the talk. Edit warring and NPA are something we both did but there is absolutely zero excuse for labeling something as vandalism. You misused the tool. Period.Cptnono (talk) 08:17, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Guys, you're both edit warring, and in all honesty, this is a pretty lame thing to get blocked over. Dayewalker (talk) 08:20, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. But 5 reverts and a misuse of the tool was a little too much for me to stomach. Is there another step short of blocking or is that the best way to handle it?Cptnono (talk) 08:21, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

What should an editor do when another is pushing a WP:POV onto an article where it has no place and refuses to even acknowledge an attempt at discussion? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 09:05, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

It seems like there are several reverts in this edit war over whether or not to put the word "Southsiders" in one of the section headings. How is that vandalism or POV pushing? And how is that worth either of you edit warring over? I just don't see what's going on here. Dayewalker (talk) 09:09, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, it is weird. There have been issues and two editors reverted another. My reasoning as primarily based on MoS but the NPA plus previous concerns about the whole subject were enough to think that it was time to not edit the article. My bad for doing more reverts (I did revet myself which sucks) and being a jerk but 3/rr is a bright line. He crossed it. He also misused Twinkle. To be honest, I could just be being a jerk but I am not. Even if I was, 3/rr is 3/rr.Cptnono (talk) 10:06, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Actually the debate is whether to use the term move or not. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:06, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Samsung Group

User:660gd4qo has been trying to edit the article Samsung Group in a way that could be seen as being biased towards Samsung.

What they've said is that the section regarding the alleged price fixing by Samsung should be removed because it was already mentioned in another articlehere is the diff.

However what the editor also wants to remove in it's entirety is the section of the article regarding the lawsuit Samsung initiated against Michael Breen diff here. I've attempted to explain on the talk page that a section of this does belong on Samsung's page because the reference points out that the article was poking fun at Samsung's alleged corruption and bribery issues and it was Samsung that issued lawsuits against the newspaper, the editor and Michael Breen the journalist. However the editor has posted on the talk page saying that this does not belong in Samsung's article because it is irrelevant to Samsung. As it is it was only a few sentences so it wasn't giving the article any undue weight and removing it in it's entirety I think would show bias towards Samsung.

I attempted to re-word the section to correct grammar, remove duplications and also to clarify as per the references provided in the article that Samsung only dropped the lawsuit against the newspaper and it's editor once an apology was issued but they still continued with the lawsuit against the journalist, that too got reverted.

I posted messages on about 3 or 4 users talk pages to tell them that there is a discussion at the Samsung talk page and to ask for their opinion but the user complained on my talk that I was canvassing, though funnily they didn't do that until another editor posted and agreed with me!

Can we please have admin intervention here?--5 albert square (talk) 15:11, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

This is a content dispute, which is not something the WP:ANI handles--that is, there is nothing here for administrators to do. As is mentioned on the article's talk page, the appropriate next step is to either ask for a third opinion or open an RfC. Qwyrxian (talk) 15:43, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Major edits without discussion and without consensus on the articles Almohad Caliphate and Almoravid dynasty

Hello,

The users Bokpasa and موريسكو started (again) editing consensual articles [110][111], without discussion and without looking for a new consensus [112][113].

Before that, Bokpasa was involved in major PoV/vandalism on some articles (History of Morocco, Western Sahara, Gibraltar, Perejil Island, Almohads, Almoravids...) and موريسكو was blocked a few weeks ago for the reasons and for the same articles [114].

Thanks to do something to prevent a degradation of the articles.

Omar-Toons (talk) 15:30, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

This is an area in which i have some background. You appear to be a nationalist POV pusher yourself Omar (for instance this edit [115]. You're trying to fram the Almohad dynasty as "morrocan." That was 900 years ago, in dramatically different geopolitical times.). It may well be that the editor/s on the other side of this are also problematic. Someone get the Middle Eastern history editorial and standards team in there, I'm sure we'll get that fixed up in a jiffy! I'd do it, but i'm not on the team and lifes too short to deal with the plague.Bali ultimate (talk) 15:45, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

I reverted the article to its previous version, which was consensual. I didn't "change" or tried to frame anything as Moroccan or not Moroccan.

Please see articles' history, you can easily understand that I'm not a "nationalist PoV pusher". I'm contributing with all the neutrality, reverting even the edits which match my PoV but aren't neutral.

Omar-Toons (talk) 15:55, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Ryulong + Pmanderson

Hi community. I just wanted to let you know I've blocked two very longstandingg editors as part of my trolling on WP:AN3. There's also a tiny bit of discussion on my talk page and User talk:DragonflySixtyseven. I want to let everyoe know I stand by this decision (as stated on my talk page, I think one block was probably too lenient, if anything). However, the users are requesting unblock and I want to give them a chance for a hearing, so I'm notifying the community.

I recommend the discussion take place at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Ryulong reported by User:Jpatokal (Result: both blocked). Thanks guys. Magog the Ogre (talk) 03:54, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

i think that there are some very serious issues with this block. First of all, did you just admit that you were TROLLING on WP:AN3?? this is an excellently misappropriate use of your administrative powers to actively troll and you should seriously reconsider whether or not these users deserved to be blocked or not. Secondly, User:Ryulong is a wellie-expected former administrator; you should have given him the benefit of the doubt and allowed him to explain itself -- it was proper to block Pmanderson, who has only has had a relatively (Compared to Ryulong) minimal edits and only marginal productivity to the article space, but Ryulong is a much more valuable editor and should have been given to explain before being blocked. User:Smith Jones 04:43, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

I have a sneaking suspicion he meant "patrolling". :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 05:00, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it matters what kind of user you are. 3RR is a bright line rule and both editors went over it. Ryulong did so with six reverts no less, double the rule. Silverseren^C 05:03, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the blocks: 3RR being a bright line and these being clear breaches. I disagree with DS's full-protection - locking down an oft-edited MOS page for 16 days doesn't help anyone. The block logs confirm both users have a history of edit-warring. --Mkativerata (talk) 04:49, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

I think by trolling, he means in the fishing sense. HalfShadow 04:54, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

• wow i feel liek such a fish right now guys!! sorry, now that i reread that coment its pretty clear. ive never heard someone use trolling the way before; usually i see trawling. could it justbe a typo for patrolling?? User:Smith Jones 05:50, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
• Redacting last comment -- i apologze to the admin; Ryulong has been blocke oft and repeatedly for editwarring by is own admission and sees nothing wrong with it. in fac i remember that he was sanctoned for related to therein never. User:Smith Jones 05:50, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

• In order to keep this centralized, I guess i'll keep my comments here. In regards to Ryulong's recent talk page comment, WP:BOLD does not give an editor the right to start and/or participate in an edit war. Immediately after it went that direction, you should have stopped (at 3 reverts, if you had to even go that far) and taken it either to AN3 or ANI. Furthermore, the discussion on the talk page seems to involve four editors, including yourself. The other three editors disagree with you, so it does seem like consensus on the issue is against you. The other option that you should have done, if you felt that the "concensus" was too limited would have been to take it to other venues in order to encourage more participation in the discussion.

However, as far as I know, you did not do those things. And your comment about Pmanderson is unfounded, considering the concensus on the talk page on the subject. Also remember that he won't have "full reign" over it, considering that it is something that can always be returned to a previous form. My suggestion is that you wait out your block and then go about getting more users involved in the discussion in order to develop a more clear consensus on the topic at hand. Silverseren^C 05:20, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

• Good blocks, clear edit warring. One open unblock request declined. Both parties have a lot of 3RR blocks going back to 2006 and should really be more than passingly familiar with that policy. This recurring problem may also be grounds for a community-imposed 1RR restriction on both.  Sandstein  08:28, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

having reviewed these two editors incrementally expensive blocklog prior to this incident, I am concerned that further blocks will not have any effect and that this misprism will continue to consternate the community in the future. what i am commending is that the administrator / the community contemplate consultation an article topic probation or a wp:mentor program to assist these editors in avoiding edit conflicts in the narrow future. i would've mind volunteering to serve as one of the wp:mentors for either user, although if eel that the best results would emigrate if we had an administrator serve in that role. User:Smith Jones 17:08, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure you mean either "incrementally" or "extensively", unless you're a coprophiliac. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:23, 11 December 2010 (UTC)Typo is now fixed. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 20:03, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Teargarden by Kaleidyscope

Basically, the current situation there are two editors who think that two specific album singles should be removed from the infobox on the article for the Teargarden by Kaleidyscope. One of them, Fezmar9 seems to actually be trying to improve the article, whereas the other, Sergecross73, in my own opinion, seems more enthusiastic about edit-warring than discussing things civilly. This obviously gets very annoying when I'm trying to simply keep the dispute to the talk page. I have had this exact same problem before, but eventually decided it was pointless arguing with people who are simply going to respond with edit-warring and personal accusations of ownership. In this case, the discussion on whether to remove the content was opened on the talk page and the content was at some point removed, even though I repeatedly made a case for its continued inclusion. No consensus of any kind has been reached. The editor seems to want mainstream sources to warrant the inclusion of something that is typically obscure in all its forms. I have given them sources (as obscure as these sources supposedly are), and have immediately been told that these sources are not notable enough, and that because they are not, that my entire argument in invalid and further. I've suggested bringing this sort of unhelpful interaction to a noticeboard in the past, but decided not to when one of the editors refused to discuss things in such a way, right before trying to get another edit-war going over something else trivial. I'm sick of trying to improve the article when it feels like I'm dealing with passive-aggressive children at times. So any help would be appreciated. Friginator (talk) 06:26, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Not entirely sure the incident board is the most appropriate avenue for this, perhaps WP:RFC would have been better. But I digress... When I had originally opened up a discussion at Talk:Teargarden by Kaleidyscope#Limited edition singles, I was questioning the inclusion two singles in the album's infobox. The singles in question were extremely limited in quantity, and only were only released in two locations in the US. Removal from the infobox was supported by both members of the discussion, however as the discussion went on and I was doing some research, I could not find a single third-party reliable source documenting these releases establishing their notability. While I have nothing against singles in the infobox in general, these two singles were only documented in blogs and fansites, and their inclusion seemed rather fancrufty to me. I requested that the proper sources be provided, and added citation needed tags where appropriate. Friginator added to the article seemingly whatever the first hits on a Google Search turned up, as none of them met WP:RS criteria; one was a fansite, the other two were user generated. Because Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate list of information, I really don't see why these obscure collectors items absolutely need be mentioned. Fezmar9 (talk) 15:06, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Agreed on all accounts with Fezmar. Furthermore, the "edit-warring" Friginator is refering to was a one time thing a month ago about a separate aspect of the same article, that has already been resolved long ago, and hasn't been mentioned since. (Not to mention it was both of us who was given a single warning for edit warring. It goes both ways.) Back on to current things, I've removed Frigininators content because he cannot provide a source that isn't a fansite or using user-created content, neither of which are wikipedia reliable sources, and to him, that makes me the bad guy. Sergecross73 msg me 16:24, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

This isn't about who's a "good guy" and who's a "bad guy". It's about the unwillingness to discuss things before fighting over them. It also doesn't help that you are continuing to remove the content as we speak. You're completely missing the point of opening this discussion in the first place. Friginator (talk) 18:13, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

There's nothing left to discuss. Fansites and blogs like are not reliable sources and not to be used on wikipedia. See WP:ELNO. What exactly are you disputing? That hipsters united is/isn't a fansite? Or that it should be okay to break wikipedia policy when it's in favor of presenting the information you want to present? It seems you have more of a problem with the policies of wikipedia, and blame me for enforcing them. (And I'm not breaking the 3RR rule either, so I'm not doing anything wrong here.) Sergecross73 msg me 18:31, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

WP:ELNO has nothing to do with citing sources. And exactly what policy states that fansites cannot be used under any circumstances? Friginator (talk) 18:37, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

If it's not worth putting merely as a link, why would it be worthy of inclusion of an article? Please answer over at TBK,it appears you posted this in the wrong area, it doesn't seem like anyone cares around here except for the three of us still..Sergecross73 msg me 18:39, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

You have to give an admin some time to respond. I'm hoping for an administrator to help with this (that's why it's posted here), so maybe the discussion will actually be constructive. I would have posted it on the content noticeboard or the 3RR noticeboard, but it's not strictly about that. And I'm certainly not going to wait any longer for someone to intervene on the talk page itself. So far, like I said in my first post up there, nothing constructive is getting done and my questions are not being answered. It's just fighting, and I want it to stop. Friginator (talk) 18:54, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Fezmar explained things to you in detail. Again, it seems your bone to pick is more with Wikipedia policy-makers more than either of us. Sergecross73 msg me 18:55, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Nothing I want to do is against any Wikiepdia policy I'm aware of, so no, that's not my "bone to pick". I want to list existing singles. Their existence is obviously proven. In this case, that's enough reason to simply list them in the article. The actual problem I'm hoping to address is this pointless arguing. Just like we're doing now. I want that to stop, and I'm hoping someone will actually be reasonable about this. Friginator (talk) 19:13, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

The Globe and Mail, File:The Globe and Mail frontpage new.jpg

Resolved

 – User received warning. Will be reported for any further vandalism Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 20:25, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

User:GregoryPolskyJr has made a number of edits to the front page image[116] for The Globe and Mail substituting a false image for the original. (an anonymous user has also been making spurious edits to the Globe page itself recently). He has also made a number of spurious edits to the user pages[117] for people who have reverted his edits (For instance changing their political affiliation.) Comments? -Dhodges (talk) 15:54, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/archive/e/e6/20101211151056!The_Globe_and_Mail_frontpage_new.jpg

Yeah, this dude seems to have lost it completely. For those who are blind as I was at first, it's photoshoped (twice) to read Globe and Fail... I have to admit this is the most creative and time-consuming vandalism I've seen. I will issue a final vandalism warning. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 16:11, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Hello thank you for your compliments. It's not that time consuming. I also changed the titles to be more accurate of the true globe and mail and left wing media and also, put the right logo! — Preceding unsigned comment added by GregoryPolskyJr (talk • contribs) 20:20, 11 December 2010

By the way, this guy also vandalized several userboxes, and responded to the vandal-warning with this. Someone's on a mission... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 16:28, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

The banner ad for the Royal Bank on the bottom of the newspaper was also swapped out for a different image that apparently is a political message. They have not edited since Seb posted the final warning on their talk page. We should watch for more activity. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 18:23, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Hello, it is a banner ad for the NDP which is a socialist party, and the the Globe and Fail is very fond of them and I thought they should directly tell their readers about it. I only want the encyclopedia to be fair and balanced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GregoryPolskyJr (talk • contribs) 20:20, 11 December 2010

Yeah, whatever, dude. You got your final vandalism warning, we know you've read it, don't do it again, and don't pull any of those others stunts, either. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 20:25, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not a « dude », and you should know that with authority, comes the responsibility of using a proper form of language addressing people you don't know. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GregoryPolskyJr (talk • contribs) 21:29, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

I can think of several "proper forms" to address you by, but I doubt you'd like any of them... HalfShadow 21:36, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Lest you think it is just a "vast liberal conspiracy" threatning to keep you down, as a Conservative/Wildroase Alliance supporter federally and provincially, I can assure you that you will be blocked indefinitely if you fail to heed the warnings given above. Resolute 21:32, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

WP:RPP Backlog

Resolved

 – no backlog currently exists as of this edit

Whose Your Guy (talk) 03:20, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Got a bit of a backlog on RPP. Could an admin or two take a look? - Neutralhomer • Talk • 19:33, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Looks find now. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:01, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Harassment and legal threats from Godisme2

Resolved

 – Blocked by SarekOfVulcan. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 04:27, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Don't feed the trolls

For the past couple of days, I've been constantly harassed by Godisme2 (talk · contribs) and his/her IP 150.212.72.23 (talk) for the past few days over moving a discussion that started on an article's talk page, they attempted to move the discussion to my talk page,[118] and I subsequently moved it back to the original talk page.[119] Godisme2 keeps saying that I have no right to move their comments, nor link to their comments which I responded to on the article's talk page and finally issued a legal threat on my talk page if I did not remove the link.[120] —Farix (t | c) 03:50, 12 December 2010 (UTC) Yes, I have every right to threaten legal actions when you have altered the intent of my words. It is called libel and is illegal.--God (Pray) 03:55, 12 December 2010 (UTC) Way to dig your own grave, here is an additional legal threat from Godisme2.[121] —Farix (t | c) 04:02, 12 December 2010 (UTC) Well this is the funniest thing I've seen this week. I'd suggest backing away from your keyboard slowly...God, before you find yourself in real trouble. HalfShadow 04:10, 12 December 2010 (UTC) Already blocked. I'm expecting a thunderbolt through the window any minute now... --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:15, 12 December 2010 (UTC) Pfft. Doesn't this loser know that I am the one true God? Keep it under your hat, though; I'm in disguise. HalfShadow...and not God. Really. Honest. 04:18, 12 December 2010 (UTC) Call me Fred. I'm incognito. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:48, 12 December 2010 (UTC) Blocking God? Preposterous. Logan Talk Contributions 04:29, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Should this be revdeled/OSed

I'm not sure if I'm supposed to call additional attention to such things, so I'll be cryptic for now. There's a talk page which currently contains discussion from 2007 expressing doubt about the accuracy of assertions as to the origin of the term in the article title. It's since been removed from the article itself, but is available in the history from about that time. The nature of the claim is that the term was inspired by a series of child molestations in 2007 carried out by a named individual who was in turn inspired by a similar crime spree by another named individual. Both names appear to be of non-notable people with no significant criminal history. 76.253.139.7 (talk) 04:09, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

If you believe it may require oversight, please contact Oversight at WP:RFO. Nakon 04:30, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Requesting review of my removal of talk page access of TFM

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

Well I think we've had more than enough discussion of the thread topic, which is "Should TFM's talk page access remain revoked?" Conclusion: yes. WP:BASC is that way. Rd232 ^talk 00:54, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

---

Based on comments left at User talk:Newyorkbrad, at least one editor is requesting a review of my actions regarding the removal of talk page access of User:The Fat Man Who Never Came Back. I should note that yes, I did use an incivil edit summary during the process. That was wrong, and I should not have. Regarding the issue of whether or not TFM should be allowed talk-page access, there was an unblock request on his talk page which I attempted to respond to. In responding to his unblock request, I made no less than three attempts to discuss conditions for an unblock with him. All I was trying to ascertain was the sort of restrictions that he would accept if unblocked. He never once responded to my inquiries, except for some attempts to make light of my attempts. I renewed my efforts several times to get him unblocked, but he made no indication that he wished to participate in his own defense. After it became clear he wasn't directly interested in further improving Wikipedia, I went to Newyorkbrad to consult with him; he had recently restored TFM's talk page access, after a previous admin had removed it. With NYB's advice and consent, I re-removed TFM's talk page access. If there is consensus to restore it yet again, that is if consensus among other users is that TFM should continue to have access to his talk page, I will restore it myself. --Jayron32 17:21, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

If the editor was not constructively using their talkpage for unblock requests, then they probably don't need access to it. They can of course still email the arbcom and appeal their block directly, as well as emailing any other administrator on the list. Syrthiss (talk) 17:26, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Don't feed the trolls. Rd232 ^talk 17:45, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Let's close this thread quickly before anyone else gets a laugh out of it. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 17:52, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't think you should block someone's talk page access just because they are joking around and playfully mocking you there. Jokes are a good thing. Jokes do not equal disruption. Anthony (talk) 20:15, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

It was very, very obvious that he was just joking, as he usually does. You know when he is being serious, as can be seen in his unblock request, which was serious and to the point. I do not believe that he said anything in the discussion on his talk page that warrented removal of his access to it. Silverseren^C 20:22, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

The seriousness of the unblock request merely throws the trolling elsewhere on his talk page into sharp relief, and in this context bringing down the curtains on his little play is appropriate. Rd232 ^talk 20:27, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure he was joking. I made no less than three serious attempts to redirect the discussion to his unblock request. He "joked" every time. At some point it ceases being joking, and becomes "lets see how many people I can piss off". That's kinda trolling, isn't it? Let me ask you Anthony and Silver seren a question: if he did wish to be unblocked, why did he not take my questions regarding his unblock request seriously? More to the point, how should I have phrased my discussion with him to elicit a serious response from him? I am being serious here in wanting help. I don't know what I could have done better to engage him in discussing his unblock request, if you have ideas on how it could have been done better, please let me know.--Jayron32 20:32, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, the "no fun with your mates" thing was a little over the top, and no one would really agree to that. The problem isn't fun with his mates; the problem is fun with people who do not want to have fun with him. I think a compromise might have been possible on-wiki; I don't know for sure because I don't know his ultimate motivation. But you pretty much gave him a take it or leave it option that no one would have taken. Sure, he handled it unhelpfully too, but since you asked. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:40, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

I think the main problem was that, at the same time you were asking him your questions, other users were not being very couteous to him within the same discussion. I know I would get rather pissed off if some of those comments were directed at me. It's quite clear that he tries to use humor or sarcasm to diffuse tension and as a response to the discourteousness of others. Silverseren^C 20:42, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Ok, but then let me ask you this Silver seren. Was I, in the messages I left at his talk page, being discourteous with him. What in my comments indicated that I was being discourteous in some way. I am trying to see where I could have done something differently, rather than what other people were doing. I have no control over what others were doing, only myself. --Jayron32 20:54, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

I understand that and, no, you weren't being discourteous. However, the fact that others were was not very conducive to him properly "debating" with you over what his restrictions could be. So, he did what he does in this sort of thing, he jokes about it. And I think the joke about "laughs with his mates" was actually hiding it being a real question. I know I would pretty much die and leave Wikipedia altogether if I was restricted to only editing articles. Silverseren^C 20:59, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

The difference, of course, being that you've not done the sort of gross dirsuption he's done, which includes among other things, creating sock accounts for the sole purpose of trolling. This whole discussion is predicated on the belief (which I still hold) that he's not here to improve the encyclopedia, he's here to take the piss out of as many random people as he can. The more chances he gets to do that, the more emboldened he becomes in his trolling. You are clearly here to improve the encyclopedia, so no one is telling you that you deserve sanctions. TFM appears to have different motives. --Jayron32 21:20, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Are there other socks that I don't know about? I thought it was just the one alt? Silverseren^C 21:25, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Ah, you mean this? Silverseren^C 21:27, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

No, I mean User:Bad edits r dumb. --Jayron32 21:29, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Is it untrue then that, as TFM said here that multiple other users knew Bad edits r dumb was him? Becuase, if they did, then it's not a sock, but a known alt. Silverseren^C 21:30, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 2) See Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of The Fat Man Who Never Came Back for the four socks. Eagles 24/7 (C) 21:32, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

To silver seren: That other users knew about an alternate account doesn't mean that the alternate account wasn't being used abusively. Being known by other editors doesn't mean that the alternate account is instantly allowed to do anything. I have some (particularly painful) arbcom decisions I can reference regarding this if you want. --Jayron32 21:45, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Folquenbeam. I think the problem was your proposal was something that most people would reject. He did it his way. Anthony (talk) 20:48, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

• (e/c) In this particular case, I understand your (Jayron) motivation, but it might have been better if you'd thrown up your hands in frustration (perfectly understandably), but allowed Gimmetoo and possibly others to take a crack at it. The only real disruption going on was the annoyance it was causing some people who were watching the page; a better solution in these cases (IMHO) is to not watch the page anymore. Because there were (again, IMHO) other, rather less helpful people than you on that page as well, I don't think it's a bad idea for TFM to engage Gimmetoo (or others) via email, rather than continue the zoo. But I'd have left that up to him. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:36, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
  • I've looked again for a distinction between his interactions with Jayron32+Gimmetoo and with others - and I don't see it. YMMV. Rd232 ^talk 20:48, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

This option [Allow talk page access] should not be unchecked by default; editing of the user's talk page should only be disabled in the case of continued abuse of the talk page. I don't see "continued abuse of the talk page". Not debating someone on his own terms is not abuse. Bad decision, undo. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:40, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

I should note that I wasn't debating him, I was trying to unblock him. --Jayron32 20:43, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

• So undo the talk page lock-out. But if anything, I think it will only lead to a quicker community ban of TFM. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:47, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

• Yeah, I actually considered that; for reasons that I also disagree with (but can only argue so many things at the same time), this kind of talk page behavior frustrates some people to the point where they think a community ban (rather than unwatchlisting the page) is the solution. If the page is unblocked, I'll probably point that out to TFM. As I said above (or below, I'm getting lost in the threading) email might be a more productive path for him right now. That's what I'd do if I were him. But I'm not. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:03, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

For what it's worth, that's way close to what I was thinking, hence I wasn't too worried about the TP lock-out, about which I'm truly neutral. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:05, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

• Well, "I made no less than three attempts to discuss conditions for an unblock with him. All I was trying to ascertain was the sort of restrictions that he would accept if unblocked." sounds like an attempt at debate to me. I appreciate your good intentions, but I see no reason for removing talk page access. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:48, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. I take your point here. --Jayron32 20:52, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

• I don't think it was in TFM's best interest to subtly attack User:Access Denied, who, although his comments were very direct and possibly aggressive, was only trying to aide in the discussion. Edit summaries like "replies... and whoever access denied is, please leave the grownups alone" and "young man, go back to the clubhouse. this is not helping matters." are condescending and belittling of another editor. His comments in the discussion were silly and unhelpful, especially his last response to Jayron32. I would support the revocation of his talk page access, and I think discussing matters privately with Gimmetoo would be the most beneficial. Eagles 24/7 (C) 21:09, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

• And you think this as a first comment from access denied out of the middle of nowhere is appropriate, in response to TFM's unblock request? And this response, when TFM clearly explains that it was a legitimate alternate account. Has he ever used a brother excuse or did access denied make that up? (As also can be seen from TFM's comment, he can be serious, for those who say he never is) Silverseren^C 21:14, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't believe TFM on that. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:17, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't agree with the comments AD made on his talk page either, but it wasn't like TFM was responding to a personal attack with another one. And, FWIW, TFM claims User:Mike R is his brother (though I highly doubt it, since they both edit the RefDesk and have the same idea of humor). Eagles 24/7 (C) 21:21, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

The childish immature idiocy displayed both here at ANI and at TFM's talk page must be giving him a great laugh; it certainly is giving one to the entire Wiki. Yes, MikeR is TFM's brother, and why anyone doubts that is beyond me. Does anyone pay attention here? Why isn't TFM unblocked yet, and his talk page access restored? Is there some intensely satisfying thrill in blocking someone who has ten times the intelligence of the average AN/I hangers-on, or do people honestly not know of his contributions? Either way, it's certainly good fodder for a laugh while an unfortunate indication of the extent to which the children have taken over Wiki. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:06, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Yeah, Bad edits r dumb was NOT a legitimate alternate account despite his claim. It was a clear good-hand/bad-hand sock account which existed solely for the purpose of trolling. Given that the TFM account has quality article edits to fall back one, one can at least claim that the person behind them maybe, perhaps, at one time was willing to do some article work. But the BERD account was absolutely beyond the pale. And the brother comment was predicated by TFM claiming that User:Mike R was his brother, a claim I might note that was not confirmed and was likely just more trolling. --Jayron32 21:26, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

However, you are supposed to assume good faith that Mike R is his brother, like he added here. If you don't have any proof otherwise, then it shouldn't even be talked about. Silverseren^C 21:29, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I was unaware that Mike R had confirmed that. You can ignore any objections I had to that. My mistake. --Jayron32 21:38, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

• Why are you still talking about him? He's gone, he can't post in his page: everybody wins. Stop wasting text on him. HalfShadow

Okay, your response is definitely not appropriate and clearly biased. Silverseren^C 21:32, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

• • (edit conflict) (repsonse to Halfshadow) Because some people believe he should be able to post on his page, and those people have a right to be heard. I take your post to mean that you support the revocation of his talkpage access, however reasonable people may disagree, which is why discussions like this can be important. --Jayron32 21:34, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Unless you can tell me how someone who's posts over the last week basically boil down to "Hurr-de-durr; I can haz cheezburger" help as a whole, I'm not seeing your point. HalfShadow 21:37, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, you miss the point. I agree with you 100%. I think his talk page access should be shut down, since I fully believe he has no intention to do anything else except piss off as many people as possible. However, I also believe that I am not the sole arbiter of all situations at Wikipedia, and as strongly as I hold my beliefs, I also recognize that it is unhelpful to ignore the opinions of others in matters such as this. I believe his talk page access should be removed. That's why I was the one who removed it. But I also don't think that my opinion on this should be the only one that matters. Now, if given at least 24 hours or so, it may turn out my opinion is the right one. Or it may be the wrong one. But we won't know if we don't talk it out, now will we. --Jayron32 21:42, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

• Because this user's edits to their talk page were not constructive, removing talk page access was appropriate. They have been told who to contact if they want their block reviewed.  Sandstein  23:31, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Well-stated. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:09, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
    • Indeed. Drmies (talk) 05:52, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
• Please, please close this thread. To those who are concerned, repeatedly making jokes when told to stop is disrupting the wiki to make some sort of point, and whatever "incivility" Access Denied (talk · contribs) may have committed does not excuse incivility on the part of User:The Fat Man Who Never Came Back. Best advice was already given by Rd232 above. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 01:45, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

• Closing this wouldn't be proper when there is disagreement on the revoking of talk page access, which there does seem to be, since opinion is split. Silverseren^C 01:48, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Disruptive user apparently no longer here to contribute to the project. Sarcasm and "jokes" on a talk page is hardly a worthy contribution when you are blocked, and demonstrates the user no longer wants to be part of the project. Let the unblock mailing list handle this so editors can move onto more useful things. --Errant ^(chat!) 16:08, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

• We do not usually remove talk page access except for repeated use of the {{unblock}} template. That didn't happen here. WP:BLOCK says "editing of the user's talk page should only be disabled in the case of continued abuse of the talk page". TFM was discussing the unblock, which was appropriate and constructive. Removal of talk page access is highly frustrating to the user, and should only be used in extreme circumstances. I don't see that here. Gimmetoo (talk) 20:14, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Would this be considered abuse of the talkpage? Is it in any way appropriate to discussing TFM's unblock, or even related to it? Does it help in any way in attempting to convince others that he wants to be unblocked, or that he will refrain from repeating his actions in the future, and that he will follow the core policies as they apply to him? I think it shows that he cares more about his burritos than in an admin unblocking him, or even contributing to the encyclopedia proper. The entire fact that he has stirred some editors above and has left the entire community divided over the use of a single user's talkpage shows the disruption involved and the damage caused. Please also respond to the question I posted below. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 04:12, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely not abuse of talk page privilege, whether considered in context or not. The appearance is that TFM is responding to an editor personally known to themself, with whom they have a genuine connection. My own life experience has always been that an exchange of lightheartedness with someone you know, during a serious situation, is always beneficial. It doesn't detract from the seriousness, it just relieves tension and can even help to adjust perspectives. In fact there is absolutely no difference between contributing to this encyclopedia and getting a really good burrito. They are both things people decide to do. Really, picking on that comment as an exemplar of "the entire community divided" - what's yer point? We are all humans here. Franamax (talk) 21:29, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

The talk page content

I know the discussion above isn't finished, but I don't see any real reason to keep the content(aside from the declined unblock requests) per the trolling, per WP:DENY. Earlier today IP socks were trying to restore the user's userpage.— Dædαlus^{+ Contribs} 10:20, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

What content are you referring to exactly? If you mean discussions that TFM was involved in, then I disagree. (And I hope you are not referring to his comments, because you would then be calling him a troll, which consensus has definitely not determined to be true or not above). Silverseren^C 10:23, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, this is clear trolling, as is many of the other comments on that page by him. Do you really want me to pull up diffs?— Dædαlus^{+ Contribs} 10:34, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I have been abiding that restriction! I showed up on AN/I to sow seeds of lulz and destruction ONLY WHEN Eagles 24-7 started that ridiculous discussion about me for calling someone "dumb". Emphasis mine. There are plenty others, and most of them are pretty clear trolling.— Dædαlus^{+ Contribs} 10:38, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Except, as is being discussed above, there are users who believe that that is just sarcasm. Please join the discussion above if you believe differently, as you seem to. Silverseren^C 10:45, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

There is a large difference between sarcasm and trolling, and that is definitely not sarcasm.— Dædαlus^{+ Contribs} 10:49, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

As I stated previously, please join the discussion above, as other users disagree with you. Silverseren^C 10:50, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

And you're clearly one of them, so why don't you give some examples of this sarcasm you speak of, because I'm not seeing it; only continued laughter in the face of users trying to help.— Dædαlus^{+ Contribs} 11:04, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

• When it gets to a point where every single post is silly, and not a single one has anything of any serious value to add to the discussion, then I think it's very fair to suggest that this user is clearly being disruptive. We have made it quite clear to Fat Man that a lot of people don't find his sheer amount of so-called "humourous posts" amusing in the slightest, and he has completely ignored suggestions to tone it down. Jayron32 made a perfectly reasonable, sincere and helpful offer to Fat Man, and he responded with this. Completely deliberate, unhelpful and disruptive. I cannot see how this is not proof that he just doesn't take this place seriously. There is sarcasm for a bit of light humour, and then there is completely unnecessary and uncooperative "sarcasm". I'm not even sure why we're wasting any more time on this user, because it really seems like we're feeding the troll his dessert at this point. --Dorsal Axe 11:50, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

• Of course, no one has stated the obvious; that his comments are sarcasm AND trolling; I'm not sure why people feel that these are mutually exclusive states of mind. Sure, he's being sarcastic. Sure he's telling jokes. Sure he's amusing himself. That he's doing it just to get a rise out of as many people as possible (the sarcasm and the jokes) is why it is trolling. --Jayron32 13:22, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Never feed the trolls.

You know what gets me? He won't even behave himself long enough to get unblocked, in order to continue whatever he thinks he's doing. In the circumstances, it's beyond me why others feel the need to agitate on his behalf. It's not like he can't speak for himself: he just chose not to. Even now, he still has email as an option available. In the mean time, let's just give him the chance to live up to his username. Rd232 ^talk 12:07, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

You know what gets me is that he's currently blocked indefinitely, is an acknowledged sockpuppeteer, is abusing his talk page while blocked, and yet his various friends keep reverting his user page to his nice, pretty, version without the indefblocked and sockpuppeteer templates. The rules should be the same for everyone. This entire dramafest is one of the most ridiculous things I've ever seen here on Wikipedia, and probably belongs at WP:LAME. If he's blocked he ought to be blocked and remain blocked under the same rules as everyone else, with the appropriate tags and everything. If people want to be "nice" to him because they want him to come back and amuse them then just unblock the guy now and let him do whatever he wants. That's basically what he does anyway. Please just shit or get off the pot already. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 14:29, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

And before all of his pals come here and jump all over me with their snark, this isn't even about this particular guy. I don't know him and couldn't care less. What I'm bloody sick of is the absurd and blatant nepotism and totally unfair and uneven application of policy, this elephant in the room nobody ever wants to talk about or deal with. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 14:38, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

One of the most telling moments was when one of his supporters went to his talk page and chided him for continuing his behavior, and he responded sarcastically. That ought to seal the deal. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:53, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Pray tell, what is the difference between joking inappropriately and trolling? :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 20:47, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Mocking an admin who's trying to help you is a pretty good example of covering both options. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:02, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

TFM's userpage needs the correct templates

TFMs friends have reverted his userpage to his preferred version and then protected it. The account is blocked indefinitely and is an acknowledged sockpuppeteer and everyone should be treated the same here, no special rules for special people. Please place the templates back in where they belong and apply policy and administrative process in a consistent manner. If the templates are not to be used anymore, then send them to MfD. Nepotism is not a legitimate reason to treat someone differently than others. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 16:35, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Hopefully we all have better things to do than worry about the status of a blocked user's userpage not long after blocking. At any rate, in this instance worrying about it may constitute feeding the troll. Rd232 ^talk 17:33, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

It's not about his individual userpage, it's about objectively treating everyone the same across the board, whether they're someone's friend or not. I think that's a very important thing to be concerned with. Anyway, I am washing my hands of this political nonsense. People will do what they do. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 17:40, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Theoretically true, but keeping that joker indeffed is far more important to the project than whether or not his self-pity/mockery stays visible. Give it some time. If he starts socking again, his support will likely melt away. And if he doesn't, then all's swell. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:15, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Do you think referring to another editor as a "joker" is particularly helpful? Gimmetoo (talk) 20:14, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Evidence suggests that he and his pals would consider "joker" to be a compliment. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:43, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

So you are actually claiming that referring to another editor as a "joker" or a "bozo" is constructive, helpful, and not in the least uncivil or a personal attack? Gimmetoo (talk) 00:24, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

The definition of a "joker" is "one who jokes." Judging by the users who supported TFM's unblock, calling his edits just "jokes," I don't see anything wrong with it. Eagles 24/7 (C) 00:51, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Really? This is what passes for civil discourse at ANI? Gimmetoo (talk) 01:20, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes... :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 04:13, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Check Joker and you'll see that the first item on the list takes you to a page[122] which includes the very illustration that Fat/BErD posted on his user page. He self-identifies as a joker, so don't yell at me for going along with it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:37, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

You realize this is part of a discussion about an editor blocked indef for allegedly "trolling". That could happen to you if you continue. Stop making further references of this sort, and stop trying to defend them. You will not be warned again. Gimmetoo (talk) 15:51, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Instead of yelling at me for calling him what he and his friends call him, how about you do something useful by protecting (or better yet, clearing and protecting) his talk page. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:55, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Such templates aren't needed in the near-aftermath of an indef block, moreover if outcomes are still being talked about. I protected the userpage only because all the back and forth over them stirs things up even more. Any admin can still put templates there, following their take on consensus about the block and the editor's standing. Gwen Gale (talk) 10:05, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Good Gawd, this is boring. So, would all of you who are messing with TFM's talk page please remember to go and do the same thing to Mattisse (talk · contribs)'s talk page? Now there is real sockmaster, yet somehow, TFM gets special rules; looks like folks aren't paying attention. Is school out or something? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:09, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Do we really need a userpage template when it shows in his contribs that he is obviously blocked? See this relevant discussion for such editors. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 04:12, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

I put his talk page up at WP:RFPP and nothing was done about it,[123] so the admins have only themselves to blame for any edit warring that may continue on that page. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:40, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

BB, you and Eagles really should step back and cease your obsession with His Corpulence; you've already made enough of a mockery of Wiki, and this obsession with his talk page is tiring. If you don't like it, stop going there; if you insist on templates, add them to Mattisse (talk · contribs) first. Until such time as the same standard is applied to all, you really should move along and stop demonstrating the extent to which Wiki has fallen into ill repute due to immature admins and immaturity at ANI. I used to think you were funny and insightful; don't most adults in your area have snow to shovel today? Once the silliness stops here, perhaps we can get TFM unblocked and get back to the real reason we're here-- building an encyclopedia-- something TFM has actually done, unlike some others participating here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:19, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Likewise, you should back away from your inexplicable defense of that guy. I couldn't care less about templates, and I couldn't care less what other specific content is on that guy's page. If the admins want to leave it open and leave it subject to edit-warring, that's their business. All that matters is that he stays indef'd until he decides that wikipedia actually matters, which is where your priority should be also. Your defense of that guy's behavior opens that to serious doubt. P.S. There's hardly any snow here in Miami today. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:26, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Agreeing with BB - the defense of this self-admitted troll is completely incomprehensible. Sure, he's done some article work in the past but so did Mattisse, who seems to be the editor of comparison. This is a good reason why it's unhelpful to make good friends on the wiki - good judgment seems to go out of the window when rushing to the defense of friends. AD 16:31, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Wait, isn't "His Corpulence" an attack on TFMWNCB? And Sandy, User:Matisse has a template on his userpage. Are you suggesting that we should also put a sockpuppeteer template on TFM's userpage? Eagles 24/7 (C) 16:33, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Gee, we have an admin asking if "His Corpulence" is an attack on The Fat Man, demonstrating once again that the granting of tools to this particular admin was perhaps premature. I think it would be grand if some of the folks spinning their wheels in this discussion could see their way to, say, actually going and writing some articles or something useful. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:53, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

According to the standards of some editors here, it is a personal attack. See User:Pedro's block log, as well as my talk page for "warnings" for calling TFM a troll. If you are so opposed to my having the mop, do something about it. Eagles 24/7 (C) 18:02, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Speaking of which, has any checkuser looked into Fat/BErD's claim that Mike R (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is his "brother", as opposed to being merely another sock? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:43, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Gee, perhaps you can submit an SPI just to round out the idiocy here nicely and make busy work for folks. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:45, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

You know, I never heard of you until a couple of weeks ago, and so far I'm not impressed. Have you been paying no attention whatsoever??? Fat/BErD requested an unblock, claiming that his "brother" needed help over at the ref desk for a fairly mundane question that ended up being answered at length despite the lack of help from "brother" Fat/BErD, who remained blocked. P.S. I was once blocked for 5 days for calling editors "idiots". You had best take your own advice and vamoose. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:23, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

That is really funny; perhaps you spend far too much time around drama boards and not enough on content. You seem to know a bit about baseball; why not edit some of those articles? Sorry you are no more up on TFM than you are on other content editors; seems to be a casualty of too much time at ANI. Also unfortunate that Eagles knows so little about the editor he blocked that he would think calling him His Corpulence is a personal attack. Guffaw ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:57, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

I have over 5,000 items on my watch list, and monitoring those items keep me busy. If you think Fat/BErD's approach to things is just fine and dandy, I don't know what to tell you. But I do hope he comes back soon, so he can continue his mockery of wikipedia, and continue to make you proud to be one of his supporters. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:21, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Magical appearance by a newbie

John lilburne (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Help me out here, but how is that any different from having 5000 friends on facebook, or 5000 contacts on flickr? John lilburne (talk) 23:41, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Help me out here, but this is your 8th edit on wikipedia under that ID. What other ID's and/or IP's do you edit under? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:45, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

My advice would be that you take a rest and leave off the aggressive behaviour you have been exhibiting in this thread, and concentrate on some more productive activity. With dilligence you could get your watchlist count up to 6000 by the end of the day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by John lilburne (talk • contribs) 00:02, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I think Bugs is hardly the person you need to be "advising" about aggressive behaviour. And who are you anyway? AD 00:04, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Really? I'll just point the passive aggressiveness of this edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by John lilburne (talk • contribs) 00:32, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Notice how he didn't answer the question. Must've slipped his mind. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:35, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Really. AD 00:33, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Guys, please! Lilburne is  Unrelated to TFM, or anyone else, from what I can see. Chill, everyone - Alison ^❤ 00:26, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for looking into it. I didn't figure it was Fat/BErD, but more likely the slippery eel that likes to create impostors in order to try to get a blocked user into further trouble. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:30, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

It's definitely not TFM - he knows how to sign his posts. Eagles 24/7 (C) 00:35, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Could be A Glass Bubble (talk · contribs); it's the sort of thing he does. HalfShadow 00:40, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Templates cont'd

Userpage and talkpage templates exist for purposes. Extended argumentation about what templates should go on what pages is generally not helpful. In this instance, the user's current status is obvious enough from the talkpage that it is not useful to push for additional templates to be added, certainly not at the present time. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:45, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

What is the problem here?

From my reading of TFM's talk page, he has begun to understand that his opinion of what is appropriate and what is funny is not shared by many other editors. He agreed with Jayron's request to exhibit proper decorum; he agreed with Gimmetoo on staying away from AN/I; he agreed with Gimmetoo on not using "bad words" anymore. What he had a problem with was Jayron's proposed condition of editing only articles - which condition I think is rather unreasonable, if he wants to have fun with his mates and his mates are agreeable, so what? Sandy seems to think he is a worthwhile article writer and her word is good enough for me. He has been making article edits, so it's not pure trolling. I would extend the restrictions a little:

Use only one account, no "legitimate alternates", just the one.

Stay away from AN/I unless already named there.

Drop the bad language and insults, be serious about communicating with others.

In the same vein, drop the grammarz and alternate spellinz, since he is obviously capable of spelling correctly.

Fun with mates (user talk page banter) is accepted as long as it is acceptable to the "mates" and as long as it is not directed at other editors.

Make a serious effort to contribute to the articlespace, don't treat the other spaces as a playground.

Most of those conditions are already agreed and the remainder won't seriously impair TFM's enjoyment of contributing to an encyclopedia project. Why can't we just propose these as a condition of unblocking? If TFM can't abide by them, it will show soon enough. Franamax (talk) 19:11, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Another condition should be to run a checkuser between Fat/BErD and the user "Mike R", if that has not already been done. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:19, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

It's all very well him making promises, the problem is him keeping them, something he's failed to do. You mention him promising to stay away from ANI, well he failed to do that. He's promised to stop insulting others/trolling (at least twice) and has failed to do that. There is nothing to suggest that he will keep his "promises", and everything to suggest that he is just saying what we want to hear, so he can get unblocked, and continue trolling. No. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 19:23, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Bugs: That's not a condition that applies to TFM, that is up to the CUs. You can file an SPI if you want and see where it goes. The condition to only use one account covers it as far as TFM themself is concerned. If they abuse multiple accounts, no matter what the name, then they are gone. If there is supsicious activity from this day forward, SPI is fairly good at that sort of scrutiny.

Kingpin: disagree, he has stayed away from AN/I since the "douche" affair, except where he was explicitly named. Limiting an editor from participating in discussions of their own behaviour is also an unreasonable restriction. TFM discussed this on their talk page. Franamax (talk) 19:30, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

His smackdown of the admin who was trying to help him, as cited by Gwen below, illustrates his true value to wikipedia. As far as the checkuser part, if you want to bring back a proven sockpuppeteer and take his "brother" comment on faith, then you will have assumed responsibility for monitoring him. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:34, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Respectfully correcting you, he has not stayed away from ANI threads which don't concerning him since the "douche" affair (and since promising that he would). - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 19:36, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Dammit, yes I missed that one. :( That does put a bit of a hole in my boat. Of course, if I saw TFM doing that again after a clear outline of unblock terms as above, I would immediately re-block indef. And yes Bugs, I indeed will monitor the editor. Franamax (talk) 19:44, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

It's linked on TFM's talk page. I said something to TFM about it at the time. Gimmetoo (talk) 19:48, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

This is the last edit he made before he was locked out of his talk page. I got a few emails from him yesterday (they were civil and very clearly written) and I answered on his talk page. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:28, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

That last comment before being put on ice, which you've cited, was extremely rude to an admin who was trying to help him. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:32, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

I thought so. I could hardly understand it. By the way, yesterday he also asked me to post here in this ANI thread the emails he sent to me. I wasn't willing, because I didn't think doing so would help him or the project. I believe it will take more talk between him and say, WP:BASC, before any hope of unblocking. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:39, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Keeping in mind the bit about allowing leeway for blocked editors on their own talk page, that can be interpreted as a defensive response to Jayron's unpalatable proposed condition. It's not abusive and the proper response imo would have been to let TFM stew in his own juices until he came up with a better response. Working on articles only is not a realistic condition for actual human editors. Franamax (talk) 19:37, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

You should unblock the guy immediately and unconditionally, and he should stay unblocked until his supporters finally see the light. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:40, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

(ec) It is widely understood that there is not an overwhelming consensus as to civility needs on en.WP, editors have sundry outlooks about it and owing to this he was given bushels of leeway. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:43, 12 December 2010 (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.